NRCoC 5.2 defence

[Gareth Marston]

If head office still have it: I believe they get sent there every Friday but whether they keep them that far back or not I have no idea and it is unlikely considering that the ticket would originally have been purchased early January.

If your company has purchased it and intends to claim for the purchase as a legitimate business expense then they have to keep the receipt/records for 7 years after the end of the Financial Year the item was claimed in.

Sally in Head Office may not want to be bothered to dig it out but nonetheless it should still be there.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's the way I read it.

I do as well.

Essentially, you can buy a stack of return tickets bought without knowing who they were for, but the outward and return halves which make up the return ticket (the "two part return" wording makes it clear that it's one ticket provided as two pieces) must be used by the same person.

It's worth noting that if this has been practice for a while, they *could* ask for a settlement based on the number of times the OP might actually have done this, so £100 seems potentially quite good value.

OTOH, I'm amazed this was actually picked up upon, and I wonder if it was the culmination of a longer investigation into the actions of the staff of a particular company "misusing" returns in this manner.

I'm also surprised the railway hasn't moved to putting names on tickets, as it would solve all of this from the railway's point of view.

 

[DaveHarries]

OP - please could you clarify

1) your employer is a railway company?
2) the ticket was paid for by your employer?

3) the ticket was provided to you by your employer?
In reply to this:
1. No. Employer is a car hire business but the depot I work from covers all of south west England and South Wales plus areas of the Midlands.

2. Yes the ticket was paid for by employer: it is their practice that Off-Peak returns with a 1-month validity period on the return portion are purchased by employees for the use of others. Employer gives money to the employee for the purchase of the ticket which thereby allows said employee to get back to the depot they work from.

3. Yes this is correct.

It seems to me that if the answer to all three of these questions is 'yes' then it probably should be your management dealing with this rather than you. If nothing else, while TOCs are (meant to be) profit-making and so shouldn't pass up opportunities to bring in revenue, my understanding as an outsider is that there is (of necessity) a fair degree of give and take between TOCs, other railway companies and so on. GWR's approach feels like a fairly good way of poisoning the relationship between them and your company. Your company may want to consider the implications of this charge on you for the whole company - and since you were acting under your employer's direction, it's their decision (not yours) which is being challenged. (And also, if my assumptions are right (and without wanting you to break confidences by saying who you work for) it seems to be one operating company in a group pursuing a worker for another operating company in the same group.)

The noticeboard is in the depot of the company I work for. I have made my manager aware of the letter: he asked for a photo of it which I accordingly sent him. I was indeed acting under the direction of the employer whose policy this is: the policy of doing train travel in this way is a company-wide thing across all 4 depots so the employer cannot deny knowing about it. The depot I work from uses trains operated by XC, GWR and others but we never by tickets specific to any one operator where more than one operator has services between the same locations.

Dave

 

[Gareth Marston]

OP - do you travel in uniform?

 

[talldave]

Since we're talking about a return ticket originally purchased as part of a return journey, it looks to me as if the interpretation of the NRCoT rests on whether "ticket" refers to the two parts as a single entity or whether it's two tickets, at which point, interpreting "any person" in relation to the "ticket" may become clearer?

 

[najaB]

Since we're talking about a return ticket originally purchased as part of a return journey, it looks to me as if the interpretation of the NRCoT rests on whether "ticket" refers to the two parts as a single entity or whether it's two tickets, at which point, interpreting "any person" in relation to the "ticket" may become clearer?

A return ticket is issued as two coupons. There's no ambiguity.

 

[talldave]

So two passengers travelling between the same two stations on two return tickets should both end up in court if they inadvertently pick up the wrong return coupons at the time of purchase? Despite the fact that, as in the OP's case, the train company is not in any way out of pocket with regard to the number of tickets sold and the number of journeys made.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

So two passengers travelling between the same two stations on two return tickets should both end up in court if they inadvertently pick up the wrong return coupons at the time of purchase? Despite the fact that, as in the OP's case, the train company is not in any way out of pocket with regard to the number of tickets sold and the number of journeys made.

