Splitting the journey - Cancellation Problems

[yorkie]

Well Northern don't have reservations so in this example you would be permitted to catch any Northern service to complete your journey

OK, in that case if it were NXEC and TPE. Or even if you reverse it - delayed on NT and then missed the NXEC.

The fact is that by your logic, you'd not be covered even on one ticket if you take that condition in isolation and if you take it to have the meaning that you believe. Clearly that is not the case.

 

[glynn80]

OK, in that case if it were NXEC and TPE. Or even if you reverse it - delayed on NT and then missed the NXEC.

The fact is that by your logic, you'd not be covered even on one ticket if you take that condition in isolation and if you take it to have the meaning that you believe. Clearly that is not the case.

I see you have also failed to address any of the issues I raised in my previous reply, but I will still reply to yours.

A NXEC+Connections ticket, is a through ticket and thus you have a single contract.

In this case, you would have paid for a ticket that entitled you to travel on an NT service between A and B and then an NXEC service between B and C. The train companies NT and NXEC, agreed to the contract by selling you a ticket for this journey.

They could not claim, under condition 7, that they were not responsible because, prior to travel, it has agreed to provide those goods or services (as stated in the opening clause of condition 7).

The difference with split tickets is that it is not a through ticket with one contract.

I would also now ask you to reply to points you have "overlooked" in previous replies by myself.

 

[moonrakerz]

This thread appears to be getting bogged down in the minutiae of Condition 19 etc, etc, etc and losing sight of the original question.

Has anyone been "excess fared" (or what ever you want to call it !), when they have missed a connection due to another TOC's late running ? I would have thought that if this was a common practice lots of people would have been letting us know by now.

I use a lot of advance tickets and split journeys myself, I try and avoid "tight" connections if I can, anyway, so have never had that problem (lucky ?).

I have noticed, certainly on FGW & SWT, that I am VERY rarely asked for my reservation ticket when I offer my full ticket for inspection. I am going to Bristol tomorrow - can almost guarantee that I won't be asked to see if I am on the right train.

 

[yorkie]

They could not claim, under condition 7, that they were not responsible because, prior to travel, it has agreed to provide those goods or services (as stated in the opening clause of condition 7).

Then for split tickets...

They could not claim, under condition 7, that they were not responsible because, prior to travel, it has agreed that one journey can be undertaken on multiple tickets and that you are covered for your journey in the event of delays.

So the argument over condition 7 is in fact irrelevant, as are many other points, and I'm not going to address them any more because the key wording is in the use of the word "journey" in the conditions and I can't be bothered to argue the case any more.

I've spoken to several other people who agree that you are covered but none of them want to enter this debate unfortunately. So, like them, I'll just stick with what's been said before and not reply further.

Has anyone been "excess fared" (or what ever you want to call it !), when they have missed a connection due to another TOC's late running ? I would have thought that if this was a common practice lots of people would have been letting us know by now.
.

I am unaware of that occurring. If it did happen I and many others would be willing to help that person claim it back and give the TOC(s) concerned bad publicity if they refused. Passenger Focus would be on their side too.

 

[glynn80]

Then for split tickets...

They could not claim, under condition 7, that they were not responsible because, prior to travel, it has agreed that one journey can be undertaken on multiple tickets

Yes one journey (i.e. you don't have to get off and then back on trains at changeover points) can be undertaken on multiple tickets, no one is refuting that, what they are refuting is the liabilities of other TOCs and the fact that if you are delayed you do not automatically have the right to catch the next available service. Travel is permitted, whether that travel is unconditional, is the question.

If you are so convinced of the fact the tickets are valid, write to ATOC for clarification, and if this is the case (as it is so clear cut apparently), they will have no choice but to bow down to your interpretation?

This debate was previously aired on uk.railway (http://groups.google.co.uk/group/uk...advance+tickets+missed+train#7e594114ac482876) and similar to this situation, there was no clear cut answer. I think it is pretty irresponsible to claim that the situation is "clear cut", when it so obviously isn't.

 

[yorkie]

Yes one journey

and does "one journey" have a different meaning here? Yes or No?

 

[glynn80]

and does "one journey" have a different meaning here? Yes or No?

This was posted in the topic on uk.r I linked to above:

>The ticket terms and conditions say
>"If delays occur while travelling, you will be allowed to take the next
>available train(s) to complete your journey",
>but also
>"If you miss the first train on which you are booked for any reason, a
>new ticket must be purchased".

