Splitting the journey - Cancellation Problems

[JamesM]

Guys,

I sometimes travel between Milton Keynes Central and Gloucester. Generally MKC - BHM BHM - GCR. I use Virgin for the first leg, CC for the second.

The cheapest way by far, is to buy in advance, and get a Virgin advance, and a CC advance, rather than buying a simple off peak return or simple advance ticket. I can often save £15 ish by doing it this way.

Question is, what happens if the first part of the journey is cancelled, or delayed, meaning that I miss the second train. So, say MKC - BHM is delayed by 30 minutes and I miss my connection (although I've allowed plenty of time for it)? Can I board the next available train to Gloucester, as it wasn't my fault that the first part of the journey was delayed?

My guess is the answer is, 'tough, it's not CC's fault that Virgin delayed you and you chose to buy an advance ticket, you missed the train - doesn't matter what the reason is'?

Am I correct?

Best,

James.

 

[MCR247]

I think, if you leave the minimum time that is required at BHM for changing trains, you can get the next one availible. What the min changing time is i dont kniow

 

[asylumxl]

If you miss your connection due to delays or cancellations, you are entitled to take the next available train. Just go to customer services and make them aware.

 

[glynn80]

This issue is not as clear cut as some may have you believe.

Some argue one way and some argue the other.

It has been covered in previous topics (http://railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?t=21896&highlight=split+tickets+miss+connection)

 

[tony_mac]

The national rail website says

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/advance_conditions.html

If delays occur while travelling, you will be allowed to take the next available train(s) to complete your journey.

And the National Rail Conditions of Carriage

19. Using a combination of tickets
You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover
the entire journey ....

I would read that as saying you are making a single journey, and if you are delayed on that journey you may take the next available train.

 

[EltonRoad]

In my opinion, Cross Country would be quite entitled to charge you the excess. It does not matter why you are late. The fact is you are late. It is no different to saying you were held up in a traffic jam, or that your dog ate the car keys.

It is a different matter if you hold a through ticket - then they are obliged to take you on the next available service.

My guess is that different guards will view this differently.

 

[ChrisTheRef]

From personal experience, you're perfectly entitled to take the next available service. To cover all bases, it's better to go to a ticket office or customer service desk of the TOC and let them know.

This has been the case for me with London Midland, Virgin, NXEC AND CrossCountry

 

[yorkie]

This is what I wrote in the May edition of my Fares advice article that appears in Railtalk magazine

Combining Advance tickets – you are covered!

It’s a debate which crops up again and again; if you purchase a combination of Advance tickets, do they cover you in the event of delay, for your entire journey? I say yes! And here’s my evidence…

The National Conditions of Carriage (NCoC) states that ‘You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey…’ and the ticket conditions for Advance fares state ‘If delays occur while travelling, you will be allowed to take the next available train(s) to complete your journey’.

It is not uncommon for people to claim that if you are delayed on an Advance ticket, causing you to miss your connection on another Advance ticket, you have “invalidated” the second ticket, yet this claim has no basis as both tickets can be used for one journey and if you are delayed you are allowed to get later trains to complete your journey. The key here is the use of the word ‘journey’ in the conditions.

If people disagree I'd be interested to hear your views.

In my opinion, Cross Country would be quite entitled to charge you the excess. It does not matter why you are late. The fact is you are late. It is no different to saying you were held up in a traffic jam, or that your dog ate the car keys.

Not at all. NCoC clearly states that one journey can be undertaken by multiple tickets. This is clearly different to getting to a station by car as the journey starts when your first train ticket starts (which will usually be starting with a train, although not always, but never a private car).

It is a different matter if you hold a through ticket - then they are obliged to take you on the next available service.

Where is it documented that this is a "different matter"? I'd be interested to see it.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If you miss your connection due to delays or cancellations, you are entitled to take the next available train. Just go to customer services and make them aware.

