St Pancras to Stratford validity: can you remain on board and travel via the Kent coast?

[yorkie]

Some booking sites allow tickets to be used for journeys where the destination station is called at twice.

Consider this example from Trainline:

St Pancras International to Stratford International via Ramsgate offers £6.40 fares via the Kent coast, with a journey time of over 3 hours and 20 minutes.



Going through a station non-stop is not the same as choosing not to alight when your train calls at your final destination.

I do not believe a customer can legitimately choose to not alight at Stratford when the train calls there the first time; arguably the ticket expires once the passenger has been conveyed to their destination.

If anyone thinks the customer can legitimately choose to travel beyond the destination printed on their ticket on a train that calls at that destination, feel free to post why you think that is the case.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Some booking sites allow tickets to be used for journeys where the destination station is called at twice.

Consider this example from Trainline:

St Pancras International to Stratford International via Ramsgate offers £6.40 fares via the Kent coast, with a journey time of over 3 hours and 20 minutes.

View attachment 53227

Going through a station non-stop is not the same as choosing not to alight when your train calls at your final destination.

I do not believe a customer can legitimately choose not to alight at Stratford when the train calls there the first time as arguably the ticket expires once the passenger has been conveyed to their destination.

If anyone thinks the customer can legitimately choose to travel beyond the destination printed on their ticket on a train that calls at that destination, feel free to post why you think that is the case.

I don't see how this is any different from the situation posted in the thread about Birmingham-Northampton. The holder of a train ticket has certain contractual rights; namely to travel on part or all of any one permitted route from the printed origin to the printed destination (subject to any break of journey restrictions).

Absent a clause that the contractual rights expire if you call at the printed destination, I do not see how it can be argued that the ticket simply "expires". It expires when you have exhausted your contractual rights or through the effluxion of time.

The "destination" printed on your ticket is simply a means of determining the permitted routes over which you are granted the right to travel. It has no special significance beyond this. Of course, because it determines the permitted routes, in many cases a ticket will expire once the destination is reached. However, as in the examples given, it is quite possible to reach your ticketed "destination" and yet still have remaining contractual rights.

I suspect it will take clarification through an update of the NRCoT for there to be any more unanimous agreement across different members!

 

[A Challenge]

In this case, if you are actually going to Stratford International then surely you have rights as you are using the itinerary given at the time of booking, a contract to do that surely? With stopping short or BOJ I'd say it wasn't, but I'm not sure in this case.

 

[yorkie]

OK, is anyone actually prepared to have an experienced and confident solicitor on standby to represent them in court, and make this journey as often as it takes to be prosecuted? (which might be one journey, or it might be several...)

 

[A Challenge]

You could rack up quite a lot of fares in the time, how frequently are the RPIs out?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

OK, is anyone actually prepared to have an experienced and confident solicitor on standby to represent them in court, and make this journey as often as it takes to be prosecuted? (which might be one journey, or it might be several...)

I didn't think the day would come where I would substantially disagree with @yorkie, but I'm sorry - that is an utterly pointless post as I am sure nobody is going to make the journey just for the purpose of being prosecuted! If someone already makes a similar journey, and is interested in this area, it may make sense, but making the journey just to test the matter is a waste of time really. There are far better things to have a solicitor do with the required amount of money!

 

[yorkie]

You could rack up quite a lot of fares in the time, how frequently are the RPIs out?

Very rarely would you see an RPI, however all trains have an OBM (On Board Manager) whose role consists of patrolling the train providing passenger assistance including the checking of tickets.

....I am sure nobody is going to make the journey just for the purpose of being prosecuted...

True.

However, given all the available evidence suggests you cannot legitimately travel beyond the destination printed on your ticket if your train calls at that station, then unless a court makes a judgement to the contrary, or alternatively you obtain some other strong evidence (such as a barristers opinion), I am not persuaded by your argument.

It would be great if a ruling was made that proved me wrong, as I would welcome that from a pro-customer point of view, but I just can't be persuaded based on the available evidence at this time.

 

[sheff1]

This thread was started, I believe, to follow on from the Birmingham - Northampton thread. The examples though are rather different:

- in the other thread, the journey is from Birmingham to Northamapton and return, but using a Stechford ticket as that is cheaper (and possibly, at times, a shorter overall journey time)

- here the journey is from St Pancras to Stratford Int at the point-to-point fare. There is no fare saving nor time saving in going via Ramsgate.

 

[yorkie]

I agree the circumstances are different in the two cases, but in both the question is ultimately the same:

Can you legitimately choose to remain on a train which releases its doors at your ticketed destination station, purely on the basis that the route would otherwise be permitted?