The archaic laws and precedents applying to rail passengers are incredibly anti-passenger. So no, the loss incurred by the train company is irrelevant - the question is whether the correct fare has been paid. If a mistake as you suggested had been made, the correct fare would have been 4 singles. On most routes the cost of 4 singles considerably exceeds that of 2 returns, so therefore in that sense the correct fare had not been paid.

The much more consumer-friendly laws also applying to rail passengers (and train companies) are unfortunately somewhat useless and toothless, what with Trading Standards' budget cuts and the unwillingness of judges to properly apply them even when taken to Court. Breaches of the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, the National Rail Conditions of Travel, and the franchise agreements are seen as unimportant to the Department for Transport in virtually all cases.

 

[bb21]

The much more consumer-friendly laws also applying to rail passengers (and train companies) are unfortunately somewhat useless and toothless, what with Trading Standards' budget cuts and the unwillingness of judges to properly apply them even when taken to Court. Breaches of the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, the National Rail Conditions of Travel, and the franchise agreements are seen as unimportant to the Department for Transport in virtually all cases.

I suggest that you think very carefully the allegations you are making here, as some of them are very serious indeed, and almost certainly without foundation. I assume here that you have sufficient proof (not hearsay) that such is the case?!

Do not confuse incompetence with lack of intention is all I am willing to say.

 

[jumble]

That's the way I read it.

I am going to disagree as this is in my view very badly worded and not at all clear
If a charity said
A generous philantropist has purchased a car on our behalf.,
We have decided it may be borrowed by any person employed by our organisation.
Is this limited to a single employee ?
I am minded to agree with Dave Newcastles advice.

Regards Jumble

 

[falcon]

The archaic laws and precedents applying to rail passengers are incredibly anti-passenger. So no, the loss incurred by the train company is irrelevant - the question is whether the correct fare has been paid. If a mistake as you suggested had been made, the correct fare would have been 4 singles. On most routes the cost of 4 singles considerably exceeds that of 2 returns, so therefore in that sense the correct fare had not been paid.

The much more consumer-friendly laws also applying to rail passengers (and train companies) are unfortunately somewhat useless and toothless, what with Trading Standards' budget cuts and the unwillingness of judges to properly apply them even when taken to Court. Breaches of the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, the National Rail Conditions of Travel, and the franchise agreements are seen as unimportant to the Department for Transport in virtually all cases.

I think you have got that wrong you say " the question is whether the correct fare has been paid." then go on to say four single tickets would have been the correct fare" In the scenario given by TallDave the correct fare has been paid! The only issue is that the two people involved hold bits of paper with information on that should be in the hands of the other person. ?

 

[najaB]

We have decided it may be borrowed by any person employed by our organisation.
Is this limited to a single employee ?

Assuming it's a single-seat car then at any one time, yes.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I suggest that you think very carefully the allegations you are making here, as some of them are very serious indeed, and almost certainly without foundation. I assume here that you have sufficient proof (not hearsay) that such is the case?!

Do not confuse incompetence with lack of intention is all I am willing to say.

Whether through incompetence, ignorance or malice, the end result is the same. The TOCs can get away with some unbelievable stuff; passengers, when caught making minor and easy-to-make mistakes (e.g. sharing a "non-transferable" ticket), cannot.

Also, re:

some of them are very serious indeed, and almost certainly without foundation

Which of my allegations are you referring to? Is it not a fact that, on this forum alone, we have heard of many occurrences of what I allege - e.g. unpursued NRCoT, TSA, franchise breaches? Passenger unfriendly application of laws?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I think you have got that wrong you say " the question is whether the correct fare has been paid." then go on to say four single tickets would have been the correct fare" In the scenario given by TallDave the correct fare has been paid! The only issue is that the two people involved hold bits of paper with information on that should be in the hands of the other person. ?

If the tickets are non-transferable, and that restriction is deemed enforceable by virtue of the passenger having been given sufficient notice of it, then TallDave's scenario is exactly the same as the one from the OP's situation, is it not? Two return tickets are less flexible than four single tickets for the same journey; only two people may make return journeys for the first option, whereas for the second option any four people may make any of the four journeys.