If you have time and if customer services exists at the connecting station, maybe. But customer services would be aware of any delays anyway so I'm not sure what you'd be informing them of. I certainly wouldn't waste time potentially missing a connection looking for a customer service desk.

 

[glynn80]

I think the main argument against yorkie's points above are that each Advance ticket is bought separately and each ticket has a separate legal contract, that contract being the National Rail Conditions of Carriage.

Now condition 19. does permit you to combine tickets for "travel" on an entire journey but that does not then necessarily give passengers the same rights that a passenger with a through ticket has.

If each Advance ticket's contract with between a passenger and a TOC is for travel from A to B and that contract is the NRCoC, then each TOC would have fulfilled their obligations. If the passenger missed their booked train, it could be argued they have broken the conditions of purchase of the Advance ticket. The fact that another TOC, which is loosely connected to the purchase through the National Rail network, is delayed, is not a solid argument that passengers will automatically have the right to be allowed to board the next available argument. What if my Arriva bus is delayed into Sheffield and I miss my Arriva Cross Country service, they have a loose connection with the parent company being liable for my bus delay, should these passengers be given the same rights as those travelling with other TOCs.

Barry Doe argued a similar point and that is that, passengers take the risk of purchasing an Advance ticket and realise that if something goes wrong they may not be able to travel on that ticket. If passengers want the protection of being able to travel on more than one service, they will half to purchase a walk-up ticket instead.

 

[yorkie]

I think the main argument against yorkie's points above are that each Advance ticket is bought separately and each ticket has a separate legal contract, that contract being the National Rail Conditions of Carriage.

But that applies to all tickets - not just Advance - and yet they can count as "one journey". As I said before, the key is the wording "one journey" in both the NCoC and the conditions of Advance tickets. Oh, and you can buy them together and not seperately and pay for them one transaction if you want, but I don't think that makes it more valid as it's irrelevant if they were bought seperately. Nowhere is "buying seperately" mentioned.

Now condition 19. does permit you to combine tickets for "travel" on an entire journey but that does not then necessarily give passengers the same rights that a passenger with a through ticket has.

Doesn't it? Where is that stated?

If each Advance ticket's contract with between a passenger and a TOC is for travel from A to B and that contract is the NRCoC, then each TOC would have fulfilled their obligations. If the passenger missed their booked train, it could be argued they have broken the conditions of purchase of the Advance ticket. The fact that another TOC, which is loosely connected to the purchase through the National Rail network,

This is getting daft. "loosely connected"?! They are bound by the NCoC irrespective of which TOC it is. You could argue that TOC and connections tickets don't entitle you to your through journey in the event of delays because the TOCs are only "loosely connected" but it would be irrelevant and incorrect.

is delayed, is not a solid argument that passengers will automatically have the right to be allowed to board the next available argument. What if my Arriva bus is delayed into Sheffield and I miss my Arriva Cross Country service, they have a loose connection with the parent company being liable for my bus delay, should these passengers be given the same rights as those travelling with other TOCs.

I don't think so, but if there is such a thing as an Advance with PlusBus at the start then, depending on the rules for such things, then maybe! If not, then no as the "journey" (singular) starts with the first ticket becomes valid.

Barry Doe argued a similar point and that is that, passengers take the risk of purchasing an Advance ticket and realise that if something goes wrong they may not be able to travel on that ticket. If passengers want the protection of being able to travel on more than one service, they will half to purchase a walk-up ticket instead.

Where is this quoted? Barry Doe is usually right but if he did say that then I strongly disagree for the reasons I stated above.

It's quite clear, you can use multiple tickets for ONE JOURNEY, and the tickets state you can continue your JOURNEY in the event of delays.

 

[Matt Taylor]

Two tickets=two contracts, XC have no contractual obligation to honour your ticket because you missed your booked train. Whether you missed it because your car broke down or whether you missed it because a Pendolino broke down is neither here nor there. In the vast majority of cases common sense prevails and customer services at New St will provide some kind of official paerwork to allow you to continue your journey on XC, however they have no legal right to force XC to carry you on the next available service.