(There are several potential reasons why it may be the case that it would otherwise be valid if the train did not call there, but don't think it makes a material difference to the underlying question)

 

[BluePenguin]

I agree the circumstances are different in the two cases, but in both the question is ultimately the same:

Can you legitimately choose to remain on a train which releases its doors at your ticketed destination station, purely on the basis that the route would otherwise be permitted?

(There are several potential reasons why it may be the case that it would otherwise be valid if the train did not call there, but don't think it makes a material difference to the underlying question)

I would say the answer is no, as it could and most likely would be argued that you had over travelled. However a ticket from Gravesend to St Pancras via the coat is valid as unlike in the Stratford example, you don't pass through the destination on your ticket

 

[yorkie]

I would say the answer is no, as it could and most likely would be argued that you had over travelled. However a ticket from Gravesend to St Pancras via the coat is valid as unlike in the Stratford example, you don't pass through the destination on your ticket

Yes that is valid but I am specifically talking about a customer being on a train that calls at their destination station and the customer choosing not to alight at their destination.

 

[Dai Corner]

What about the reverse journey (Stratford to St Pancras via Ramsgate)? Does starting a journey at a given station and passing through it later count as doubling back? If a journey is permitted in one direction is it always permitted in the opposite one?

 

[BluePenguin]

Oh goodnss, this thread opens a large of worms which those of us in the know prefer not to talk about in public let alone online.

That said, it is a good question to ask as I and most likely many of us have wondered whether doing this is valid. As the cat is out of the bag, it will be interesting to hear what people think and any answers could potentially help those who choose to travel this way in the future.

 

[BluePenguin]

What about the reverse journey (Stratford to St Pancras via Ramsgate)? Does starting a journey at a given station and passing through it later count as doubling back? If a journey is permitted in one direction is it always permitted in the opposite one?

Yes that is valid but I am specifically talking about a customer being on a train that calls at their destination station and the customer choosing not to alight at their destination.

Arriving at the destination station on your ticket and not getting off there surely cannot be allowed can it?

 

[yorkie]

What about the reverse journey (Stratford to St Pancras via Ramsgate)?

It's less clear-cut but I don't think such a journey should be offered either.

Does starting a journey at a given station and passing through it later count as doubling back?

There is no general rule against doubling back per se. That's a myth.

If a journey is permitted in one direction is it always permitted in the opposite one?

I can't immediately think of any examples off the top of my head where a journey is only permitted (ignoring what is possible) in one direction, but if anyone has any potential examples I would welcome them to be posted in a new thread.

Arriving at the destination station on your ticket and not getting off there surely cannot be allowed can it?

I personally don't think so, even if the routeing would otherwise allow it, as it's a contractual matter of the company fulfilling its contractual obligation to convey the customer to their final ticketed destination.

It's not just Trainline's provider who validate this journey; Silverrail do too. I take the view that both implementations are incorrect. But I can see why they are making these mistakes, as it is a challenge for journey planner providers.

 

[some bloke]

unquestionably valid

unquestionably invalid on the return

It seems that elements of what might reasonably be regarded as the "contract" contradict each other.do
There is a legitimate use of the crazy-looking "journey":

I can recall many instances where my travel followed that pattern. (e.g from Northampton to Birmingham to meet a friend for lunch, then from Birmingham to Stechford to visit my granny)

If the average passenger wanted to do that, and both NRE and the train company selling the ticket said they could, it may not be unreasonable for them to assume that is the contract.

It would seem unreasonable to expect them to look up the Conditions of Travel just in case it said the opposite.

it's a contractual matter of the company fulfilling its contractual obligation to convey the customer to their final ticketed destination.

But the passenger might be said to have bought the ticket on the basis of more than that.

The advertised basis - the "journey" described before purchase - is that you can go from A to C, then B.

The fact that the "allowed" train service from A to C stops at B - and even the apparent fact that if the "journey" is valid the passenger can break it - are in the context of that advertised "journey".

If the passenger wants to go to C and has bought the ticket on that basis, and if the ticket is valid, it would be sensible to allow them to travel on an earlier train calling at B rather than force them to wait for a later train that doesn't.

On the other hand, it seems hard to support the idea that the validity is "unquestionable" or the idea that RPIs would have no grounds for asking for details. The ticket is supposed to be subject to this:

13.4. If you travel beyond the destination shown on the Ticket, you will be treated as having joined the train without a valid Ticket for the additional part of your journey.

