They didn’t charge an additional fare, they charged the fare owed as no valid ticket was held.
No fare was owed, as passengers were told that they could travel on that service; having been given that permission, their tickets became valid to use on TPE.
The fact that permission may not have been arranged according to the internal procedures the industry likes to use is neither here nor there; the doctrine of apparent authority means that passengers are entitled to rely on what the Northern member of staff said. They are under no obligation to second-guess it.
It is unacceptable, though hardly surprising given the low priority that customer service has in the rail industry, that frontline staff have not been correctly trained in this basic matter of law. Even in the absence of such training there is no excuse for not applying common sense.
Surely the onus is completely on Northern here who caused the cancellation and also incorrectly informed passengers of ticket acceptance that didn’t exist?
Northern certainly could have done things better by arranging ticket acceptance formally. But having failed to do so formally, the member of staff did the right thing in giving passengers permission to use TPE. They should have gone further in making that permission written to avoid any disputes down the line, but again, that is a matter for TPE to take up with Northern, not with the passengers who are the innocent victims in this urination contest.
I completely can’t think of another example where through the failings of one company, another is forced to accept their customers/passengers without financial compensation
Given that TPE and Northern are both owned and controlled by the government, this is hardly a strong moral argument.
In any event, comparisons with other industries rarely work well. The fact is that the rail industry is one industry which shares revenues, costs, facilities and so forth - something which there are few parallels for in other industries. I am sure Northern have accepted disrupted TPE passengers without compensation on countless occasions too.
The passengers weren’t stranded.
28.2 wouldn’t apply.
I have not suggested that 28.2 applies in this situation. The point is that when you buy a train ticket you are entering into a contract with
all of the Train Companies, even the ones that your ticket does not (under normal circumstances) entitle you to use - otherwise 28.2 would not be binding on the other Train Companies. Therefore, arguments about a lack of authority between different Train Companies simply don't hold water. One Train Company is entitled to bind another.