Splitting the journey - Cancellation Problems

[glynn80]

As I said previously, Passenger Focus have told me that they would side with the passenger in this debate, so you could at least expect their support if you end up in dispute with a TOC.

Shame they're a toothless organisation with no real legal power over the TOCs.

 

[John @ home]

there are many interpretations of contract law and that many of the interpretations concerning the various rail fares are yet to be tested in the courts.

I think the absence of such Court cases is probably more significant than any of the definitive opinions given on this forum.

It is very seldom that legal advice is couched in definitive terms. None of us have been able to quote specific examples of passengers being stranded, nor of passengers being charged when using a later train with an Advance ticket due to a connexion from a different Advance ticket being missed.

This may be due to a judgement by individual TOCs that the adverse publicity was likley to cause more damage than the prospective additional income. Or perhaps the legal advice indicated a substantial risk of losing the case and, if confirmed by the Court of Appeal, setting an adverse precedent. Or perhaps both.

From the passenger's point of view, I don't think the reason actually matters.

John

 

[ashworth]

Ok. I still believe that a TOC could argue that, if you miss your connection, your second ticket is invalid on the basis that you knew in advance that by combining two advance purchase tickets you could miss the connection. Hence it's a risk you took. This applies equally to combined advance purchase tickets for different TOCs or the same TOC.

If you combined an Anytime Single and an advance purchase, and missed your connection, would you be covered? Again, I don't think so, I can't see it's any different to claiming you were delayed in a traffic jam. At the end of the day you have bought a ticket to travel on a specific train at a specific time and, in my opinion, the TOC's responsibility ends with providing that specific seat. They could quote Condition 19 "You must comply with any restriction shown on the tickets", and if you quote Condition 19 back at them i.e. "You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey," I don't think this implies the TOC has to accept you onto a train for which you are late. It simply implies you won't be penalised for combining tickets when buying a through ticket would have been more expensive.

This brings up a whole new twist to this thread and one that probably affects far more passengers than those who buy 2 AP tickets.
Although there are many journeys where AP tickets are available including local connections at the beginnings and endings of journeys, there are many more journeys where the local connections are not available.

For example on many journeys from Mansfield it is often far cheaper to buy AP tickets from Nottingham and then just get Single or Day Return ticket for the Mansfield to Nottingham part of the journey, purchasing that on the day.
Whenever I do this I always get the train before I really need to get from Mansfield in case of late running or cancellation. On the return journey I never leave it until the last train from Nottingham just in case my longer AP part of the journey is delayed and I get stuck at Nottingham.

My feelings about this has always been that it is my responsibility to get myself to and from Mansfield to Nottingham on time. I could travel by car and get in a traffic jam or break down. I could travel by bus and be delayed. Is travelling by train on a separate buy on the day ticket any different if that gets delayed?
I may have always been wrong and could have left home and arrived back at a more convenient time but I have always been slightly paranoid about missing my connection!

 

[yorkie]

I've been 'stranded' on split tickets and got a taxi with not a mention of the fact that tickets were split. On one occasion the tickets were not looked at and they only looked at the timings for the journey to check it was a genuine delay. On the other occasion the tickets were looked at in detail and there was no question of the tickets not counting as one journey.

As Max found out, having one ticket and not splitting does not guarantee they'll agree to getting you a taxi if you are stranded. Read the story here. The TOCs sometimes make up absolute rubbish, and they may do this irrespective of whether the ticket is split or not.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....No wonder people drive its too complicated for the average person to know what's going on without investing a excesive amount of time.

The average person is put off by the cost of the through ticket or the journey time, rather than the complexities of split-ticketing. The average person's knowledge of split-ticketing is probably limited by what they have read in the papers, or seen on TV, advertised by people like Martin Lewis, or seen on his website or similar, which by the way also comments:

....

One thing to watch for

In the very rare event that your split ticket stop coincides with a place you may change train, your first train were late and you’d booked a specific ticket, you may find your ticket isn’t valid for the last half of the journey.

E.g. If you travel from Aford to Cshire via Btown and split your tickets at Btown, plus need to change trains there, if the Ashire to Btown train is late, your ticket may not be valid for the later Btown to Cshire train.....