It would be helpful if ATOC could provide some clear guidance on this issue.

 

[yorkie]

Two tickets=two contracts,

NCoC states that 2 tickets can = one journey. You can word it however you like but the NCoC is clear on the matter.

XC have no contractual obligation to honour your ticket because you missed your booked train.

in your opinion, but the Advance ticket conditions state that you can continue your journey if you are delayed.

Whether you missed it because your car broke down or whether you missed it because a Pendolino broke down is neither here nor there.

Yes it is. You are covered for your entire journey by rail tickets (which will usually be just on trains, but it can include replacement buses and ships), and you are not covered for getting to the rail network in the first place by car, foot, etc.

In the vast majority of cases common sense prevails and customer services at New St will provide some kind of official paerwork to allow you to continue your journey on XC,

Yes common sense would be to allow it, for the reasons stated above. I don't think paperwork is required as this is not mentioned in NCoC or ticket conditions.

however they have no legal right to force XC to carry you on the next available service.

XC have legal obligation to accept you on the next service as per NCoC and ticket conditions

It would be helpful if ATOC could provide some clear guidance on this issue.

They have, it is stated in the NCoC that multiple tickets can count as "one journey". They should, however, continue the sentence to avoid all doubt, but this is ATOC and they do not do such things.

Remember the discussion about the Season ticket + combination of tickets? Even I was unsure that it literally meant you could get a Poppleton to York Season and string a load of CDRs splitting at Donny, Peterborough and wherever you want and take a non-stop Grand Central service, but ATOC clarified that and said it is to be interpreted literally and you can do that! They don't tend to give examples or quantify statements.

 

[glynn80]

But that applies to all tickets - not just Advance - and yet they can count as "one journey". As I said before, the key is the wording "one journey" in both the NCoC and the conditions of Advance tickets. Oh, and you can buy them together and not seperately and pay for them one transaction if you want, but I don't think that makes it more valid as it's irrelevant if they were bought seperately. Nowhere is "buying seperately" mentioned.

Whether you buy them in the same transaction or not, each ticket is subject, separately, to their own contract- the NRCoC.

Doesn't it? Where is that stated?

Where is it stated that they, "do", gain the rights of a through ticket, the NRCoC certainly states that you can "use" two or more tickets, not that two or more tickets, gain the rights of through tickets. There is a difference.

This is getting daft. "loosely connected"?! They are bound by the NCoC irrespective of which TOC it is. You could argue that TOC and connections tickets don't entitle you to your through journey in the event of delays because the TOCs are only "loosely connected" but it would be irrelevant and incorrect.

No one is arguing that the Advance tickets aren't subject to the NRCoC but just that the NRCoC do not "state" that split tickets are given the same rights as through tickets with regard to onward connections.

Where is this quoted? Barry Doe is usually right but if he did say that then I strongly disagree for the reasons I stated above.

It is quoted in Rail Magazine, it was not specifically related to splitting tickets, but he was stating that he was sick of receiving letters from people expecting sympathy from him, when they have missed their reserved train when using Advance tickets.

It's quite clear, you can use multiple tickets for ONE JOURNEY, and the tickets state you can continue your JOURNEY in the event of delays.

It's not "quite clear", otherwise there wouldn't be this debate.

 

[yorkie]

Look at it this way. For a TOC to argue that a combination of tickets does not 'count' then they'd have to argue that the use of the term "journey" in the Advance ticket conditions has a different meaning to the use of the term "journey" in the NCoC!!

No court in the land is going to agree with that surely!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is quoted in Rail Magazine, it was not specifically related to splitting tickets, but he was stating that he was sick of receiving letters from people expecting sympathy from him, when they have missed their reserved train when using Advance tickets

If it was not related to splitting then it's not relevant to this discussion and, to be fair, I agree with him, although it is harsh those are the rules and people can't really moan.

If it is related to splitting then I'd be interested to hear the details and I'd be surprised if he made that conclusion.

