Southern admit they were wrong to sell GX "supplement".

[hairyhandedfool]

If we go with your argument, we in fact have three organised groupings:

Southern Railway Ltd (a limited company formed under the Companies Acts of 1985, 1989 and 2006)
southern TOC (not a statutory company, who operate all the train lines shown in Green on the map referenced earlier)
gatwick express TOC (not a statutory company, who operate all the train lines shown in Red on the map referenced earlier)

For simplicity, I have capitalised the statutory company but not the other two. We then have:
gatwick express is not part of southern, but is part of Southern.

Southern is not part of anything.

southern is part of Southern but not part of gatwick express.

Southern and southern are different

southern + gatwick express = Southern

Southern Railway Limited is a TOC.
Southern is a trading name for a TOC and listed as part of the definition of "train companies" in the NRCoC.
Gatwick Express is a trading name for a TOC and listed as part of the definition of "train companies" in the NRCoC.

So:

Gatwick Express (as noted in the NRCoC) is not part of Southern (as noted in the NRCoC), but is a trading name of Southern Railway Limited

Southern Railway Limited is a franchised train operating company.

Southern (as noted in the NRCoC) is a trading name of Southern Railway Limited, but is not part of Gatwick Express (as noted in the NRCoC).

Southern and Southern Railway Limited are different.

Southern and Gatwick Express are trading names of Southern Railway Limited (as noted in the NRCoC).

I hope that is a little clearer....

I think it's even more complicated than that, because a "TOC" is a licensed train operating "company" and that means (using your terminology) Southern Railway Ltd.

But HHF reckons that NRCoC has a different definition of "train company".

"Train company" and "train operating company" are not the same term. Different terms can have different meanings. "Train company" is used and defined in the NRCoC, "train operating company" is not.

 

[MarkyMarkD]

"Train company" and "train operating company" are not the same term. Different terms can have different meanings. "Train company" is used and defined in the NRCoC, "train operating company" is not.

Thanks. That is what I thought you meant.

 

[WillPS]

"Train company" and "train operating company" are not the same term. Different terms can have different meanings. "Train company" is used and defined in the NRCoC, "train operating company" is not.

Regardless of the definition, there is no Gatwick Express company. As I said in my previous post you can't redefine a word like company to suit the needs of a consumer contract.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Southern Railway Limited is a TOC.
Southern is a trading name for a TOC and listed as part of the definition of "train companies" in the NRCoC.
Gatwick Express is a trading name for a TOC and listed as part of the definition of "train companies" in the NRCoC.

. . . . .

I think it's even more complicated than that, because a "TOC" is a licensed train operating "company" and that means (using your terminology) Southern Railway Ltd.

But HHF reckons that NRCoC has a different definition of "train company".

"Train company" and "train operating company" are not the same term. Different terms can have different meanings. "Train company" is used and defined in the NRCoC, "train operating company" is not.

(I apologise that I will be repeating my commentary on this from earlier threads, but we do seem to be reviewing the matter again).

There is another source for our definitions, which comes closer to MarkyMarkD's search for the Licenced entities. In the list of parties who have contracted to Rail Settlement Plan Ltd (RSP) we find that they are termed 'Operators', not 'Companies', but that the list of those contracted entities (in the Schedules to the Ticketing & Settlement Agrement) is a list of Limited Companies and nothing but Limited Companies. The list includes 'Southern Railway Limited' but does not include Gatwick Express.*

This leads me towards believing that there is no Gatwick Express as an entity with any legal rights and responsibilities in terms of Railway Tickets bought for travel on the mainline network.
It also leads me towards suspecting that the existence of 2 different 'lists of Train Companies' in the NRCoC and TSA is an oversight, perhaps a legacy from previous lists, and is not indicative of intention.

* 28th Feb 2012 edition. Gatwick Express was included in the previous edition published 7th April 2010.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Regardless of the definition, there is no Gatwick Express company. As I said in my previous post you can't redefine a word like company to suit the needs of a consumer contract.