>It's not at all clear to me how to interpret these - is the first train
>the first one on that ticket, or the first on which I travel that day?
>So I don't know whether it is safe to combine two Advance tickets. Has
>anyone had this problem before?

It depends on the definitions of "journey", versus "what your ticket allows travel between". I suspect they cherry-pick one or the other, whichever is most advantageous to their point of view.

As I stated before, without a definitive decision made before a court or clarification from ATOC, the arguments in this topic are academic, and it would be foolish to categorically inform any OP, one way or the other, on the issue at hand.

 

[yorkie]

It is non-sensical for the answer to be anything other than "No, they mean the same thing".

There's no way they can get away with saying the term "journey" in the NCoC means different to the term "journey" in the ticket conditions (which are bound by the NCoC). No way at all. And I'm sticking by that!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Apologies for going back a bit in the thread, but as I have just come back online I feel I must answer questions raised.

A through ticket for use on multiple TOCs would have the origin and destination of your entire journey, the TOCs involved all agreed to provide their services to get you to your destination, therefore they have no arguement to use, I have never (knowingly) suggested differently.

An example of when Condition 19 would be used was in the national press a few years back, which I believe led to the whole 'Valid to arrive after' restrictions coming about. Certain Virgin trains staff were alledging that a peak fare from Liverpool to Crewe and off peak fare from Crewe to London couldn't be combined on a particular train (which left Liverpool at peak time but was off peak when it left Crewe), even though the train stopped at Crewe (anyone remember that?). The train company admitted that it could be used as it was possible for people to get off the train and back on again. No-one is disputing this either.

I'm not entirely certain Condition 7 applies here though, I did consider it on the basis of the Train company not being responsible for another TOC not running trains, although I believed that this was on rocky ground as we are talking about delays, not wide spread cancellations, although I suspect the same theory applies. I take "loses" to refer to lost baggage, theft, etc, rather than financial loss involved in changing tickets due to delay, although I can see where Glynn is coming from.

BUT, I must be clear, the NCoC in no way states that two tickets issued for the same journey consistute a single contract, infact the introduction is quite specific, that the contract applies to the TOCs whose services you are entitled to use, between the origin and destination as printed on your ticket. The only reference to using two tickets for one journey (that immediately springs to mind) is condition 19.

I realise what I am about to say is a slightly different topic, but I believe it has relevence because the source of the arguement is the same. What Yorkie is also basically implying (by intention or otherwise) is that if I held, say, a Stalybridge to Manchester ticket and a Manchester to London First open return, and I was delayed on a TPE train by an hour between Stalybridge and Manchester I could claim compensation for the whole journey to London (as they were used to form one journey) from TPE, because they delayed me. I think we all know that TPE would laugh at the suggestion and Virgin, Northern, London Midland and anyone else whose services can be used on a Manchester-London ticket wouldn't give two hoots about the delay on TPE's service!

I also said, and will repeat here, that the official line and what actually happens are sometimes different, customer service and all that.

 

[MKB]

I don't really understand the importance being placed on the number of contracts. I think it's pretty clear that if you buy two tickets, you have two legal contracts.

What is in dispute is whether the contracts are independent of one another. It's quite feasible legally for the contract arising from the second-bought ticket to modify the first contract by redefining the "journey".

From a passenger perspective, what is particular irksome about the interpration of the NCoC that favours the TOC, is that most to/from station combinations do not offer an Advance fare. So, unless you are rich enough to able to afford flexible fares, you have no choice but to split-ticket.

 

[gordonthemoron]

during MML (NatEx), I was advised, by Nottingham Ticket Office, that an advance from Luton Airport Parkway to Nottingham could be used on the next available train if my incoming flight was delayed. All I needed to do was get a note from the airport.

As luck would have it, I was not delayed.

 

[maddeningcrowds]

Transpenine Express do a similair ticket from Manchester Airport called "Airport Advance" which allows you to travel on a later train if your flight is delayed. However it has modified ticket conditions that explain this so it doesn't count as the usual "Advance Purchase" tickets. I'm not sure its relevant to the split AP ticket issue.

 

[EltonRoad]

Condition 19 goes on to say:

"You must comply with any restriction shown on the tickets relating to travel in the trains of a particular Train Company or Train Companies."

So if you're travelling from say Aberdeen to York on an advance ticket with Cross Country and York to King's Cross on an advance ticket with NXEC and Cross Country is late causing you to miss NXEC, you won't be complying with the restriction shown on the NXEC ticket. This isn't NXEC's fault and therefore they can charge you.