I don't think ATOC will clarify it, as it's already pretty clear to people who read the full conditions (ie: only a minority of passengers!) by the consistent use of the word "journey" and ATOC know that combining AP tickets does indeed save a fortune in some cases and the TOCs wont want to see their revenues fall.

The majority of people do not read the full T&Cs so will be unaware of it, and you have to link the use of the word "journey" in the NCoC and the ticket conditions to realise it's valid. I think it is clear - when reading thoroughly that it is valid - but I agree it is unclear to someone who does not go through all the conditions. Therefore, it follows that most passengers will be unaware of it.

If ATOC did try to say the word "journey" has different meanings in the NCoC and ticket conditions then I'd be surprised, but even then I think it would be totally unenforceable.

 

[glynn80]

If it was not related to splitting then it's not relevant to this discussion and, to be fair, I agree with him, although it is harsh those are the rules and people can't really moan.

If it is related to splitting then I'd be interested to hear the details and I'd be surprised if he made that conclusion.

It is related, by the fact that Barry Doe argued that passengers enter into a certain degree of risk, when they purchase an Advance ticket. When I originally mentioned it I called it a "similar point" and explained how it tied into the argument.

 

[yorkie]

It is related, by the fact that Barry Doe argued that passengers enter into a certain degree of risk, when they purchase an Advance ticket. When I originally mentioned it I called it a "similar point" and explained how it tied into the argument.

Ah right well I agree with the risk element in the sense that the risk is that you cannot make the first train specified on the first ticket. Once that first train is caught, any subsequent delays are not at the passengers risk according to the terms of the tickets.

 

[John @ home]

No one is arguing that the Advance tickets aren't subject to the NRCoC but just that the NRCoC do not "state" that split tickets are given the same rights as through tickets with regard to onward connections.

Any attempt to interpret Advance Ticket Terms and Conditions in a way disadvantageous to the passenger where this is not stated explicitly in the Terms and Conditions is likely to contravene The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999 No. 2083) [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm].

John

 

[glynn80]

Any attempt to interpret Advance Ticket Terms and Conditions in a way disadvantageous to the passenger where this is not stated explicitly in the Terms and Conditions is likely to contravene The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 (S.I. 1999 No. 2083) [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm].

John

The OFT state the following with regard to terms setting the price or defining the product or service

Terms in consumer contracts which set the price or define the product or service being supplied are 'core terms' of the contract and are exempt from the test of fairness as long as they meet the plain language requirement.

(http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/legal/unfair-terms/what-is-unfair)

So the fact of whether the term is "disadvantageous to the passenger" and therefore causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract, to the detriment of consumers, can thus be disregarded. The only point that need be discussed is what the OFT call the "plain language requirement"

According to the UTCCRs, a standard term must be expressed in plain and intelligible language. A term is open to challenge if it could put the consumer at a disadvantage because he or she is not clear about its meaning - even if its meaning could be worked out by a lawyer. If there is doubt as to what a term means, the meaning most favourable to the consumer will apply.

This is the point that must now be debated...

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I'm sure Yorkie and a few others know my feelings already with regard to the Official line, but what happens in the real world could be different anyway.

I fail to understand why people spend so much time quoting condition 19 when they fail to read the introduction....

Introduction

When you buy a train ticket on the National Rail Network you enter an agreement with the Train Companies whose trains you have a right to use. That agreement gives you the right to make the journey or journeys between the stations or within the zones shown on the ticket you have bought......


The NCoC, in my opinion, also falls short of saying that more than one ticket used for the same journey is considered one ticket for the conditions.

The key points then:

• Cross Country have no agreement with you in regards to the Virgin ticket
• Virgin have no agreement with you in regards to the Cross Country ticket
• Virgin have the responsibility to get you to "your destination"
• Cross Country have the responsibility to get you to "your destination"
• At no point does the NCoC state catagorically that two or more tickets should have the same conditions or joint conditions.