No one is redefining 'a word like company', the NRCoC defines "train company" for the purposes of the contract between a "train company" (or "train companies") and a passenger.

 

[island]

I think the factions will need to agree to disagree before the mods come and lock the thread.

 

[MarkyMarkD]

HHF is (whether he likes it or not) saying that NRCoC can define "train company" to be "a trading name of a licensed train operator".

That is a strange definition and not one which I would expect any court to uphold, because "company" is a clearly defined term which can only mean one thing.

I certainly don't want to pursue this debate as it is rather pointless - there is no reason on earth why Southern cannot change the ticket restrictions to "SOUTHERN NOT GX" and change the conditions of their Day Saver ticket to exclude GX as well. Heaven knows why they haven't done so to stop all this faffing about.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

HHF is (whether he likes it or not) saying that NRCoC can define "train company" to be "a trading name of a licensed train operator".....

I don't need to say it, it is plainly obvious. Condition 10 says that any prohibition from or restriction to the services of a particular train company must be shown on the ticket. Which train company do the following restrictions apply to?

• London Midland Only
  
• TPE Only
  
• Virgin Trains Only

That is a strange definition and not one which I would expect any court to uphold, because "company" is a clearly defined term which can only mean one thing....

"Company" is five letters and a space different from "train company" (I really don't know how times that has to be said before it sinks in). Any contract between two or more parties should define who the parties involved are, the NRCoC uses "train company" and/or "train companies" for one party and it defines them.

....and change the conditions of their Day Saver ticket to exclude GX as well. Heaven knows why they haven't done so to stop all this faffing about.

They have changed the conditions of Daysave, as already noted in this thread.

 

[bnm]

"Company" is five letters and a space different from "train company" (I really don't know how times that has to be said before it sinks in). Any contract between two or more parties should define who the parties involved are, the NRCoC uses "train company" and/or "train companies" for one party and it defines them.

Remind me. One of those parties is the passenger. Who is the other party? What is their legal status and how would they be named in court should a legal dispute arise?

 

[34D]

The word 'company' can be used to relate to something other than a limited company. For starters, we have unlimited companies.

We also have things like theatre companies....

 

[hairyhandedfool]

.... the NRCoC uses "train company" and/or "train companies" for one party and it defines them....

....What is their legal status and how would they be named in court should a legal dispute arise?

IANAL, but I fail to see how that is relevant to the discussion.

 

[bnm]

IANAL, but I fail to see how that is relevant to the discussion.

My point is that whilst NRCoC may define 'Gatwick Express' as a company to satisfy condition 10, it won't be 'Gatwick Express' appearing in court should a legal dispute arise over the contract between passenger and operator. That may then cause some problems for the legal entity (Southern Railway Limited) when they try to defend their position.

 

[yorkie]

there is no reason on earth why Southern cannot change the ticket restrictions to "SOUTHERN NOT GX".

I don't think that's allowed, as tickets can be restricted by route or by Company. It'd be like a ticket saying "NXEA NOT SX" (if NXEA didn't want people to use their Stansted Express branded trains) or "SOUTHERN NOT BX" (if Southern didn't want people to use their Brighton Express branded trains), it would be confusing, unenforceable and against the conditions anyway.

Condition 10 allows tickets to be restricted by Company, but it does not allow for a particular brand within a company to be excluded.

My point is that whilst NRCoC may define 'Gatwick Express' as a company to satisfy condition 10, it won't be 'Gatwick Express' appearing in court should a legal dispute arise over the contract between passenger and operator. That may then cause some problems for the legal entity (Southern Railway Limited) when they try to defend their position.

In my opinion there is very little chance of Southern letting this go to Court, hence why are refunding passengers in the event of a dispute.

 

[MarkyMarkD]

I don't need to say it, it is plainly obvious. Condition 10 says that any prohibition from or restriction to the services of a particular train company must be shown on the ticket. Which train company do the following restrictions apply to?