The question* seems to me to come down to which should take priority: the contractual "obligation" to alight or the contractual "right" to travel further.
* leaving aside questions about whether TOCs are bound in principle to honour what retailers sell.

How to decide that? It might be held that the advertised "journey" as NRE calls it, is more prominently stated to the passenger than Condition of Travel 13.4 forbidding travel from B to C.

They are perhaps more likely to see the itinerary than the condition.

That interpretation - that the condition can be overridden - might be helped by arguing that although 13.4 looks strict it isn't: you may in some circumstances legitimately "travel beyond the destination" on a non-stop train to double back.

Consumer law says if a term can have more than one meaning, the interpretation more favourable to the customer prevails. A passenger might argue that the term of the agreement purporting to allow travel via C to B can mean "and this overrides 13.4", that it as a matter of principle overrides any other condition, or that it does in practice because it is more prominent.

The Ramsgate case is different in that here a retailer is offering something for £6.40 which NRE advertises for £75.60.

It would seem unlikely someone would be penalised for being ripped off like that. Perhaps it might be argued that if that is a valid "journey" because NRE appears to go "out of its way" to offer it, the Stechford one is too. Or that that doesn't apply, because the Ramsgate one is priced so differently.

Perhaps someone might argue about the meaning and relevance of condition 16.3 and/or the info box below it.

Someone might argue that if the passenger isn't intending to go to C and B in that order, that indicates a likelihood that they are evading the right fare, perhaps in conjunction with other specific circumstances.

Perhaps there might be other arguments.

But the arguments need to be on the basis of what can be reasonably be taken - as a whole - as the contract or elements of it.

Maybe sometimes questions about ticket validity in practice come down to the specific use of tickets by specific people. A person with knowledge of the Conditions might be viewed differently from someone without.

I confess that this response is because some of the issues interest me in the abstract rather than because I think this type of case is of any great importance.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

IANAL, but I can see two problems with this:

1) Hard cases make bad law. I can't remember where I got this particular old saw from, but it seems to me that while Yorkie has (I think?) deliberately found an extreme case to make a point, it makes it hard to draw any general conclusions.
2) When law gets into the courts, it's in the hands of judges, who may feel that it's their job to apply common sense and then make the letter of the law fit the common sense. The late Lord Denning was a prominent advocate of this approach.

So let's imagine this case gets to court, and ends up before a judge like Tom Denning. The defendant (probably the appellant by this point) asserts that their intention was to travel from St Pancras to Stratford International.

What is the Denningian judge to conclude? If the appellant is telling the truth, they're obviously an idiot in that they are taking several hours over a journey that should take minutes. Appeal dismissed, in that the appellant is behaving unreasonably.

If the appellant is not being truthful, and was actually looking for a cheap ride to Ramsgate, then on a common sense reading, this is cheating: if the free market value of a journey to Ramsgate was £6.40 that would be all that the average passenger was prepared to pay. <Edited to add> The appellant is clearly trying to pay much less than what the average reasonable passenger would be willing to pay and so is trying to gain an unfair advantage over the common man. <\Edit> Again, appeal dismissed.

Of course, not all judges are Lord Denning. But the impression I get is that a sanity check is generally applied before a ruling is made. As sensible people, I suspect we all recognise that this is a loophole - and to expect the system (especially the legal system) to uphold something which is obviously a mistaken conclusion isn't reasonable.

 

[some bloke]

If the appellant is telling the truth, they're obviously an idiot in that they are taking several hours over a journey that should take minutes. Appeal dismissed, in that the appellant is behaving unreasonably.
...As sensible people, I suspect we all recognise that this is a loophole - and to expect the system (especially the legal system) to uphold something which is obviously a mistaken conclusion isn't reasonable.

Yes, a sanity check is appropriate.

I'd suggest the distinction between 'valid ticket' and 'it is reasonable to allow the appeal' may be easy to overlook.

One point above is that a person who wants to go to Birmingham then Stechford is not necessarily unreasonable if they go by what NRE says.

Someone might argue that if the passenger isn't intending to go to C and B in that order, that indicates a likelihood that they are evading the right fare, perhaps in conjunction with other specific circumstances.
...Maybe sometimes questions about ticket validity in practice come down to the specific use of tickets by specific people. A person with knowledge of the Conditions might be viewed differently from someone without.

Edit: It may make no difference, but to avoid anyone being misled I'd like to point out that my previous post was being edited and re-uploaded just before I saw @FawkesCat's reply. The quoted passage is from that version. The word "do" after the first sentence of that post is accidental.