Given the wording of the introduction and a lack of "definition", we must take it as fact that "your destination" means the destination printed on your ticket, what any one person takes it to mean is irrelevant.

Therefore, in my opinion, the conditions of both tickets are seperate and not linked in anyway. Cross Country provided the train you specified at the time that was agreed, from the point at which the ticket/contract started, and presumably got to the place the ticket/contract ended, you failed to board it. If we are only talking about delays then Virgin would have got you from A to B aswell, contract complete.

So the question is....... Who hasn't forfilled their contract?

 

[MKB]

I raised this subject with Passenger Focus a couple of years ago, and they take the same position as Yorkie and John@home. They were keen to hear of any cases where a TOC had refused to accept an Advance ticket due to a misconnect following a connecting journey on another ticket.

I have direct experience on at least three occasions where Virgin *has* accepted my Advance ticket for a later train in this situation. I've no experience of other TOCs in this situation. The key though is to be pro-active about finding the Train Manager -- not always easy --, preferably as you board and before you lose the chance to get off -- even harder --, and explain what has happened. Most of them are pretty reasonable when they realise you're not trying to pull a fast one.

Has anyone got any experience of an Advance ticket being refused in the circumstances described by the OP?

 

[yorkie]

hairyhandedfool - I don't agree with your post, and the main reason - other than reasons I've already stated - is that all this talk about a particular TOC not being liable for delays on another TOC - could equally be applied to a journey on one ticket over multiple TOCs. The TOCs could, indeed, argue over who is liable in such circumstances.

Indeed, the issue of who is liable can occur on walk-on tickets if the last train is missed. Remember the issue Max had on a ticket priced by Northern at a station managed by TPE but where the journey involved NXEC (on time), then Hull Trains (a delay), TPE (missed service due to the delay on HT), and ultimately Northern (final connection missed). They all denied responsibility. So yes, TOCs can and will say "but we aren't to blame" in any circumstance, not just with AP tickets and not just with combination of tickets. Max had a through ticket, walk-on, and yet they all refused to help him. Only a thorough knowledge of the rules got Max home, and only several letters/calls later did the TOCs admit that they were wrong to deny responsibility. Hull Trains tried to make up rules and had to be told off for them to accept they were wrong. TPE were also proven to be liable to arrange onward transport as they manage the station and were in a position to help. The actions of Hull Trains was particularly disgusting as they recieved £££££s compensation from NR (if I recall correctly) due to the delay their train recieved. Yet they were haggling over handing out a tiny proportion of this compensation to the customer in the form of a 5 mile taxi ride.

Attitudes like "TOC A can't help because TOC B was to blame" were proven to be wrong in that case, and they are wrong in this case. Such attitudes have got staff and TOCs into deep trouble. TOCs assume that customers will accept whatever they are told but sometimes passengers fight back and then they get a telling off, which comes a shock to them because they don't expect any of us to know our rights.

When travelling by train it is vital to always know your rights!

 

[glynn80]

hairyhandedfool - I don't agree with your post, and the main reason - other than reasons I've already stated - is that all this talk about a particular TOC not being liable for delays on another TOC - could equally be applied to a journey on one ticket over multiple TOCs. The TOCs could, indeed, argue over who is liable in such circumstances.

Well no, not really as the "one ticket valid on multiple TOCs" is covered by the NRCoC as a single ticket. The origin printed on the ticket is the start of the contract and once the passenger reaches their destination, the contract is completed. It is pretty clear in the NRCoC, as hairyhandedfool has mentioned above, that the contract is an agreement with the Train Companies (not a single TOC) whose trains you have a right to use. That agreement gives you the right to make the journey or journeys between the stations or within the zones shown on the ticket (not tickets).