• London Midland Only
  
• TPE Only
  
• Virgin Trains Only

But all of those entities are the sole trading name of the company concerned. It's not the same at all.

They have changed the conditions of Daysave, as already noted in this thread.

Oops - I hadn't noticed that. Well done, Southern for making things clearer!

 

[yorkie]

Oops - I hadn't noticed that. Well done, Southern for making things clearer!

It's not clear as this page indicates it's valid on all Southern services:

http://www.southernrailwaytickets.com/buytickets/daysave/DaySave.php?sEvent=TicketDetails

The map they link to shows all Southern routes. Other operators are shown in a thin black line.

 

[ess]

In my opinion there is very little chance of Southern letting this go to Court, hence why are refunding passengers in the event of a dispute.

Could a passenger take Southern to court to get this sorted out?

 

[yorkie]

Could a passenger take Southern to court to get this sorted out?

I doubt it, as if anyone tries to charge you, they usually back off if you show them the Southern Map. If they continue to charge you, then requesting a refund has been successful in all known cases that go that far.

The only way to try to force it to court that I can think of, would be to use a Southern Only ticket, and if challenged not have the money, get an unpaid fare notice (UFN) for the "supplement", not pay it, and see if Southern proceed to prosecute you for failing to pay the UFN. I suspect they would cancel it at that stage, but if someone was prepared to see where they'll it, then I'd love to see the outcome...

 

[hairyhandedfool]

But all of those entities are the sole trading name of the company concerned. It's not the same at all....

Do you believe that a trading name should cover the entire Train Operating Company even if there is another trading name for another part of it?

 

[yorkie]

Do you believe that a trading name should cover the entire Train Operating Company even if there is another trading name for another part of it?

Yes. Greater Anglia (formerly NXEA, formerly One, formerly WAGN) should cover the entire TOC, including the Stansted Express branded services.

 

[MarkyMarkD]

It's not clear as this page indicates it's valid on all Southern services:

http://www.southernrailwaytickets.com/buytickets/daysave/DaySave.php?sEvent=TicketDetails

The map they link to shows all Southern routes. Other operators are shown in a thin black line.

Indeed. So the map that the DaySave page links to, includes Gatwick Express as one of Southern's services. Clear as mud, then! Where, in fact, does it say that DaySave excludes GX?

 

[yorkie]

Indeed. So the map that the DaySave page links to, includes Gatwick Express as one of Southern's services. Clear as mud, then! Where, in fact, does it say that DaySave excludes GX?

You have to additionally click on the "ticket information" link and read loads of small print, where it is mentioned in a contradictory way as it is a Southern service and it is shown on the map. Whether this is enforceable or not, I'm not sure!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Yes. Greater Anglia (formerly NXEA, formerly One, formerly WAGN) should cover the entire TOC, including the Stansted Express branded services.

So you believe a 'FGW Only' ticket should be valid on Heathrow Connect services?

....Where, in fact, does it say that DaySave excludes GX?

http://www.southernrailwaytickets.com/main.php?page_id=250

"DaySave tickets are only valid on trains operated by Southern. Not valid on Gatwick Express. You cannot use the services of any other train operator, or London Underground, with this ticket."

 

[WillPS]

So you believe a 'FGW Only' ticket should be valid on Heathrow Connect services?



http://www.southernrailwaytickets.com/main.php?page_id=250

"DaySave tickets are only valid on trains operated by Southern. Not valid on Gatwick Express. You cannot use the services of any other train operator, or London Underground, with this ticket."

Heathrow Connect does not publicly advertise any link to FGW, despite being a collaboration of sorts. There is no room for confusion; I therefore do not believe an FGW Only ticket is valid on Heathrow Connect.

Stansted Express is a brand used by Greater Anglia. I would fully expect to be able to use GA Only tickets on Stansted Express.

The same was true for "Citylink" services and CT Only tickets, and the same should be true for Gatwick Express services and Southern Only tickets.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Heathrow Connect does not publicly advertise any link to FGW, despite being a collaboration of sorts. There is no room for confusion; I therefore do not believe an FGW Only ticket is valid on Heathrow Connect....

