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

[sheff1]

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?

Yes, my position exactly.

 

[Silverdale]

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?

My assumption has been that there is no explicit "first arrival" rule which invalidates these itineraries. So, a relevant question is one that I asked earlier: Is it the case that the "first arrival" rule already applies and that the retailers have not got these itineraries correct?

yorkie, I am not disagreeing with you that the retailers' itineraries are perverse. If the St Pancras-Stratford single is valid via Ramsgate and with short start/BoJ allowed, it clearly undercuts both the St Pancras-Ramsgate single and the Stratford-Ramsgate return, which makes a mockery of the fares structure on the Kent Coast. What I would query is whether a "first arrival" rule is the right patch to put over the hole. Rather, I would question the assumptions built into the algorithm which otherwise makes St Pancras to Stratford valid via Ramsgate, in the first place. It would appear to be a clear case of "rubbish in, rubbish out".

I see problems with the "first arrival" rule which makes me think it's not a good patch.

Firstly, it doesn't completely fix the fares structure problem, as it would only apply where A to B was valid via C, and the train stopped at B. Travel by trains which did not stop at B would still undercut the A-C single fare.

Secondly, it could quite unintentionally remove some of the routing flexibility that "any permitted" currently and quite legitimately enjoys.

I reject the bald statement that by purchasing a ticket, all you do is enter into a contract to be taken from A to B and that by arriving at B by whatever means, the contract is fulfilled. In some cases it may be, but you have to consider all the terms and conditions associated with the purchase. Often the validity offered with the ticket includes being able to have a choice of itinerary to travel via C or D and to break your journey at any point. My point being that the choice of travelling via C or D is not merely incidental, but integral to the value of the ticket.

For instance, Chesterfield to Long Eaton "any permitted" has historically, and currently still is, valid via either Derby or Nottingham. My ability to use the "any permitted" ticket to travel from Chesterfield, first to Nottingham, then to Long Eaton, in that order, which is the journey I want to make, is a crucial part of the contract.

So what happens if the "first arrival" rule is introduced (or, if it self-evidently already exists, is enforced)? I turn up one day at Chesterfield station, with the return portion of my Long Eaton-Chesterfield, "any permitted" ticket, to find that a freight train has derailed on the Erewash and direct trains to Nottingham are not running. The advice is that passengers for Nottingham should change at Derby. That is all fine until the Derby-Nottingham train stops at Long Eaton and the validity of my "any permitted" ticket evaporates. The TOC of the train on which I'm travelling can now require me to pay for a Long Eaton-Nottingham return to complete the itinerary for which the ticket was originally and legitimately purchased.

 

[yorkie]

My assumption has been that there is no explicit "first arrival" rule which invalidates these itineraries. So, a relevant question is one that I asked earlier: Is it the case that the "first arrival" rule already applies and that the retailers have not got these itineraries correct?

I do not agree that there needs to be an explicit "first arrival rule" as a rule for passengers as such; the contract is fulfilled when the train calls at the destination printed on the ticket. The lack of such a 'rule' written in that manner isn't of any relevance when considering the intended validity of such a ticket.

However if you are talking in computer programming terms, then there ought to be such a rule implemented in the journey planner. Clearly, as can be seen with the St Pancras to Stratford example, some journey planners do apply the logic that your journey must be complete the first time you call at your destination station, but some do not.

This is clearly a deficiency in those journey planners that do not have the correct logic implemented.

I am surprised this issue has not been fixed yet, as it's been going on for years.

Yes, my position exactly.

That's good to hear

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

the contract is fulfilled when the train calls at the destination printed on the ticket. The lack of such a 'rule' isn't of any relevance when considering the intended validity of such a ticket

The thing is though - such a rule (that the contract is fulfilled when the train calls at the printed destination) can only apply insofar as it is an explicit or implicit term of the contract. From the contents of the NRCoT I see no explicit term that suggests that this rule applies (as the nearest term to this, 13.4, might appear to double backs beyond the destination of all types - stopping or not - which is clearly not what is intended).

So therefore we have to go to what the implied term is. Would a reasonable person say that a ticket expires when you call at the destination station? If you put it purely like that, of course they would say yes.