Indeed, the issue of who is liable can occur on walk-on tickets if the last train is missed. Remember the issue Max had on a ticket priced by Northern at a station managed by TPE but where the journey involved NXEC (on time), then Hull Trains (a delay), TPE (missed service due to the delay on HT), and ultimately Northern (final connection missed). They all denied responsibility. So yes, TOCs can and will say "but we aren't to blame" in any circumstance, not just with AP tickets and not just with combination of tickets. Max had a through ticket, walk-on, and yet they all refused to help him. Only a thorough knowledge of the rules got Max home, and only several letters/calls later did the TOCs admit that they were wrong to deny responsibility.

The example that Max encountered was particularly complicated but nonetheless did serve as an example. The first TOC who Max became delayed on, would have been the TOC who was charged for the taxi bill, the second TOC ,who ran the last station that Max was able to reach by train, would have been the TOC to ring the control of the first TOC, who was delayed, to authorise payment for the taxi and the third TOC who caused the delay to the first TOC would have paid compensation via Network Rail.

Neither me or hairyhandedfool is arguing any different in terms of through tickets and I'm sure he'd agree that what I have just outlined above, would have been the correct procedure. What we are arguing however, is that when splitting your tickets, the contract between the passenger and TOCs, ends at the destination printed on your ticket. That does not stop you using a combination of tickets, just at the changeover point between the split tickets, one contract ends and another begins.

 

[tony_mac]

That does not stop you using a combination of tickets, just at the changeover point between the split tickets, one contract ends and another begins.

I believe that would make the part in the NRCoC about combining tickets entirely meaningless, as you could obviously do that anyway.

I think that the other interpretation is that combining tickets to make a single journey has some sort of status which is different to making two seperate journeys.

 

[glynn80]

I believe that would make the part in the NRCoC about combining tickets entirely meaningless, as you could obviously do that anyway.

I think that the other interpretation is that combining tickets to make a single journey has some sort of status which is different to making two seperate journeys.

Condition 19 does not become meaningless, if you take the interpretation given by myself and hairyhandedfool, because condition 19. is explaining when you CAN use split ticketing, not that split ticketing is explicitly valid at all times. I know persons posting in this thread have been prone to quote only the first sentence from condition 19, but it does contain three scenarios.

9. Using a combination of tickets

You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey and one of the following applies:

(a) they are both Zonal Tickets (unless special conditions prohibit their use);
(b) the train you are in calls at the station where you change from one ticket to another; or
(c) one of the tickets is a Season Ticket (which for this purpose does not include Season Tickets or travel passes issued on behalf of a passenger transport executive or local authority) or a leisure travel pass, and the other ticket(s) is/are not.

If condition 19. was not within the NRCoC, then the scenarios above would not be clarified.

Passengers splitting tickets, without holding a season ticket, would be unaware that the train needed to call at the place where they change from one ticket to another; similarly those splitting tickets and holding a season ticket ,would be unaware of the reverse.

Condition 19, I will reiterate, is not a condition explaining that split ticketing is unequivocally valid, but is a condition laying down the rules relating to split ticketing.

 

[JamesM]

Really enjoying the debate - it's such a shame there isn't a clear answer to the question. I'm sure one day it's going to happen to me, even though I have a twenty minute connection time in Birmingham.

I have to say, in my view, having read the debate, the 2nd TOC (in this case CC) should not have to take me. Surely I have two contracts with two TOC's, if CC leave on time then they have completed their part of the contract, regardless of whether I am on it or not. What's disappointing is that the first TOC should have to shoulder the blame and pay the excess, as it was their fault in the first place - but that'll never happen will it!

Please do keep the discussion going - it's very useful/interesting.

We need someone to effectively be a 'test case', take a refusing TOC to a small claims court and then we'll know the answer!

 

[yorkie]

I still think it is clear cut, and I agree with tony_mac that combining tickets to make one journey is significant.

We need someone to effectively be a 'test case', take a refusing TOC to a small claims court and then we'll know the answer!

There is unlikely to be a case on that basis, because any TOCs that try it on do so on the basis that the passenger won't know the full rules, I've seen that happen before e.g. with the example with the delay on Hull Trains. They try it on, you tell them the rules, and eventually they back down. Sometimes it can take many letters and/or calls and sometimes you do come across people who argue against you but you just have to keep taking it to a higher level until you get someone reasonable.