The NRCoC states quite clearly that Heathrow Connect is a trading name for First Greater Western Limited, even if only for services between Hayes & Harlington and Paddington. If a trading name is to be used for all services run by the TOC regardless of any other trading names, 'FGW Only' must allow travel on Heathrow Connect services.

First Greater Western Limited (trading as First Great Western)
First Greater Western Limited (trading as Heathrow Connect, on services towards or from
Heathrow Airport, between Hayes & Harlington and London Paddington ONLY)

 

[WillPS]

The debate is somewhat academic as there are no FGW Only options (that I can see!) on those tickets.

Even so, I'd say the argument that FGW Only tickets would not be valid on HC is stronger than the Southern Only/GX counterpart - for one FGW don't include Heathrow Connect on their route-map, and Heathrow Connect makes no public reference to FGW.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The debate is somewhat academic as there are no FGW Only options (that I can see!) on those tickets....

Who said anything about a ticket over that short a distance? There are plenty of 'FGW Only' tickets to London.

....Even so, I'd say the argument that FGW Only tickets would not be valid on HC is stronger than the Southern Only/GX counterpart - for one FGW don't include Heathrow Connect on their route-map, and Heathrow Connect makes no public reference to FGW.

Doesn't matter, it is in the NRCoC that they are both trading names of First Greater Western Limited and people here seem to want one trading name to be one train company regardless of any other trading names they may have.

So, should FGW Only tickets be valid on Heathrow Connect or not?

 

[34D]

The debate is somewhat academic as there are no FGW Only options (that I can see!) on those tickets.

Even so, I'd say the argument that FGW Only tickets would not be valid on HC is stronger than the Southern Only/GX counterpart - for one FGW don't include Heathrow Connect on their route-map, and Heathrow Connect makes no public reference to FGW.

Hayes to Paddington is included in the FGW network map though.

I think everyone knows that Airport Junction to Heathrow is 'different'.

 

[WillPS]

I don't recognise the argument so my answer is irrelevant.

GX is a brand used by Southern. Southern explicitly include the GX route separately from "other operators" on their route map, and the GX website states that GX is "operated by Southern" on every page. It is entirely fair that a London - Gatwick passenger bearing a "Southern Only" ticket could expect to board a Gatwick Express service operated entirely by Soutern.

HC is a brand used by Heathrow Express, which for legal reasons is part-subleased to FGW as a track access fuddle. FGW make no mention of the bizarre arrangement in their publicity, nor is it highlighted on the HC website. There is no reason for a passenger with a long-distance FGW-only to break their journey to use a HC service, let alone weight behind any validity argument.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hayes to Paddington is included in the FGW network map though.

I think everyone knows that Airport Junction to Heathrow is 'different'.

And plenty of FGW trains serve both stations...

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I don't recognise the argument so my answer is irrelevant....

You are prepared to argue the fact for Southern, but not FGW? Should I be reading something into that?

GX is a brand used by Southern. Southern explicitly include the GX route separately from "other operators" on their route map, and the GX website states that GX is "operated by Southern" on every page. It is entirely fair that a London - Gatwick passenger bearing a "Southern Only" ticket could expect to board a Gatwick Express service operated entirely by Soutern....

Are you saying that, under condition 10 of the NRCoC, you believe Southern and Gatwick Express are one and the same?

....HC is a brand used by Heathrow Express, which for legal reasons is part-subleased to FGW as a track access fuddle. FGW make no mention of the bizarre arrangement in their publicity, nor is it highlighted on the HC website. There is no reason for a passenger with a long-distance FGW-only to break their journey to use a HC service, let alone weight behind any validity argument....

Are you saying that, under condition 10 of the NRCoC, you believe First Great Western and Heathrow connect are not one and the same?

 

[WillPS]

Find me an FGW only ticket which a customer may want to use on a Heathrow Connect service and I'll gladly entertain this charade further.