Split Ticketing and Condition 3 (NRCoC)

[najaB]

I've started this thread to avoid confusing the discussion in a current thread in D&P.

In summary, the OP intended to split his journey in accordance to Condition 19 but wasn't able to purchase both tickets before starting travel. He then failed to purchase the second ticket at an interchange station (despite apparently having enough time to do so) and is now at risk of prosecution for ticketless travel from the split point to the destination.

This raises a number of questions:

• If taking advantage of Condition 19, do you have to actually have both tickets on your person before you start travel? I think you do.
• If you haven't managed to purchase the second half of a split, are you allowed to continue on the train? Or would Condition 18 (overriding) apply? I think it does.
• Can you take advantage of Condition 3 to purchase split tickets? My understanding of Condition 3 is that it is intended for situations where there is an appropriate ticket for the journey you intend to take, that is not available from the machine, or there is no machine available.
• If you are taking advantage of Condition 3, what constitutes "as soon as is reasonably practicable" for exchanging/purchasing the correct ticket?

Your thoughts?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

If taking advantage of Condition 19, do you have to actually have both tickets on your person before you start travel?

It is necessary to hold tickets before travelling for each leg of the journey which they authorise. Normally, this would imply that both tickets are to be held at the outset, but in practice, where the ticket which authorises travel on the second leg of the journey can be purchased on-board, then it would be perfectly acceptable to do so, provided that it is done before the expiry of the validity of the first ticket.

I have extended a journey in this manner after having begun the first leg on a few occasions, and my request for an additional ticket to extend the journey has always been welcomed.

Anyone travelling beyond the validity of their first ticket where there was an opportunity to have authorised the entire journey before hand should expect to have to demonstrate compelling justification for their ticketless travel (such as some of the theoretical scenarios suggested on the other thread) and may have to rely on a charitable interpretation of their actions in buying a ticket for only part of the journey.

 

[crehld]

In the previous thread I shared my experience from a couple of years ago (Quoted below). The outcome of my PF appeal and subsequent letter from SWT seems to make the position clear, at least when there is no change of trains involved.

This happened to me. I wanted to split a journey but having waited in the ticket office queue for over 15 minutes I gave up and picked up the first portion from a TVM so not to miss the train I allowed plenty of time for. The guard never came round (not a busy train) and by the time we made it to the splitting point I actively sought out a member of staff to sell me a ticket. This turned out to be an RPI who issued a penalty fare instead as apparently I should have alighted at the splitting point. I appealed, and won on the grounds that the long wait at the ticket office constituted a lack of opportunity to buy an appropriate ticket for my journey and that alighting the train is unnecessary when the passenger intends to combine tickets in line with the NRCoC. I also received a separate letter of apology from South West Trains which confirmed I was incorrectly issued the penalty fare, that I should have been sold a ticket on board to complete my journey without having to disembark and the reason I wasn't was because the guard failed to walk through the train, and a commitment that staff would be trained appropriately.

 

[Agent_c]

]If taking advantage of Condition 19, do you have to actually have both tickets on your person before you start travel? I think you do.

I think for fraud prevention, the only common sense reading of that is that you would have to have all tickets for your journey first, as its the only way to prove the journey you intend to pay for. Otherwise, you could just buy a ticket to the next station and plead splitting when you get caught (noone says that a split combination of tickets has to actually save money...)

Can you take advantage of Condition 3 to purchase split tickets? My understanding of Condition 3 is that it is intended for situations where there is an appropriate ticket for the journey you intend to take, that is not available from the machine, or there is no machine available.

That seems to be the only possible exception, if you can't buy it, you can't buy it, and thats the TOC's "fault" for not installing appropriate ticketing facilities (yes, it might not be economically feasible, but they can't expect you to buy a ticket when you physically can't).

 

[crehld]

That seems to be the only possible exception, if you can't buy it, you can't buy it, and thats the TOC's "fault" for not installing appropriate ticketing facilities (yes, it might not be economically feasible, but they can't expect you to buy a ticket when you physically can't).

Indeed, I believe many of Southern TVMs allow you to specify an alternative origin, which solves the problem. So there's no reason other TOCs can't follow suit.