I don't think either side of this 'discussion' will agree on this until the definitions for "journey", etc, etc are defined by the NCoC. To my eyes split-tickets are precisely that, split, seperate contracts with seperate companies.

The way I see it, until clarified by the proper authourities, is that the first ticket is contract A for TOC A to get you from Aford to Btown, and the second ticket is contract B for TOC B to get you from Btown to Cshire.

TOC A forfilled it's contract to get you to Btown, if late you are entitled to compensation according to their customer charter, as detailed in the NCoC, there is no requirement for further travel arrangements because you have reached your "destination" (as printed on your ticket), contract complete.

TOC B provided the train from Btown (your origin as printed on your ticket), on time, with your reserved seat on it. They did not agree to provide anything in contract A, so that is irrelevant, their side of contract B was forfilled.

A through ticket would mean both TOC A and TOC B have a responsibility to get you from Aford to Cshire via Btown, regardless of any delays.

Your money, your choice.

If anyone else has differing views, fine, but I would be wary of informing other people of conditions or rights that do not appear in print or are subject to debate or interpretation, unless it is on the safe side. As I see it, the only way to inform on the safe side of this 'discussion' is to say that you have no right to a later train, because it is not written anywhere in black and white, until a change is made to the NCoC or a court decides either way and, as has been noted, there is no sign of that happening soon.

 

[tony_mac]

I wouldn't take too much notice of what that website says

Trick Five.
Travelling short: cheap but banned

Saver fares are often less likely to be available on more popular routes, especially commuter ones. This means it's sometimes possible to buy a ticket for a longer journey that incorporates your route at a cheaper price and make some serious savings.
...

Many people do this, on lots of different routes and it's known as travelling 'short', but sadly it's a no-go as it's against the ticket's terms and conditions, and you can get kicked off a train if you do.

Yes, the situation is obviously open to some interpretation, and there may be some risk involved that a TOC may be difficult - but that happens even with undoubtedly valid tickets. So far nobody seems to have had a problem with it. It doesn't cost the TOC anything to let you onto the next train, and is the reasonable thing to do.

Do you really think that a TOC could take you to court because you refused to buy a new ticket when you were delayed by one of their own trains? There is nothing in the 'two tickets, two contracts' argument that would stop them from doing this.

 

[ian13]

Not wanting to bring up a dead thread, but I think there's some legal points on splitting a journey and missing the connection to try and address. I should mention that I have studied only criminal law, and not contract law, however to the general principles used it should be insignificant.

Matters of fact:

1. Where a term is not defined, it is interpreted in it's ordinary meaning (Whiteley v. Chappel 1868, extended to contract law in Watson v. Phipps 1985). For the term 'journey', it seems fairly apparent that this ordinarily means "the act of traveling from one place to another" in this context. By extension, in two separate documents where the term 'journey' is used without further definition, it will carry identical meaning.
2. NRCoC 19. states: "You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey and [...] (b) the train you are in calls at the station where you change from one ticket to another [a&c omitted for clarity]"
3. Advance ticket terms and conditions state: "If delays occur while travelling, you will be allowed to take the next available train(s) to complete your journey."
4. Advance ticket terms and conditions state: "You must be at the departure station shown on your ticket[...] If you miss the first train on which you are booked for any reason, a new ticket must be purchased."
5. Each ticket is evidence of a contract, to which the T&C's are the NRCoC, the ticket T&C's and any TOC T&C's. There appears to be no reason why this contract cannot be modified though the use of multiple tickets to form a single contract if the T&C's allow/demand.

