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

[Starmill]

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.

The public timetable does show it as a London St Pancras to London St Pancras train. It could be multiple different services but it isn't.

What is displayed on screens isn't the timetable. The use of so called 'false destinations' is widespread throughout the industry.

 

[infobleep]

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.

It may seem odd but if someone bought a season ticket for Cheam to Queens Park and the routing guide at the time said it was permitted then surely it is.

The only alternative would be if they are allowed to say it was a mistake so we will cancel your contract and refund you the money. I don't know if they are.

 

[Silverdale]

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.

And that's why I say we divide into two camps.

The railway heads say the places you want to break your journey are irrelevant, what matters is the order in which you pass through the routing points.

Passengers, i.e. normal people, say the routing is incidental, what matters is get to the break points, and in a predetermined order.

The two camps meet where the ticket is sold. The passenger asks to travel to an ordered sequence of break points. The railway head says; The routing of this ticket allows that order, so it matches your requirements. Shall we strike a contract?

Both camps are happy until the routing breaks down. The railway heads say; Ahh... Because of a problem at our end, you can't travel directly via Alfreton, so you can no longer use the ticket to go first to Nottingham, then Long Eaton, which is what you said you wanted to do when we did that contract thing. Even though we have trains available to get you to your break points, you will have used up all your routing points before you get to your first one. And as we see the contract, that's all that matters. Hard luck.

 

[sprunt]

Both camps are happy until the routing breaks down. The railway heads say; Ahh... Because of a problem at our end, you can't travel directly via Alfreton, so you can no longer use the ticket to go first to Nottingham, then Long Eaton, which is what you said you wanted to do when we did that contract thing. Even though we have trains available to get you to your break points, you will have used up all your routing points before you get to your first one. And as we see the contract, that's all that matters. Hard luck.

To be fair, I'm pretty sure the normal people in this case would say "You've got from Chesterfield to Long Eaton, so what are you complaining about? If you wanted to go to Nottingham you should have bought a ticket to Nottingham." I think they'd also say that the idea of going to Stratford from St Pancras via Ramsgate is ridiculous. Normal people have no concept of routing points, they just want to get to their destination as quickly as possible.

In any case, however, you didn't say you wanted to go first to Nottingham when you bought your any permitted ticket from Chesterfield to Long Eaton. If you'd bought a 'via Nottingham' ticket (and I've no idea if that exists) then you might have a bit more of a case.

 

[infobleep]

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.

Why is Rochester to London OK via Margate and Dover Priory?

 

[infobleep]

To be fair, I'm pretty sure the normal people in this case would say "You've got from Chesterfield to Long Eaton, so what are you complaining about? If you wanted to go to Nottingham you should have bought a ticket to Nottingham." I think they'd also say that the idea of going to Stratford from St Pancras via Ramsgate is ridiculous. Normal people have no concept of routing points, they just want to get to their destination as quickly as possible.

In any case, however, you didn't say you wanted to go first to Nottingham when you bought your any permitted ticket from Chesterfield to Long Eaton. If you'd bought a 'via Nottingham' ticket (and I've no idea if that exists) then you might have a bit more of a case.

What about a normal person who has a ticket restricted to one TOC and wants to use another? That currently is the price of a new ticket? Surely they might expect it to be the price different paid.

If they don't expect that, then what about the example of someone with an off peak ticket valid on any operator and they wish to travel in the peak. Should they hiya new ticket because that's what they might expect to do, given its what happens ith TOac restricted tickets.

What I'm saying is that just because people expect something, doesn't mean what they don't expect is wrong.

 

[sheff1]

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

Not exactly. The Routeing Guides states "Most customers wish to make journeys by through trains or by the shortest route. In both cases they will be travelling on a permitted route". The flow chart then asks "is the customer travelling on an advertised through train?". If the answer is "yes" then "the route is a permitted route for that journey".

So far, so clear.

However, the RG also says "A through train is advertised in the National Rail Timetable as a direct service which offers travel between a customer’s origin and destination stations as provided on the ticket that they hold for the journey being made". This is presumably an attempt to clarify matters, but as "direct" can, potentially, have one of two meanings:

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"?

it actually muddies the waters.

 

[sheff1]

Why is Rochester to London OK via Margate and Dover Priory?

The through train rule ..... and no question of 'double stopping'.

 

[infobleep]

The through train rule ..... and no question of 'double stopping'.