The only time that such a test case cropped up that I'm aware of was when GNER pompously and incorrectly tried to state that a CDR from Retford and a North East Rover could not be combined if the train did not call at Retford; their argument was that the NE Rover was not a "Season". GNER lost the case and the NCoC was clarified so that there is no no doubt that a Rover does count in the same way as a Season. But such test cases are very rare as TOCs generally do not want bad publicity. The likes of Virgin would back down because it could affect the image of the Virgin brand. Remember the issue of the guard who threatened the comedian who collected money for the old lady on the wrong train? Virgin backed down there and they'd back down again.

XC are less keen on their image, particularly as the company appears to accept that the Arriva brand has little prestige and appear to be embarrassed to use it in connection with the XC franchise. Nevertheless I'd expect them to back down on this issue.

 

[tony_mac]

Following the same arguments it would even be the case that if you had two Advance Tickets from the same TOC that they could refuse you carriage on the second if the first of their trains was late.

I can't imagine any company being willing to try and explain that to the public - although I am thankful that Ryanair don't have a rail franchise (yet!).

 

[glynn80]

I still think it is clear cut

Is that why this debate has occured in the first place then?

If you feel the is issue is so clear cut, address the issue, brought up by myself and hairyhandedfool, located within the introduction of the NRCoC, that states the contract held, is between the points printed on the ticket (not tickets) held?

Are you stating that the customer only has a single contract when they are combining tickets?


I also don't think that anyone in the "split tickets are covered by condition 19 camp", has addressed condition 7 in the NRCoC:

7. Train Company’s responsibilities

The Train Company whose trains you have the right to use, or who has agreed to provide you with any other goods or services, is responsible for providing the goods or services it has agreed to provide. However, the Train Company or its agent(s) are not responsible for:
(a) another Train Company not running any trains;
(b) another person not providing goods or services;
(c) any losses that occur while you are travelling on any other Train Company’s trains;
(d) any losses that occur while you are using those other goods or services.

 

[yorkie]

What does "not responsible for" mean and what does it mean by "losses"? I think that is saying that it's not their fault and you can't claim compensation from them, which is fair enough. I don't think it overrules the rules that state that you can combine tickets for one journey and that you are covered in the event of delays occurring.

If you take that condition in isolation to mean that a TOC does not need to provide onward transport if another TOCs trains are delayed and if that overrules the ticket conditions, then Northern would not honour a "NXEC and connections" ticket if NXEC were late causing you to miss the Northern train, which would be absurd!

Clearly that is not the case.

 

[glynn80]

What does "not responsible for" mean and what does it mean by "losses"? I think that is saying that it's not their fault and you can't claim compensation from them, which is fair enough. I don't think it overrules the rules that state that you can combine tickets for one journey and that you are covered in the event of delays occurring.

As you have put in many replies to persons on this forum, I will ask you, where does it state this? What has led you to interpret that one TOC, not being responsible for losses incurred by travelling with another TOC, is not "clear cut" enough for you.

It clearly states, a TOC is only responsible for the goods and services "it" has agreed to provide, not those of a secondary TOC you were travelling in on. A TOC selling an Advance ticket has agreed to permit you, travel on a service between the points printed on your ticket, on a single specific service, If you miss that service, you have broken the terms of the contract it was sold under, and the contract is then void. It has "not" agreed to permit you travel if you miss the reserved train service.

Any losses, means just that, any loss incurred by travelling, whether this be having to purchase a new ticket because you have missed your reserved service or whether this be injuries incurred because of a train crash.

If you take that condition in isolation then Northern would not honour a "NXEC and connections" ticket if NXEC were late causing you to miss the Northern train, which would be absurd! Clearly this is not the case!

Well Northern don't have reservations onboard their services, so in this example you would be permitted to catch any Northern service to complete your journey, as you yourself have mentioned previously on this forum.