 

[marshmallow]

If this was allowed, could one argue that they are allowed to make unlimited journeys from Stratford International to the Kent Coast and back? Every time that they are at Stratford International, one be breaking their journey before "continuing" their journey to Stratford International on the grounds that it is a calling point on the route!

On a similar note, if a ticket from A to C is valid via B and a ticket from B to C is valid via A, if I hold a ticket from A to C, could I travel from A to B and then travel to C via A?

 

[Silverdale]

In the example given, the customer enters their journey requirements on The Trainline site, stating that they wish to travel via Ramsgate. They are then offered a fare and an intinerary and purchase the ticket.

What was agreed in the contract thus formed? That the customer be transported to Stratford, or firstly to Ramsgate, thence to Stratford?

 

[some bloke]

Apologies - I was wrong in saying NRE offered the "journey" for £75.60: that's for Stratford station. Stratford International is £6.40 as I expect Yorkie implied.

 

[Joe Paxton]

...
Of course, not all judges are Lord Denning. But the impression I get is that a sanity check is generally applied before a ruling is made. As sensible people, I suspect we all recognise that this is a loophole - and to expect the system (especially the legal system) to uphold something which is obviously a mistaken conclusion isn't reasonable.

Agreed.

 

[Silverdale]

If a loophole exists simply because of the way the routing rules have been constructed, I cannot see why a court would intervene to prevent the loophole being exploited.

At present, I am unclear whether the 'ticket validity expires at first arrival at destination' is a test within the current rules to check an itinerary or one which is being proposed should exist to make the rules compliant with a 'sanity test'.

 

[A Challenge]

I suppose the defence 'I said I wanted to travel via Ramsgate, and that's what it sold me' might work!

 

[sprunt]

It expires when you have exhausted your contractual rights

Which, if the train has reached its destination and the doors have opened, you've surely done. The TOC has conveyed you from point A to point B, which is what you have contracted with them to do.

 

[Silverdale]

• That the end of the validity is at B is only one consideration. The other is that the itinerary A-C-B is valid. If you have not yet reached B via C, the validity cannot have been used up.

 

[alistairlees]

Taking the London St Pancras to Stratford (London) via Ramsgate and Stratford (London) journey that Yorkie posted, I believe it's reasonable that:
- if an accredited journey planner / retailer such as Trainline offered this, then you may make that journey (but that does not make it valid)
- it's not valid once you have reached the destination on your ticket, even if this is not where you intend to travel to

The idea that you have "contractual rights" to travel onwards because of mapping is spurious; that mapping is there to help you get to your destination more quickly / frequently if (for example) a train passes through non-stop and you need to double back. They are not extra contractual rights if your contract has already been met (i.e. you were delivered to the place stated on the ticket).

 

[sheff1]

I agree the circumstances are different in the two cases, but in both the question is ultimately the same:

Can you legitimately choose to remain on a train which releases its doors at your ticketed destination station, purely on the basis that the route would otherwise be permitted?

In some cases the "ticketed destination station" could actually be multiple stations. We have had people argue that a ticket to "xxx stations", and the like, expires as soon as the doors are released at the first station which falls within the definition on the ticket. That cannot be true for the obvious reason that the ticket has onward validity. In the St Pancras to Stratford Int case the ticket, again, has onward validity as offered by the retailer and accepted by the passenger. I do not see how the passenger can be legitimately deprived of the validity once the ticket has been purchased.

 

[yorkie]

...That cannot be true for the obvious reason that the ticket has onward validity. In the St Pancras to Stratford Int case the ticket, again, has onward validity as offered by the retailer and accepted by the passenger....

I believe there are two arguments here.

Is anyone arguing that retailers are correct to offer a ticket from St Pancras to Stratford via the Kent Coast if calling at Stratford twice? and correct to offer a ticket from Northampton to Stechford via Birmingham if calling at Stechford twice?

If anyone is arguing that, then I'm surprised.

But those who are disagreeing with me might actually be accepting that retailers have not got these itineraries correct, but once they have offered the itineraries to the customer, the customer is then entitled to remain on board after calling at their destination on the basis that their itinerary says so?

 

[Kite159]

Although good luck trying to argue with a train manager if you get gripped between Stratford & Ebbsfleet as chances are they will ask you to leave the train at Ebbsfleet, cross over to the opposite platform to return to London.

(All it would take South Eastern to do is to terminate the rounder services at a random station like Sandwich, so the timetable information will be St Pancras - Sandwich & a separate headcode as Sandwich - St Pancras, with the connection at Sandwich being reduced to zero to allow folk to travel from Ramsgate to Dover without the journey planners getting confused)