 

[Failed Unit]

For interest, I have on many occasions bought a Newark - Market Rasen ticket onboard after leaving an East Coast train which is only valid to Newark. The gaurd on the EMT train has never raised an eyebrow, but as you frequently don't see the gaurd on East Coast should one be looking for them?

 

[najaB]

I think for fraud prevention, the only common sense reading of that is that you would have to have all tickets for your journey first, as its the only way to prove the journey you intend to pay for. Otherwise, you could just buy a ticket to the next station and plead splitting when you get caught (noone says that a split combination of tickets has to actually save money...)

That's a good point - so even you accept that Condition 3 applies, you must be in possession of the second ticket before you reach the split point. Would it behove you to get off the train if you didn't?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

For interest, I have on many occasions bought a Newark - Market Rasen ticket onboard after leaving an East Coast train which is only valid to Newark. The gaurd on the EMT train has never raised an eyebrow, but as you frequently don't see the gaurd on East Coast should one be looking for them?

If EMT are in the habit of selling on board, then you aren't being treated any differently than if you had started your journey at Newark. It would be more interesting if you held a ticket to Lincoln and attempted to extend on board, having boarded at Newark. Would (should?) the guard make you buy a ticket from Newark? Not sure.

 

[Agent_c]

That's a good point - so even you accept that Condition 3 applies, you must be in possession of the second ticket before you reach the split point. Would it behove you to get off the train if you didn't?

I would expect so. Even if like someone posted a TOC seemed to accept the reasoning on appeal, I think you can expect to have a difficult conversation with someone when you try to explain why you haven't got a valid ticket...

...Especially journey that starts out of London if you had additionally an oyster card.

 

[crehld]

That's a good point - so even you accept that Condition 3 applies, you must be in possession of the second ticket before you reach the split point. Would it behove you to get off the train if you didn't?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If EMT are in the habit of selling on board, then you aren't being treated any differently than if you had started your journey at Newark. It would be more interesting if you held a ticket to Lincoln and attempted to extend on board, having boarded at Newark. Would (should?) the guard make you buy a ticket from Newark? Not sure.

This sounds perfectly reasonable, providing an opportunity to purchase is given by the splitting point (ie guards don't lock themselves in the back cab / purchasing facilities offering all tickets are available at interchange stations). As for having to disembark, passengers should not be expected to have their journey delayed if an opportunity to buy the necessary tickets is not presented.

 

[Failed Unit]

That's a good point - so even you accept that Condition 3 applies, you must be in possession of the second ticket before you reach the split point. Would it behove you to get off the train if you didn't?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
If EMT are in the habit of selling on board, then you aren't being treated any differently than if you had started your journey at Newark. It would be more interesting if you held a ticket to Lincoln and attempted to extend on board, having boarded at Newark. Would (should?) the guard make you buy a ticket from Newark? Not sure.

Personally in that situation I would ask the first time I saw the gaurd. However, EMT will not penalise you if you produce your first ticket at the time of asking. But I would do that as I asked for the ticket, otherwise it could look like you were pushing your luck knowing Market Rasen is unstaffed. (Some won't charge for the honesty if the cost of the ticket was no different between Lincoln and Market Rasen such as an London - Lincoln anytime which is the same price as a London - Market Rasen anytime) - however that is different situation as you don't wouldn't split that anyway...

 

[crehld]

The simple solution to all of this is for TVMs selling the full range of tickets for all origins/destinations to be installed at all stations. This provides an opportunity for those passengers who want to legitimately split their tickets to buy them all from the outset and avoid difficult situations, and it ensures those who would seek to defraud the railway have no excuses.

 

[Flamingo]

In the previous thread I shared my experience from a couple of years ago (Quoted below). The outcome of my PF appeal and subsequent letter from SWT seems to make the position clear, at least when there is no change of trains involved.

The way that you were treated by SWT does not in any sense set either a legal precedent for cases like this, or even a guide as to how a Customer Service or Prosecutions department might handle similar cases in the future. There is every chance that it will simply be treated as a short-fare, and will result in a court appearance with very little defence. It sounds like you had an extremely lenient Customer Services dept in SWT.

