NXEA almost leaving me stranded...

[blacknight]

You need to read Q22 again.

"....If a passenger is delayed and the rail industry or it's partners is at fault, which should be checked with your control office, change to another train of the same company is allowed to get them to their destination with the least delay. This is irrespective of the combination of tickets held...."

Virgin don't serve Leeds. Did I ever say that Virgin serve Leeds, well not yet anyway but if you read my post it was in response that Virgin would be able to sort something out with XC or LM following morning. Yet NXEA would be able to oranise same assistance with EC & Northern

However Question 23 says in times of disruption staff can use their discretion (as advised by control). Which NXEA control offered by routing via Leeds & Manchester to get passenger to end destination by quickest means by getting back into Stoke on Trent at 6am. Can anyone offer a quicker option going by rail?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

You need to read Q22 again.
It does not clearly state that at all. It has examples where a tube ticket is present. It does not say you need a tube ticket!

If you still believe that you need an underground ticket, perhaps you could answer the Kings Cross-St Pancras connection issue on those grounds? DO you need a tube ticket from Kings Cross to St Pancras to be covered as if you hold a through ticket?

If then if under example of valid combination tube ticket is not required why not just give example of 2 AP tickets held as Bristol-Paddington & Kings Cross-Hull, why mention linking tube ticket at all? must be given for a reason

 

[hairyhandedfool]

It says the following are included in being valid for onward travel where there are delays:

Through domestic or international tickets
Through rail and partner tickets
Combination of domestic rail only fares
Combination of domestic rail and partner tickets
Combination of International and Domestic travel

The example given in domestic rail only fares is Skipton-Leeds-Peterborough, the examples of domestic and partner tickets include the Underground tickets as they are partner tickets.

 

[thewolf]

Wow. Been away for a few days (a fairly simple Stoke-Liverpool, so no dramas ). Seems I've sparked quite the debate.


I noticed quite a few suggestions that I should've left extra time to get across London. A few points

a) How much extra time am I meant to leave? A few suggestions of 48 minutes for the connection - those extra 3 minutes would've made no difference at all. I could've given it a 60 minute connection and still wouldn't have made it.

b) The 43 minute suggestion (and 45 I gave it) are more than enough to cover for any reasonable delays (10-15 minutes or so). As it was, by the time I'd given up on NXEA customer services it must've been 10, I managed to get myself across to Euston, a quick word with the customer services there and onto the 2230 with a couple of minutes to spare.

c) I was doing (fairly important) work for a university project in Sheringham. If I got the previous train, it would've meant leaving an hour earlier and I wouldn't have gotten my work done.

To be honest, and this is no criticism of the OP whatsoever, I'd have dashed to Euston as quickly as possible and asked Virgin for assistance...

That was a point I raised with the guard - I said that I didn't want to dash across to Euston only for Virgin to tell me I should've sorted it out at Liverpool Street, that was when he assured me that NXEA would sort the issue out at LST.

Got the complaint letter knocked up and ready to be sent - I gave it a few days so it wasn't just a vitriolic rant...

 

[34D]

This has already been discussed in this topic and I believe the consensus is that it's only fair the OP is given that as an option as he may purely want to get to SOT as quick as possible, however it could be seen as unreasonable so the OP has a right to refuse it.

Can you advise where 'reasonableness' is written down, please? Or if it is your subjective opinion, please state so.

 

[AlterEgo]

The most important guidance in the Advance Fares FAQs has yet to be heeded by some posters on this thread, namely in Q22:

Please note there is no change to:

a) Any other rules, e.g. trains stopping where tickets join together (NRCoC 19); nor

b) The need to verify that a passenger has been genuinely delayed en route, and ticket endorsed; nor

c) Any other passenger entitlements as defined by the NRCoC or CIV conditions; nor

d) General ATOC disruption guidance; nor

e) Your discretion in extreme circumstances!

It seems people want to split hairs to penalise the customer.

 

[34D]

Not at all, just emphasising that entitlement to a taxi or hotel is not automatic.

Anyway, I wish to apologise and to state that I was wrong. I discussed this type of scenario with the oracle that is Mr Barry Doe, and he advises the following:

Ticket from place A-london terminals and lon term-place B is sufficient in his opinion.

If place A is anywhere, the journey being made to arrive in London late, then he does agree with me that an intention to use Oyster payg to place B is insufficient - ie that an actual ticket needs to be held.

So apologies - though I must admit that I love healthy, constructive, debate.

 

[tony_mac]

Can you advise where 'reasonableness' is written down, please? Or if it is your subjective opinion, please state so.

It is obviously an opinion - that is what `reasonable` means.
There is a different between constructive debate and pointless argument.

They could tell somebody to go and get the train to Gatwick and back all night, and you could argue that satisfies the requirements to provide transport. That would be unreasonable (in my subjective opinion).

 

[34D]

That would be unreasonable (in my subjective opinion).

It would, however, be warm.