But if you put it on the context of a ticket that is clearly still intended to have further validity - such as one routed via a further-away station (as with a hypothetical NMP-SCF 'via BHM' fare) - then clearly the intention is for it to be valid via a further-away station and far fewer sensible people would say it expires when you reach the "destination".

Obviously there is then the question of what applies if there is a ticket that is not explicitly routed via somewhere, but which is nevertheless valid for an unusual, unreasonable or otherwise circuitous route. I don't think this is, strictly speaking, any different. The ticket expires once you have made full use of it - and the ticket is NOT just the right to travel from A to B, on a flexible ticket it is the right to travel along any part of any one permitted route from A to B (permitted being any of the three permitteds: shortest, direct or mapped).

I think considering implied terms leads to interpretations either way depending on the circumstances and as such I am confident S69 of the CRA would intervene and say that in the absence of a clear and explicit term - such as a clarified NRCoT 13.4 - the more consumer-favourable interpretation prevails.

To be quite honest, the above conclusion only feels just and right. I don't object so much to the limiting of passengers' rights if that is made necessary by clarification, so much as I object to passengers' likely rights being infringed because of confusion and disagreement. It is better to have fewer, well-defined rights than many, poorly-understood rights (poorly understood amongst both passengers and staff).

 

[Dai Corner]

Apologies if this is a naive question. I don't have the knowledge many other posters in this thread have.

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?

Yep. With you there.

I do not agree that there needs to be an explicit "first arrival rule" as a rule for passengers as such; the contract is fulfilled when the train calls at the destination printed on the ticket. The lack of such a 'rule' written in that manner isn't of any relevance when considering the intended validity of such a ticket.

However if you are talking in computer programming terms, then there ought to be such a rule implemented in the journey planner. Clearly, as can be seen with the St Pancras to Stratford example, some journey planners do apply the logic that your journey must be complete the first time you call at your destination station, but some do not.

This is clearly a deficiency in those journey planners that do not have the correct logic implemented.

I am surprised this issue has not been fixed yet, as it's been going on for years.

Instead of introducing a "first arrival rule" how about considering how to avoid the situation arising?

We could only force this itinerary by entering a via point of Ramsgate. Should we even be allowed to do that and still generate the itinerary we did? Shouldn't the system determine that you'd need two tickets (St Pancras - Ramsgate and Ramsgate-Stratford)?

 

[Silverdale]

I do not agree that there needs to be an explicit "first arrival rule" as a rule for passengers as such; the contract is fulfilled when the train calls at the destination printed on the ticket.

Not if the contract provides for being transported from A to C, then from C to B.

Until both parts of the itinerary are complete, the contract is not fulfilled, even in the obscure case where the journey from A to C is by a service which coincidentally stops at B.

 

[yorkie]

We could only force this itinerary by entering a via point of Ramsgate. Should we even be allowed to do that and still generate the itinerary we did? Shouldn't the system determine that you'd need two tickets (St Pancras - Ramsgate and Ramsgate-Stratford)?

From a programming point of view a journey planner does need a rule to prevent an itinerary being generated if the destination is called at twice.

It's not a routeing issue.

 

[yorkie]

Not if the contract provides for being transported from A to C, then from C to B

Ignoring algebra, is your position the same as this...

Yes, my position exactly.

...and if not, why do you think booking engines should offer calling at the destination twice?

 

[Silverdale]

Ignoring algebra, is your position the same as this...

A-C then C-B is not algebra, it's conditional logic.

With regard to retailers selling tickets with an itinerary, my view is that if a ticket is sold and found to be invalid for part or all of the itinerary by reason of breaching a "first arrival" rule, it should be treated in exactly the same was as any other ticket sold with an itinerary by a reputable retailer. Namely, that the TOC(s) concerned will generally use their discretion to allow travel on the itinerary with which the tickets were sold and that in exceptional cases where the customer is required by a TOC to purchase additional tickets to complete the itinerary, the customer will have a case against the retailer for compensation; that the tickets were missold.

With regard to whether an itinerary is validated for the ticket(s) held, it has to depend on the careful application of the routing rules, rather than WotIreckon. So what are the actual routing rules (as opposed to the itineraries that a particular booking engine produces) which determine whether the St Pancras-Stratford ticket is valid for travel via Ramsgate? So far the thread has a distinct lack of detail on this point.