I know that Customer Service Departments are touchy-feely and tell the customer whatever they want to hear, but, in similar circumstances if it went to court, the conversation could go;
"Were you going from A to Z?"
"Yes"
"Did you have a ticket from A to Z?"
"No, I had bought a ticket from A to B"
"Did the TVM give the option of a ticket from A to Z?"
"Yes, but..."
"I rest my case"
"But but but..."

Putting it bluntly, split tickets are a loophole, not a right.

 

[yorkie]

Are split tickets not a "right" in the conditions (NRCoC Condition 19)?

I don't see it as a "loophole". On the contrary; the though tickets are priced too high (because the rail industry often charges a premium for longer journeys)

 

[Flamingo]

Are split tickets not a "right" in NRCoC Condition 19?

I don't see it as a "loophole". On the contrary; the though tickets are priced too high (because the rail industry often charges a premium for longer journeys)

If they were a right they would have to be offered on each occasion. Last time I checked, booking offices were barred from offering them. Also, there is a significant restriction in using most Split tickets - the train has to call at each station. That does not apply to through tickets, so the reasoning behind Condition 19 is that they are a series of separate journeys completed on the same train.

Some rail prices might be high - but that's the cost of the journey. That argument has more to do with the level of taxpayer subsidy that the government of the day feels should be given to rail travellers, and that is something you need to take up with your MP.

Airline prices are high as well - I would like to take my whole family to the USA every summer holiday to see their relatives, but nice as that would be, I can't afford it. I don't blame the airlines for that.

 

[yorkie]

...so the reasoning behind Condition 19 is that they are a series of separate journeys completed on the same train....

That's not what Condition 19 says, it says "You may use two or more tickets for one journey..." (my emphasis).

Some rail prices might be high - but that's the cost of the journey...

The through fare is only the cost of the journey if the through fare is purchased.

The cost of a journey where a combination of tickets is used, is the cost of that combination, but it's still one journey.

 

[najaB]

Are split tickets not a "right" in the conditions (NRCoC Condition 19)?

Condition 19 gives you the right to use a combination of tickets for a journey. It places the TOCs under no obligation to go out of their way to sell them to you.

 

[Flamingo]

Condition 19 gives you the right to use a combination of tickets for a journey. It places the TOCs under no obligation to go out of their way to sell them to you.

Wot he said...

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Are split tickets not a "right" in the conditions (NRCoC Condition 19)?

Actually, what is written in the Conditions is not 'split ticketing' but 'Using a combnation of tickets'. For the section to apply, there has to be a combination of tickets.

I don't see it as a "loophole". On the contrary; the though tickets are priced too high (because the rail industry often charges a premium for longer journeys)

The arrangements authorised by section 19 are utterly independent of any assessment of value - it applies equally to 'free' / promotional tickets as it does to journeys where a combination of tickets cost more than one, single, through ticket would.

The wording of Condition 19 is designed to give passengers a little more flexibility than would be available without that authority, irregardless of price, but always requiring 'a combination of tickets'. The question underlying this thread does not involve 'a combination of tickets'.

. . . . the reasoning behind Condition 19 is that they are a series of separate journeys completed on the same train.

Yes, provided that there is also a series of tickets. Not one ticket plus an 'excuse' for not having bought the next one.

 

[crehld]

The way that you were treated by SWT does not in any sense set either a legal precedent for cases like this, or even a guide as to how a Customer Service or Prosecutions department might handle similar cases in the future. There is every chance that it will simply be treated as a short-fare, and will result in a court appearance with very little defence. It sounds like you had an extremely lenient Customer Services dept in SWT.

I know that Customer Service Departments are touchy-feely and tell the customer whatever they want to hear, but, in similar circumstances if it went to court, the conversation could go;
"Were you going from A to Z?"
"Yes"
"Did you have a ticket from A to Z?"
"No, I had bought a ticket from A to B"
"Did the TVM give the option of a ticket from A to Z?"
"Yes, but..."
"I rest my case"
"But but but..."

As far as I can remember my penalty fare appeal was processed and adjudicated on by an independent body who have no interest in keeping the customer sweet - as far as I'm concerned they considered my case and applied the rules in an impartial way. That is the whole purpose of an independent body after all. Furthermore, the letter I later received from SWT was also sent following the penalty fare decision and not in response to a direct complaint by me - I assume they were instructed to send it by the penalty fare appeals people. So the "let's write a letter to shut him up" / "tell him what he wants to hear" argument doesn't hold.