To state it's all one journey under condition 19, I believe, won't wash, because condition 19 also states "You must comply with any restriction shown on the tickets" and you would have known that combining two advances meant risking missing the second train when you set out. Hence it was a known risk which you took and sadly lost. Hence I find in favour of NXEC!

Over to you yorkie .. :roll:

 

[glynn80]

What is in dispute is whether the contracts are independent of one another. It's quite feasible legally for the contract arising from the second-bought ticket to modify the first contract by redefining the "journey".

Not disputing this point but I would be interested in a source for future reference?

 

[EltonRoad]

Having read all these posts, I doubt there's one "solution", there are numerous interpretations.

I myself am firmly of the opinion that an advance purchase is valid only on the train on the ticket and if you are late then it doesn't matter why you are late - you've lost out in that case.

A court might look at what was intended by Condition 19. To my mind Condition 19 exists to prevent someone jumping off a train and back on again and claiming they've started a new journey. Condition 19 simply makes it easier for passengers to combine tickets legitimately whilst remaining within the conditions of the ticket.

I think once you start combining advance purchase tickets and claiming you're making one journey is pushing the boundaries of what was intended by the above rules. There's nothing to prevent you from doing it but you will know when you set out that you risk missing the connection, which in turn renders the second ticket invalid. Because you know this in advance, and you are dealing with separate train companies, the second of which has honoured its share of the contract, I believe you won't have a case to argue if the first train is late.

 

[yorkie]

To state it's all one journey under condition 19, I believe, won't wash, because condition 19 also states "You must comply with any restriction shown on the tickets" and you would have known that combining two advances meant risking missing the second train when you set out. Hence it was a known risk which you took and sadly lost. Hence I find in favour of NXEC!

Over to you yorkie .. :roll:

No, you would have known that combining two tickets did not mean risking any train because the ticket conditions state you are covered for your entire "journey". Hence there is no risk! Hence I find in favour of the passenger.

I think once you start combining advance purchase tickets and claiming you're making one journey is pushing the boundaries

Why? NCoC states you can combine multiple tickets for one journey. Why is it pushing the boundaries if one or more of these tickets happens to be an Advance? Where is it stated that Advance tickets cannot be combined?

...you are dealing with separate train companies, the second of which has honoured its share of the contract,...,

Nonsense. There is nothing written anywhere in the NCoC that states that if your journey involves multiple TOCs they can strand you!

Advance tickets can involve multiple TOCs even on one ticket, so the fact that different TOCs may - or may not - be involved is a red herring. We are debating whether it is possible to combine AP tickets and that applies irrespective of TOCs. Your argument is centered on combining AP tickets on different TOCs so how would you argue against combining two NXEC and connection tickets?

As for the second TOC "honouring its share of the contract", if they refused to allow you to complete your journey as defined in the NCoC then they would not be honouring the contract!

I myself am firmly of the opinion that an advance purchase is valid only on the train on the ticket and if you are late then it doesn't matter why you are late - you've lost out in that case.

Clearly this is not the case.

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."

 

[EltonRoad]

I see you're quite convinced about this yorkie!

However in response to your first paragraph, the NCoC does not say "You are covered". Condition 19 says "You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey." (my emphasis). That is not the same thing as saying "You're covered if you combine any two tickets", which, I believe, is what you are saying.

I believe that there is a risk because of the other statement in Condition 19 that says "You must comply with any restriction shown on the tickets relating to travel in the trains of a particular Train Company or Train Companies". Combining two Anytime Returns does not convey a risk because the tickets are valid on any train. But combining two advance purchase tickets does carry a risk that you will miss your connection. You know this in advance. I think the train companies could argue this and could win.

 

[glynn80]

No, you would have known that combining two tickets did not mean risking any train because the ticket conditions state you are covered for your entire "journey".

Where is the word "entire" located within condition 19. of the NRCoC. This has been paraphrased (badly) by yourself.

Nonsense. There is nothing written anywhere in the NCoC that states that if your journey involves multiple TOCs they can strand you!

Equally there is nothing written within the NRCoC that states that they are not permitted to strand passengers holding combined Advance tickets (which constitutes holding two contracts).

Advance tickets can involve multiple TOCs even on one ticket, so the fact that different TOCs may - or may not - be involved is a red herring. We are debating whether it is possible to combine AP tickets and that applies irrespective of TOCs. Your argument is centered on combining AP tickets on different TOCs so how would you argue against combining two NXEC and connection tickets?