 

[Haywain]

In simple terms, a ticket sold in conjunction with an itinerary becomes valid for use in accordance with that itinerary, but it does not mean all tickets with the same origin and destination are valid for the same journey or pattern of travel. Arguing that because a ticket is sold with an unusual itinerary it makes all tickets valid for the same itinerary is perverse. If that was the case tickets from Cheam to (I think) Queens Park* would always be valid for travel via Edinburgh and Glasgow, whereas they are clearly and obviously not.

And sticking with the main point of the thread, I do not see that a ticket has any continuing validity once the destination stated on the ticket has been called at.


*Edit: the ticket was actually Tadworth to Stonebridge Park, but it was over 6 years ago so I think I can be forgiven for not getting the stations quite right!

 

[Mag_seven]

I do not see that a ticket has any continuing validity once the destination stated on the ticket has been called at.

But my itinerary says it does......

 

[Silverdale]

In simple terms, a ticket sold in conjunction with an itinerary becomes valid for use in accordance with that itinerary, but it does not mean all tickets with the same origin and destination are valid for the same journey or pattern of travel.

My understanding is that TOCs generally allow a customer to travel using a ticket which is sold with an itinerary. Exercising discretion where a ticket has been purchased in good faith, rather than accepting that the ticket is valid.

 

[sprunt]

For instance, Chesterfield to Long Eaton "any permitted" has historically, and currently still is, valid via either Derby or Nottingham. My ability to use the "any permitted" ticket to travel from Chesterfield, first to Nottingham, then to Long Eaton, in that order, which is the journey I want to make, is a crucial part of the contract.

So what happens if the "first arrival" rule is introduced (or, if it self-evidently already exists, is enforced)? I turn up one day at Chesterfield station, with the return portion of my Long Eaton-Chesterfield, "any permitted" ticket, to find that a freight train has derailed on the Erewash and direct trains to Nottingham are not running. The advice is that passengers for Nottingham should change at Derby. That is all fine until the Derby-Nottingham train stops at Long Eaton and the validity of my "any permitted" ticket evaporates. The TOC of the train on which I'm travelling can now require me to pay for a Long Eaton-Nottingham return to complete the itinerary for which the ticket was originally and legitimately purchased.

I don't think this is the same issue as with the ticket issued via Ramsgate (as silly as that issuance is). Your entitlement to visit Nottingham with your any permitted ticket is not an explicit entitlement to visit Nottingham under any circumstances, but only if the stop in Nottingham forms part of your overall trip. If the service allows you to go via Nottingham, then fine, but if that route isn't available for any reason and you end up taking an alternative route, then you've made the journey you've paid for.

To put it in more abstract terms (and I don't know if there is any combination of stations for which this is the case) supposing you want to go from A to B, and there are usually two possible routes, via C and D. Then suppose that there is no Sunday service from A to C, so if you want to make this trip on Sunday you have to go via D. If there is a Sunday service between B and C, I don't think you're then entitled to go A->D->C->B->D just because you had a preference for travelling via B.

 

[yorkie]

There is no "right" to visit Ramsgate.

It's deemed valid because it's a through train and because the booking engines in question have no logic to detect a double call, which in my opinion is a serious error and I'm amazed it's been going on for so long with some booking engines.

The question is: does anyone really believe those booking engines which are offering the itinerary in question are correct? @Silverdale can you clarify please?

 

[Silverdale]

If the service allows you to go via Nottingham, then fine, but if that route isn't available for any reason and you end up taking an alternative route, then you've made the journey you've paid for.

This is perhaps where we form into two camps. Mash or chips, does it matter?

I would say a menu which offers either mash or chips allows the customer to choose. Having taken my order, and choice of chips, a restaurant can't claim to have fulfilled the contract and demand payment if it actually delivers mash.

The other camp would say that, regardless of the customers preference when ordering, the contract is fulfilled and payment is due if the restaurant serves up either mash, or chips.