Putting it bluntly, split tickets are a loophole, not a right.

Split tickets are expressly permitted in the National Rail Conditions of Carriage (condition 19), the contract upon which all tickets are sold under. Thus it is not a loophole but a contractual right which TOCs are expected to honour. Any TOC or representative thereof which argues otherwise not only demonstrates an alarming lack knowledge (which reading this forum seems to be unfortunately all too common), but is also in direct violation of the rules which govern railway ticketing. There are undoubtedly loopholes out there which push the boundaries of what is legitimate; split tickets aren't one of them.

 

[Flamingo]

That's not what Condition 19 says, it says "You may use two or more tickets for one journey..." (my emphasis).

The through fare is only the cost of the journey if the through fare is purchased.

The cost of a journey where a combination of tickets is used, is the cost of that combination, but it's still one journey.

You were the one justifying splitting tickets as through tickets are too expensive, which is irrelevant to either the use of split tickets or their sale.

 

[crehld]

Actually, what is written in the Conditions is not 'split ticketing' but 'Using a combnation of tickets'. For the section to apply, there has to be a combination of tickets.

Doesn't this essentially mean the same thing as splitting tickets will inherently mean using a combination?

 

[yorkie]

You were the one justifying splitting tickets as through tickets are too expensive, which is irrelevant to either the use of split tickets or their sale.

The matter of price is indeed irrelevant, what matters is that you may use two or more tickets for one journey.

If "the full range of tickets is not available" you must buy a ticket "that entitles you to make at least part of the journey..."

So, unfortunately, I have to disagree with you describing using a combination of tickets (aka "split ticketing") as a "loophole" and I also have to disagree with your assertion that costs come into it.

I also disagree that they would "have to be offered on each occasion"; it is not always the case that the full range is available, hence the existence of Condition 3.

 

[Flamingo]

As far as I can remember my penalty fare appeal was processed and adjudicated on by an independent body who have no interest in keeping the customer sweet - as far as I'm concerned they considered my case and applied the rules in an impartial way. That is the whole purpose of an independent body after all. Furthermore, the letter I later received from SWT was also sent following the penalty fare decision and not in response to a direct complaint by me - I assume they were instructed to send it by the penalty fare appeals people. So the "let's write a letter to shut him up" / "tell him what he wants to hear" argument doesn't hold.



Split tickets are expressly permitted in the National Rail Conditions of Carriage (condition 19), the contract upon which all tickets are sold under. Thus it is not a loophole but a contractual right which TOCs are expected to honour. Any TOC or representative thereof which argues otherwise not only demonstrates an alarming lack knowledge (which reading this forum seems to be unfortunately all too common), but is also in direct violation of the rules which govern railway ticketing. There are undoubtedly loopholes out there which push the boundaries of what is legitimate; split tickets aren't one of them.

Regarding your appeal and subsequent apology from SWT, I'm pleased you had an outcome that you were happy with. However, advising people that this will always be the outcome will end in tears for somebody.

As regards the terms of Condition 19, I am fully aware of them. The passengers who use them are not (or at least so they tell me). I think my record so far for upgrading split tickets on a train which they were not valid on was eleven - following numerous announcements advising passengers of condition 19 before reaching the last station they could change at. I didn't get into three carriages, so there were probably a good few more. A good few of those told me they had never been told about condition 19 before, despite me recognising them from the same encounter previously. That is pushing the boundary of a loophole, I think you'll agree.

I'm on the same train tomorrow, I'll let you know how many people on split tickets are on it.

 

[crehld]

As I mentioned above, if the TOCs make the effort to provide facilities which offer a full range of tickets then this would go a long way to address many of the problems raised in this thread; by giving those passengers who wish to go to the effort of taking advantage of split tickets an opportunity to buy all tickets at one as the TOCs would prefer, and by removing any excuses of those who would use split ticketing as an excuse for travelling over distance.

 

[najaB]

As I mentioned above, if the TOCs make the effort to provide facilities which offer a full range of tickets then this would go a long way to address many of the problems raised in this thread...

They do. There's this new thing call the Interweb or something like that.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Doesn't this essentially mean the same thing as splitting tickets will inherently mean using a combination?

