NRCOT Condition 28.2 Interpretation

[Randomer]

Not wishing to drag this thread about Scotrail and disruption off topic and along with some posts in the thread back in May about the Class 800 fleet stand down I wonder whether the interpretation of the National Rail Condition of Travel 28.2 relating to what happens when disruption occurs is open to interpretation. Or at the least lacking in a degree of clarity.

So the condition states:

28.2. Where disruption prevents you from completing the journey for which your Ticket is valid and is being used, any Train Company will, where it reasonably can, provide you with alternative means of travel to your destination, or if necessary, provide overnight accommodation for you.

Taken from the December 2019 National Rail Conditions of Travel on the National Rail Website (.PDF)

From my reading there are two possible interpretations:
1) The relative clause "where it reasonably can" applies to both providing alternative transport or provide overnight accommodation.
2) The relative clause "where it reasonably can" applies to only the first part of the sentence, as in alterative transport where it reasonably can or if not practicable provide alternative accommodation.

I acknowledge the settled position of the operating companies is the first interpretation and my reading of the sentence makes me lean towards "or if necessary" being conditional on "where it reasonably can".

However, I'm sure we can all be honest and accept the conditions of travel are not going to win a plain English award but does anyone else read the clause as possibly being the second interpretation?

 

[74A]

It clearly must apply to both. If you are stuck at a station due to flooding how would they provide accommodation if all transport options are unavailable.

 

[Robertj21a]

Surely, it must be 1).

It should be a catch-all for matters that are out of the TOCs control.

 

[Watershed]

I think it's intended to be 1), but as you say, the NRCoT achieve the worst of all worlds - they're far too complicated for the average person to read or understand the entire document.

But they are also drafted very imprecisely in an attempt to make them "accessible", and include lots of "information boxes" which are ostensibly non-contractual, but which a Court would probably nevertheless consider in any dispute regarding interpretation.

A lot of TOCs are either ignorant of their obligations under condition 28.2 or simply fail or refuse to comply with them. Training staff on the existence of the NRCoT, let alone condition 28.2, would be a good start.

If a TOC fails or refuses to comply with 28.2, but you are able to procure your own alternative transport or accommodation, it's plainly practicable for the TOC to have done - so you would be able to recover your (reasonably mitigated) costs.