 

[Skymonster]

While it could be argued that a St Pancras to Stratford via Ramsgate itinerary for £6.40 is 'legitimate' because NRE offers it, does not the clarifying note to condition 16.3 of the NRCoT rule out getting off (i.e. break / end short) anywhere except Stratford? And thus the ticket would only be useful for someone wanting to take a three hour jolly round Kent...

INFORMATION: For example, where a train service makes a circular journey, you may travel either way to the destination on your ticket. However, you would not normally be allowed to get off at an intermediate station where the fare would have been higher.

 

[sprunt]

This is perhaps where we form into two camps. Mash or chips, does it matter?

I would say a menu which offers either mash or chips allows the customer to choose. Having taken my order, and choice of chips, a restaurant can't claim to have fulfilled the contract and demand payment if it actually delivers mash.

The other camp would say that, regardless of the customers preference when ordering, the contract is fulfilled and payment is due if the restaurant serves up either mash, or chips.

I would respond that you haven't ordered either mash or chips, you've gone to a buffet that usually has a choice of mash and chips. If there are no chips on a particular day, that's just tough luck unfortunately.

 

[BluePenguin]

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)

Don't go giving them ideas please!

 

[yorkie]

While it could be argued that a St Pancras to Stratford via Ramsgate itinerary for £6.40 is 'legitimate' because NRE offers it, does not the clarifying note to condition 16.3 of the NRCoT rule out getting off (i.e. break / end short) anywhere except Stratford? And thus the ticket would only be useful for someone wanting to take a three hour jolly round Kent...

The information panels have no contractual status whatsoever.

But really this isn't the question I was asking, which is whether or not the itinerary is a valid one. If it is not valid then booking engines should not be offering it. The reason some booking engines are offering it is because they erroneously allow double-calls at the destination station.

It's not entirely clear to me who is stating that booking engines should be offering itineraries involving double-calls at the destination station or why they think they should offer this.

 

[Clip]

If it is not valid then booking engines should not be offering it.

They really shouldn't and I for one would not like to check it out either.

Though im guessing soon this bug will be fixed now that this thread is here

 

[Skymonster]

The information panels have no contractual status whatsoever.

Thast's as maybe, but when you're arguing your case for being allowed to travel it won't make things easier.

It's not entirely clear to me who is stating that booking engines should be offering itineraries involving double-calls at the destination station or why they think they should offer this.

I don't think anyone here is really supporting the idea that journey planners / booking engines should offer double-call itineraries. What I do see though is people arguing that while ever double-calls are offered, [savvy] customers have a right to exploit the opportunities that are available.

 

[Silverdale]

The question is: does anyone really believe those booking engines which are offering the itinerary in question are correct? @Silverdale can you clarify please?

In order to answer that question, what I was struggling to understand was whether,

a) the routing rules prevent the itinerary via Ramsgate being valid, but the booking engines are delivering it, regardless, or

b) the routing rules allow the itinerary via Ramsgate because a double call is not specifically disallowed.

But... the little nugget you have just referred to in that last post, and which I have been missing, is that the itinerary is a through/direct service which calls twice at Stratford. Having now checked, I can see the service is shown on RTT as being from St Pancras Intl to St Pancras Intl and the mist is now beginning to clear as to why St Pancras Intl to Stratford Intl might be deemed valid using that service and travelling via Ramsgate.

There is a routing rule (isn't there?) which means an itinerary is automatically validated if it is by a direct service.

Is there any caveat to that basic rule in the case of a direct service which loops back to call at some stations twice, on what could otherwise be called the outward and return legs of the loop?

I just used The Trainline to search for an itinerary from Chester to Hooton via Liverpool Central, which is also served by a direct, loop-back service, calling twice at Hooton. That search returns "no tickets available". What rule/exemption is being applied in that case, which is not being applied in the case of the Kent Coast?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

For as long as the train is scheduled as a through train STP-STP, (calling at SFA at some point, whether once or more times), I see no reason why you cannot travel around the loop in either direction. You are on a through train from your ticket's origin to the printed destination - as per NRCoT 13.1.1 that is a permitted route and hence you have the contractual right to use it. Until such point as an absolutely clear term is introduced clarifying this as disallowed (e.g. qualifying the "direct train" clause), that remains valid.

And obviously if you are offered an itinerary then there can be no question that it must be accepted. Whether or not the relevant booking engine providers deem it should, or should not, have been provided is irrelevant in my view.