Note for mods: if this is deemed off-topic then please move to another thread.

 

[bb21]

Whether through incompetence, ignorance or malice, the end result is the same. The TOCs can get away with some unbelievable stuff; passengers, when caught making minor and easy-to-make mistakes (e.g. sharing a "non-transferable" ticket), cannot.

Your allegations are nothing to do with end results.

Which of my allegations are you referring to? Is it not a fact that, on this forum alone, we have heard of many occurrences of what I allege - e.g. unpursued NRCoT, TSA, franchise breaches? Passenger unfriendly application of laws?

Please re-read the allegations you made about judges, for example, as I quote "the unwillingness of judges to properly apply them even when taken to Court".

I trust that you have direct evidence for that?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Your allegations are nothing to do with end results.


Please re-read the allegations you made about judges, for example, as I quote "the unwillingness of judges to properly apply them even when taken to Court".

I trust that you have direct evidence for that?

I have read more about (and sat in) County Court matters, particularly parking 'tickets', so cannot give reference to those as they have no transcript - but many a time when a defence to a ticket is raised that the contract contravenes the Consumer Rights Act, or the UTCCR which it replaced - these arguments are ignored as somehow not being valid or not applying. Similarly in Data Protection Act proceedings - the way that some judges have made up imaginary reasons why plainly illegal data processing should go unpunished because it was 'accidental' or has caused 'no loss' or 'no distress'.

There seems to be one rule for companies which transgress consumer laws, and another for consumers which transgress archaic/ridiculous railway/contract precedent/law.

 

[6Gman]

Whether through incompetence, ignorance or malice, the end result is the same. The TOCs can get away with some unbelievable stuff; passengers, when caught making minor and easy-to-make mistakes (e.g. sharing a "non-transferable" ticket), cannot.

Which part of transferring a non-transferable ticket is an "easy-to-make mistake"?

 

[bb21]

I have read more about (and sat in) County Court matters, particularly parking 'tickets', so cannot give reference to those as they have no transcript - but many a time when a defence to a ticket is raised that the contract contravenes the Consumer Rights Act, or the UTCCR which it replaced - these arguments are ignored as somehow not being valid or not applying. Similarly in Data Protection Act proceedings - the way that some judges have made up imaginary reasons why plainly illegal data processing should go unpunished because it was 'accidental' or has caused 'no loss' or 'no distress'.

There seems to be one rule for companies which transgress consumer laws, and another for consumers which transgress archaic/ridiculous railway/contract precedent/law.

You mean you don't agree with their interpretation and application rather than "unwillingness ... to properly apply" on their part as you alleged?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

You mean you don't agree with their interpretation and application rather than "unwillingness ... to properly apply" on their part as you alleged?

I believe they have not properly applied the law. Alas, I was not the claimant/defendant in any of the cases so I couldn't appeal. (If I were in their shoes, and I soon expect to be with proceedings for whose hearing I am presently preparing, then I would appeal, on taking legal advice).

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Which part of transferring a non-transferable ticket is an "easy-to-make mistake"?

Which part of "non-transferable" is written on tickets clearly? They can't even reference the correct Terms and Conditions (I've yet to see any tickets with "Issued subject to NRCoT" on it) - even though this has very significant implications for season-nonseason splitting.

I don't think most people even realise that tickets are non-transferable. Until I looked into it further, I didn't realise, and I'd thought of myself as a bit more observant than the average rail passenger.

 

[bb21]

I believe they have not properly applied the law. Alas, I was not the claimant/defendant in any of the cases so I couldn't appeal. (If I were in their shoes, and I soon expect to be, with proceedings for which I am presently preparing for the hearing, then I would appeal, on taking legal advice).

What makes your belief right yet the judges' an "unwillingness ... to properly apply" as you so proudly claimed earlier?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

What makes your belief right yet the judges' an "unwillingness ... to properly apply" as you so proudly claimed earlier?

The High Court and Court of Appeal have in multiple of these kinds of cases made clear that they support the arguments made by consumer claimants and defendants. In the County Court it can easily be, if I may say so, a District Judge lottery as to whether they will accept the arguments.