Yes, it does.
The distinction I am making is the distinction which applies to najaB's opening question AND to the one-off incident you are reporting: there is not a 'combination of tickets'. Just one ticket and an 'excuse' for a subsequent ticket.

Split tickets are expressly permitted in the National Rail Conditions of Carriage (condition 19), the contract upon which all tickets are sold under. Thus it is not a loophole but a contractual right which TOCs are expected to honour. . . . .

Yes. We are fully aware of the wording and its meaning.

But . . . . .

Condition 19 does not automatically apply when there is not 'a combination of tickets'. Your one-off example, and thousands of others detected every year in which a passenger only presents a ticket for part of their journey, does not involve 'a combination of tickets'.

It is an affront to reason to suggest that a choice not to buy the 2 tickets which would authorise a journey but only to buy one of them (for whatever reason) somehow extinguishes the plural sense of the word 'combination'.

 

[maniacmartin]

As regards the terms of Condition 19, I am fully aware of them. The passengers who use them are not (or at least so they tell me). I think my record so far for upgrading split tickets on a train which they were not valid on was eleven - following numerous announcements advising passengers of condition 19 before reaching the last station they could change at. I didn't get into three carriages, so there were probably a good few more. A good few of those told me they had never been told about condition 19 before, despite me recognising them from the same encounter previously. That is pushing the boundary of a loophole, I think you'll agree.

I'm on the same train tomorrow, I'll let you know how many people on split tickets are on it.

How is this relevant to the Section 3 thing?

 

[Andrew1395]

Each ticket us a distinct contract. You may use them in combination. If you only possess one ticket you do not have that possibility. The OP posed the question must you have the opportunity to purchase all the tickets you wanted at a TVM, and if the lack of opportunity to purchase multiple contracts was contrary to the NRCoC.

 

[Flamingo]

The matter of price is indeed irrelevant, what matters is that you may use two or more tickets for one journey.

If "the full range of tickets is not available" you must buy a ticket "that entitles you to make at least part of the journey..."

So, unfortunately, I have to disagree with you describing using a combination of tickets (aka "split ticketing") as a "loophole" and I also have to disagree with your assertion that costs come into it.

I also disagree that they would "have to be offered on each occasion"; it is not always the case that the full range is available, hence the existence of Condition 3.

I'm confused - you brought cost into it

...the though tickets are priced too high (because the rail industry often charges a premium for longer journeys)

When it comes to buying a ticket from a TVM for part of the journey, the question is over which would take precedent, Condition 3 or Condition 18:

. 18. If you travel further than a ticket allows
If you travel beyond the destination shown on the ticket, you will be treated as having joined the train without a ticket for that additional part of your jouriney. Condition 2 or 4 will apply for that additional part of your journey

Enough cases of short-fareing have been prosecuted that I'm sure the excuse of wanting to buy split tickets has been given in court. Does anybody know if it was successful (as opposed to a Customer Service Dept taking a touchy-feely line)?

 

[crehld]

Regarding your appeal and subsequent apology from SWT, I'm pleased you had an outcome that you were happy with. However, advising people that this will always be the outcome will end in tears for somebody.

Very true and there are a number of elements in my case that make it unique (long wait at ticket office, TVM unable to see all available tickets, guard not walking the train, RPI incorrectly issuing a PF) as all cases are. I had attempted to buy both tickets for the journey before I set off, but was prevented from doing so. One would hope that in such cases the passenger is entitled to buy the full ticket at the first opportunity - i.e. the guard. And the outcome of my case does at least support that principle.

As regards the terms of Condition 19, I am fully aware of them. The passengers who use them are not (or at least so they tell me). I think my record so far for upgrading split tickets on a train which they were not valid on was eleven - following numerous announcements advising passengers of condition 19 before reaching the last station they could change at. I didn't get into three carriages, so there were probably a good few more. A good few of those told me they had never been told about condition 19 before, despite me recognising them from the same encounter previously. That is pushing the boundary of a loophole, I think you'll agree.

I'm on the same train tomorrow, I'll let you know how many people on split tickets are on it.

This seems to have much more to do with using tickets appropriately and in accordance with the conditions, which can equally apply to using non-split tickets (e.g. observing off-peak restrictions, etc.), rather than the principle of split ticketing itself.