 

[Silverdale]

I would respond that you haven't ordered either mash or chips, you've gone to a buffet that usually has a choice of mash and chips. If there are no chips on a particular day, that's just tough luck unfortunately.

But Chesterfield-Nottingham tickets are being accepted via Derby. So chips are available. It's the "first arrival" rule which means I can't have them.

 

[sprunt]

But Chesterfield-Nottingham tickets are being accepted via Derby. So chips are available. It's the "first arrival" rule which means I can't have them.

You don't have a Chesterfield-Nottingham ticket, so the analogy breaks there. Methods of serving potatoes are analogous in this argument to stations where you'd change train, not to end points.

 

[Silverdale]

Until such point as an absolutely clear term is introduced clarifying this as disallowed (e.g. qualifying the "direct train" clause), that remains valid.

I suppose the question is; what constitutes a "direct" service in the context of the routing rules? Is it simply a matter of managing to get from origin to destination without changing trains. Or is it "direct" in the sense of "Go directly to Jail. Do not pass Go"?

 

[Skymonster]

I just used The Trainline to search for an itinerary from Chester to Hooton via Liverpool Central, which is also served by a direct, loop-back service, calling twice at Hooton. That search returns "no tickets available". What rule/exemption is being applied in that case, which is not being applied in the case of the Kent Coast?

NRE will offer Rock Ferry to Birkenhead Central via Lime Street for the same price as point to point. But interestingly when clicking on calling points for the 25 minutes journey none of the stations in the Liverpool loop are listed. Similarly with the St Pancras - Stratford, it shows no calling points. It seems therefore that in both cases the itinerary being priced is not the one NRE 'assumes' a passenger will ultimately take. In which case these lengthy circuitous scenarios being offered seems more like a bug / omission in the software.

 

[PeterC]

For as long as the train is scheduled as a through train STP-STP, (calling at SFA at some point, whether once or more times), I see no reason why you cannot travel around the loop in either direction. You are on a through train from your ticket's origin to the printed destination - as per NRCoT 13.1.1 that is a permitted route and hence you have the contractual right to use it. Until such point as an absolutely clear term is introduced clarifying this as disallowed (e.g. qualifying the "direct train" clause), that remains valid.
SNIP.

In my understanding of the English language the journey would cease to be "direct" once you had travelled through Stratford the first time. Also is are trains departing St Pancras for the "loop" shown as having St Pancras as the destination on public timetables and departure boards? I would interpret the destination of a train for this purpose as that being shown in the public timetable, the fact that the train continues back to St Pancras by a different route being only an operational convenience.

 

[Starmill]

However you look at it, this just isn't a defensible position.

If you are asked for your ticket between Stratford International and Ebbsfleet International, what are you actually going to say?

Option one is to say that you intend to travel to Stratford International via Dover Priory and Margate. If you say that you are likely to be informed that you have missed Stratford International and that you could have arrived there in a journey that takes 5 minutes rather than 3 hours. Similarly you would probably be told that you could change at the next station and go back to Stratford International and still arrive more than 2 hours early. It's unclear how you could reject both of these options and insist on your contractual right to travel via Dover Priory to Stratford International and still appear to be genuine and reasonable.

Option two is to admit that you do not actually wish to travel to Stratford International but that you want to go somewhere else, such as Dover Priory. This appears to be rather dishonest, given that you have a) travelled beyond the destination printed on your ticket and also b) done so with the intention of travelling somewhere at a lower fare. This option appears to be quite dishonest, and having an itinerary and relying on your right to break your journey at Dover Priory is not really going to mitigate against that.

If you have a contractual dispute where you are defending charges of unreasonableness or even 'bad faith' then really you have already lost. You can continue to make your points and take the dispute to higher levels as much as you wish but it will probably be clear to everyone at that point that one of the two problems outlined above will inevitably apply. Note that neither of these problems applies to someoe who buys a ticket from Rochester to London and uses it via Margate and Dover Priory on a direct train.

 

[infobleep]

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.

But if your allowed to break your journey on route and you bad business to attend to in both Ramsgate and Stratford you might specify a ticket to start Ford via Ramsgate