That isn't what I said. You refused to come up with a suggestion claiming it was irrelevant, I challenged that and you're now taking that out of context....
I'm sorry, I mis-interpreted your "You'll notice this discussion is taking place in a board entitled "Fares, Tickets & Routeing" - not Fantasy Fare Validity!" comment rather differently than you seem to be saying it should have been taken, that being so I apologise for any confusion I may have caused.
Prove it.
....I wish you'd stop reducing it down the the NRCoC. It is not the only determinant in the contract; you can't state something openly in publicity and then completely disregard that fact in the smallprint of a contract; nor can you redefine words like contract....
So if I buy a ticket from a railway station, where can I find the terms and conditions for it?
....So I take from that TOCs can claim whatever they like in their publicity so long as they suitably undermine it in the smallprint of a contract? Not sure I could find a judge who agrees with you there....
I believe the ASA might have something to say about it, but IANAL, so I don't think I am in a position to comment on that. However, the NRCoC is part of the contract between passenger and train company, whether you like it or not.
....So, there are none.
That's interesting, because the point of this thread is to discuss point-to-point ticket sales on a high-intensity route which are erroneously sold (and instantly refunded on request). Forgive me for thinking that no such problem exists on Heathrow Connect. Clearly the Ealing Broadway example is similar in every regard....
I'm sorry, I thought we were discussing it, in particular the aspect on validity of the ticket held by the passenger (this being the reason for the supplement being sold in the first place). Don't tell me I've gotten this thread confused with another.
....I am not commenting as I do not believe the situations are comparable (I think I've articulated my reasoning behind that relatively well!). An operation which is comparable is Greater Anglia/Stansted Express, and they do honour GA only tickets....
Well I guess I'll just have to take that in the only way I can, you don't want to answer the question, fine by me, I can tell what that really means.
....The relevence is that HC is to all intents and purposes a private service - GX isn't. FGW from what I can tell have no real contribution to the service and there is no publicity that implies they are one and the same....
So how does the fact that it is or is not a private company change the conditions of the ticket as noted in the NRCoC?
....My bad - so many topics in here on the same subject that I forget which is which. I still don't see where you've commented on GA/SX compared to SR/GX though....
We can all make mistakes I guess.
I asked, if two trading names were used, would one be sufficient to define all services by the company to whom the trading name applied. Yorkie quoted me and said yes and named Greater Anglia as an example of that. I then quoted him and asked if he also believed First Greater Western was the same. That's not ignoring the comment, it is responding directly to it.
....Definitively:
- I do not accept that list as a complete set of defining factors of a TOC.
- I do not accept that the NRCoC is the only relevant document, particularly given the level to which Southern have publicly highlighted that GX is a part of the Southern network; "operated by Southern" etc.
- I do not accept that any consumer contract has the authority to redefine "company" as effectively "trading name". If they want to restrict tickets by trading names they need to reword the contract as such but: -
- I do not accept that the NRCoC actually attempts to redefine the word "company" - they provide a listing of which trading name belongs to which company (since it is not always obvious).
What you accept is largely irrelevant. Every ticket issued is subject to the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, even those sold online. If you are in any doubt about that, read the ticket stock the ticket is issued on. If you can see, in that document, mention of "train operating company" then feel free to find a definition for it.
What other documents define the contract between train company and passenger with regard to the services they can use?
I don't claim that a consumer contract is redefining "company" as anything, I never have, I have repeatedly stated this, I really don't know how many times I have to say it before it sinks in.
I don't claim the NRCoC redefines the word "company", I never have, I have repeatedly stated this, I really don't know how many times I have to repeat this before that sinks in either.
The NRCoC uses a term, that term is "train company", the NRCoC defines that term to avoid confusion (allegedly).