Issues:

1. We can take 'journey' to have the same meaning, and therefore points 2 & 3 imply that you can continue travelling providing you obeyed the minimum interchanges etc. However, the use of NRCoC 19 in this context is questionable, as the wording of b) implies switching of tickets on the same train, rather than during an interchange (of course, this opens a whole new can of worms). The intention of the conditions appears to be to allow multiple tickets on one train, rather than to allow switching of tickets at a station (as this would naturally be valid under the switching of tickets idea), but as a result does not make it clear as to if switching at a station can constitute a single journey.
2. Point 4 also implies, that as part of the tickets T&Cs, an advance ticket will be invalid if the first train is missed for any reason. Clearly this is badly defined, as one could miss a train due to security alerts, the train leaving/ locking doors early or anything, and the ticket is supposedly invalidated. However, it is not really at question if it is missed under normal circumstances. It would read that the "first train on which you are booked" is the one leaving from your ticket's departure station, and therefore even if the journey is valid, the tickets T&C's are not met if you miss the train due to an earlier part of the contract. This clearly conflicts with the point 3 from the same T&Cs if it can be taken to being a single journey (see NRCoC 19. interpretation concerns above).

To be honest, it's just not clear. It can be interpreted either way, but one cannot explicitly allow it given the problems above. It therefore seems to be that if given the wording a consumer could interpret it to mean it is valid, then it is likely a court would support them, but there is doubt over this.

 

[yorkie]

The intention of the conditions appears to be to allow multiple tickets on one train, rather than to allow switching of tickets at a station (as this would naturally be valid under the switching of tickets idea), but as a result does not make it clear as to if switching at a station can constitute a single journey.

It does not matter what the intention is as what matters is how it is worded, and it doesn't say it is limited to staying on the same train! I don't see how the act of getting off one train and on another makes it a seperate "journey".

If there is doubt in the wording of a contract, then the Law is on the side of the consumer, right?

 

[ian13]

It does not matter what the intention is as what matters is how it is worded, and it doesn't say it is limited to staying on the same train! I don't see how the act of getting off one train and on another makes it a seperate "journey".

If there is doubt in the wording of a contract, then the Law is on the side of the consumer, right?

It is indeed on the side of the consumer. The thing is, by going between two trains when you change tickets, by the wording in NRCoC 19 you are not completing one journey, as none of the conditions a,b&c apply. Instead, you have to assume that if you can complete one journey with multiple tickets on one train, it makes no difference that you change trains. I don't know how the responsibilities of the TOCs are set about when using one ticket on multiple TOCs/trains, and if this would limit those responsibilities per ticket. However, it's not even the responsibility of the customer to know that, as their rights are set out in the NRCoC/any T&Cs, and the TOCs have to accept carriage in compliance with these rules as per Rail Settlement or whatever it is.

Law (atleast criminally) is usually interpreted one of two ways (and here you would go with whichever favours the customer), either literally (i.e. exact wording) or by looking at the intention. Literally NRCoC 9 doesn't allow a combination, as you are not on the same train. Intentionally, it doesn't appear to, but that's what what I discussed above, and it is questionable, but I'm not sure how reasonable it is to question it.

Of course, with regards to wording of b, you could claim that literally "the train you are in" does "[call] at the station where you change from one ticket to another", and then you disembark to catch the second. Again, it would be for the court to decide if on the balance of probabilities you did interpret it as such.

 

[glynn80]

Very nice summary ian13, certainly gave us a perspective of how someone with some legal training would see the issue at hand.

 

[yorkie]

Of course, with regards to wording of b, you could claim that literally "the train you are in" does "[call] at the station where you change from one ticket to another", and then you disembark to catch the second.

Indeed. There's nothing that limits you to one train per journey.

So I am satisfied that it's perfectly valid to combine tickets for one journey regardless of whether or not a change of trains is required.

 

[paul1609]

Personally I agree with Ian that its not defined and I think it is wrong to suggest to people that they have the same rights with 2 tickets unless you are personally prepared to compensate them when it all goes wrong.

 

[MKB]

Well I'm about to do Nuneaton-Stoke (LM) & Stoke-Manchester (XC) on two Advance Single tickets, as the only available through ticket for that journey was a non-Advance ticket at over twice the price, and I don't actually need a flexible ticket.

The connection time is the minimum allowed of just 5 minutes. I bought both tickets in a single transaction, although I note that the email confirmation refers to "Journey 1" and "Journey 2" (although that semantic nuance, which could be significant in a legal battle, wan't disclosed prior to purchase).

I hope I'm not going to be a test case for this particular argument.

Edited to add: First train ran 5 minutes late into Stoke, but was still ahead of the XC, so made connection no problem.