 

[bb21]

A different judgement by a higher court does not translate into an "unwillingness ... to properly apply" surely?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

A different judgement by a higher court does not translate into an "unwillingness ... to properly apply" surely?

If they have been told of the relevant precedent, and nevertheless brush it aside, then surely that is indeed an unwillingness to properly apply?

 

[bb21]

That would suggest to me an incorrect interpretation and application, not unwillingness. There is a big difference between an error or incompetence, if I may, and unwillingness, with the latter carrying the accusation that it was somehow deliberate.

I can't rule it out 100% obviously, but equally it is a massive jump to present this as fact.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

That would suggest to me an incorrect interpretation and application, not unwillingness. There is a big difference between an error or incompetence, if I may, and unwillingness, with the latter carrying the accusation that it was somehow deliberate.

I can't rule it out 100% obviously, but equally it is a massive jump to present this as fact.

In the cases I am thinking of, the judge has suggested that the precedent is not applicable because it doesn't suit his/her view of the fairness - e.g. in the case of a data protection breach, that little or no compensation is owed, even though precedent clearly shows otherwise. I cannot help but feel that this is because the judge does not want data protection to become the 'next PPI' or 'next whiplash claims'. In any case, I am happy to edit my original statement to be that "County Court judges have shown a pattern of not recognising the correct legal position".

But as I said earlier - it is not the reason why that counts, it is the end result. Does a claimant care why the judge has dismissed their claim incorrectly, whether it be through error, incompetence or unwillingness?

 

[bb21]

No, the claimant probably wouldn't care, but I don't see what relevance that has to your original claims about the judges, presented as facts.

Clearly we are not going to align our views on these allegations, but that is fine, however I would still recommend treading carefully on a public forum about claims of this nature. I doubt any judge would want to be applying the law any less than "properly". It is a serious allegation, Whether they do it well, as may be evidenced by whatever quantifiable measure, is of course open to discussion.

Similarly your claims about the DfT upthread are also very serious, and quite patently incorrect in what I would say the vast majority of cases. (You would know if you ever had to deal with them.) Don't believe everything you hear or read on this forum.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The archaic laws and precedents applying to rail passengers are incredibly anti-passenger. So no, the loss incurred by the train company is irrelevant - the question is whether the correct fare has been paid. . . . .

The much more consumer-friendly laws also applying to rail passengers (and train companies) are unfortunately somewhat useless and toothless, what with Trading Standards' budget cuts and the unwillingness of judges to properly apply them even when taken to Court. Breaches of the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, the National Rail Conditions of Travel, and the franchise agreements are seen as unimportant to the Department for Transport in virtually all cases.

This sort of ill-informed rhetoric doesn't do this forum's reputation any favours.

In the cases I am thinking of, the judge has suggested that the precedent is not applicable because it doesn't suit his/her view of the fairness - e.g. in the case of a data protection breach, that little or no compensation is owed, even though precedent clearly shows otherwise. I cannot help but feel that this is because the judge does not want . . . . .

I regret that all you are highlighting here is your own uninformed analysis.
Again, these opinions only undermine this forum's credibility.

The High Court and Court of Appeal have in multiple of these kinds of cases made clear that they support the arguments made by consumer claimants and defendants. In the County Court it can easily be, if I may say so, a District Judge lottery as to whether they will accept the arguments.

I guess you have your reasons for posting this inflamatory and poorly understood opinions of legal process. But regardless of your reasons, the consequence reflects only on the impression they create of you, and of the forum.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

This sort of ill-informed rhetoric doesn't do this forum's reputation any favours.

I regret that all you are highlighting here is your own uninformed analysis.
Again, these opinions only undermine this forum's credibility.

I guess you have your reasons for posting this inflamatory and poorly understood opinions of legal process. But regardless of your reasons, the consequence reflects only on the impression they create of you, and of the forum.

Then what, precisely, is the impression created of me and of the forum?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I'm sorry that you must have missed it :-
'ill-informed' ; 'rhetoric' ; 'uninformed' ; 'lacking credibility' ; 'inflamatory' ; 'poorly understood'.
Hope that helps.