No because this is a through ticket with one contract.

 

[yorkie]

. But combining two advance purchase tickets does carry a risk that you will miss your connection.

But just one advance purchase ticket carries the same risk that you will miss your connection, if it is for multiple trains.

 

[glynn80]

But just one advance purchase ticket carries the same risk that you will miss your connection, if it is for multiple trains.

As I have mentioned more than once (and even in the reply just above your last post), this is irrelevant if the ticket is a through ticket and thus covered under one contract (as opposed to two when the tickets are split).

 

[yorkie]

Where is the word "entire" located within condition 19. of the NRCoC. This has been paraphrased (badly) by yourself.

Journey means journey at the end of the day, not partial journey. Adding the word "entire" is irrelevant. I wont add it if you don't want me to, it makes no difference.

No because this is a through ticket with one contract.

But why does the number of contracts matter?

The contracts state that you can combine tickets for one journey anyway.

As I have mentioned more than once (and even in the reply just above your last post), this is irrelevant if the ticket is a through ticket and thus covered under one contract (as opposed to two when the tickets are split).

I agree it is irrelevant, it's irrelevant whether it's one ticket or two tickets! Either way you may complete your journey, which may consist of one ticket, or it may consist of two or more.

 

[EltonRoad]

I think most people reading this would agree that it is not the same risk.

 

[yorkie]

I think most people reading this would agree that it is not the same risk.

only in the sense that some guards are not familiar with the ticket conditions and NCoC reference to the word "journey", and the risk of having an argument with the guard.

 

[glynn80]

Journey means journey at the end of the day, not partial journey. Adding the word "entire" is irrelevant. I wont add it if you don't want me to, it makes no difference.

But why does the number of contracts matter?

The contracts state that you can combine tickets for one journey anyway.

I agree it is irrelevant, it's irrelevant whether it's one ticket or two tickets! Either way you may complete your journey, which may consist of one ticket, or it may consist of two or more.

I am not going to restate over and over again points already made, either by myself, or others.

I am more than happy to reply to specific new issues that arise, but I see no point going round and round in circles.

 

[Max]

Personally I would agree with the argument that you should be covered. The issue regarding the use of the word 'journey' is particularly interesting. Surely in a legally binding contract this word cannot just randomly take on a different meaning? Otherwise it would have to be explained in a footnote. I doubt any opposition to this by a TOC would stand up in court. Yes, the passenger does have two contracts; but the terms of the contract would seem to suggest that these can overlap to some extent.

 

[glynn80]

Personally I would agree with the argument that you should be covered. The issue regarding the use of the word 'journey' is particularly interesting. Surely in a legally binding contract this word cannot just randomly take on a different meaning? Otherwise it would have to be explained in a footnote. I doubt any opposition to this by a TOC would stand up in court. Yes, the passenger does have two contracts; but the terms of the contract would seem to suggest that these can overlap to some extent.

But I think the discussion has moved slightly away from just defining the meaning of the word "journey" in two documents.

I think undeniably (by either side) we can state that the passenger has two contracts, if they purchase two separate tickets. Whether this then means, that each TOC only has to honour and take responsibility for your journey as far as the origin and destination, as printed on each separate ticket (stated in the introduction of the NRCoC), is the debatable point.

There are other issues that cloud the situation such as condition 7. and OFT regulations but the crux of the discussion is placed above.

 

[Mystic Force]

The fact that this is an issue is a sad reflection on our railways. We have been encouraged to obtain these kinds of products by being priced out of more flexible options but then we end up in a situation where we could potentially be stranded its rather poor. I could be on one train be delayed by another TOCs train causing issues and then be denied travell by that same TOC. is it possible to book 2 advance journeys on one ticket (due to having to connect somewhere) if not the whole thing is unfair with such a high penalty. No wonder people drive its too complicated for the average person to know what's going on without investing a excesive amount of time.

 

[EltonRoad]

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.

 

[paul1609]

I think the reality of the situation is that 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. What I do think is dangerous is that some posters express as fact on here what is only really their interpretation of the terms. I feel this is dangerous and could lead to people being proscecuted or stranded.

 

[MKB]

What is also dangerous is people who can least afford it feeling pressurised into buying an expensive flexible ticket rather than a combination involving an Advance ticket.

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.

However, until we start to hear of cases where people have fallen victim to the more restrictive interpretation of the NCoC, it's all academic and people should feel relaxed about sticking to the cheaper tickets (as long as they don't miss the first train!).