OK. Can one break their journey with the through train rule? I thought one couldn't but I could be misremembering

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

In my understanding of the English language the journey would cease to be "direct" once you had travelled through Stratford the first time

Within the context of this issue, "direct" clearly means the use of one service, which does not involve changing trains. You could equally say "through" service for this purpose. It would not be "direct" in one of the other senses of the word - it would not be a non-circuitous route!

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

I suppose views may vary. However I do consider it defensible!

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

Present the ticket from St Pancras to Stratford International and show the itinerary if asked. Or explain that you are on a through service from the ticket's printed origin to the destination.

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.

You might not appear to be genuine and reasonable to some people, but it would nevertheless remain your contractual right - and you would be entitled to the cost of any additional ticket you are made to purchase if you are denied travel via Dover.

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

That is of limited relevance given you are on a through service from the origin to the destination printed on your ticket. If you are taking such a service, it is always a permitted route!

done so with the intention of travelling somewhere at a lower fare

I don't see that this is relevant. You have a contract that permits you to travel on any through train from St Pancras to Stratford; whether other fares with the same validity cost more or less is irrelevant.

This option appears to be quite dishonest

Dishonest to some; making full use of contractual rights to others! It is not the paseenger's fault if TOCs consider it dishonest not to waste some of the validity granted under the contract.

If you have a contractual dispute where you are defending charges of unreasonableness or even 'bad faith' then really you have already lost.

Not really. It is a contractual dispute like any other. The say you are unreasonable and/or dishonest; you say you are simply exercising your contractual rights and if they did not intend to grant you the rights you are using, that is their tough luck as the contract has already been made and cannot be revoked! Until they can show you have exceeded your contractual rights - e.g. through a term in the NRCoT that explicitly qualifies the right to use a through train - you are in the right.

OK. Can one break their journey with the through train rule? I thought one couldn't but I could be misremembering

I see no reason why not. By default, walk-up tickets are valid for break of journey along any permitted route. If you use exclusively through trains between the origin printed on your ticket, and the destination printed on your ticket, then I don't see that it matters how circuitous the route is; there is no condition restricting the circuitousness of the route you may take if you are using a through train! There is certainly no rule that clearly bars breaking your journey at a point where your ticket is valid only through the 'through trains' rule - there is an "INFORMATION" box that suggests this, but we are told at the start of the NRCoT that the "INFORMATION" boxes have no contractual effect, so we can safely ignore it!

 

[Kite159]

The contract South Eastern have is to convey you from St Pancras to Stratford International, that contract is fulfilled when it calls at Stratford International.

Beyond Stratford the ticket is invalid as you have travelled beyond the destination stated on your ticket.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The contract South Eastern have is to convey you from St Pancras to Stratford International, that contract is fulfilled when it calls at Stratford International.

Beyond Stratford the ticket is invalid as you have travelled beyond the destination stated on your ticket.

Does the contract state that though? It states you have the right to use any through train from the printed origin to the printed destination. You are still on a through train after calling at Stratford the first time. Until such time as that clause is narrowed down, for example to the first call at a station, it doesn't exclude calling at the "destination" several times provided it is on the same through train. S69(1) of the CRA dictates that any ambiguity here must be interpreted in the consumer's favour.

This is why most contracts are much more tightly defined than the NRCoT; it's a shame that it's become so almost conversational, as it leads to a lack of clarity on important issues like this. The average passenger is never going to read it anyway, so what is the point in making it easy to read?! Just make it crystal clear (even if that makes it wordy) for the case you actually need it for legal purposes.

 

[Starmill]

Dishonest to some; making full use of contractual rights to others! It is not the paseenger's fault if TOCs consider it dishonest not to waste some of the validity granted under the contract.

I disagree; when you are using a loophole ticket, if you are defending against a suspicion of dishonesty, then you have already lost the battle. No matter what you say, this practice looks like a case of travelling beyond your destination without paying for it. Someone who is 'enforcing their rights' to something that does not make any sense is also unlikely to win many allies to their case.

To make gains from loophole tickets, you need to do whatever you can to appear in common with other passengers.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I disagree; when you are using a loophole ticket, if you are defending against a suspicion of dishonesty, then you have already lost the battle. No matter what you say, this practice looks like a case of travelling beyond your destination without paying for it. Someone who is 'enforcing their rights' to something that does not make any sense is also unlikely to win many allies to their case.

To make gains from loophole tickets, you need to do whatever you can to appear in common with other passengers.

There is of course a difference between using a loophole ticket in a way where you hope it will not be detected and reported, and using a loophole ticket in a confident way where you don't care if it is reported (as someone might do with the ticket the subject of this thread, now that it's been so clearly publicised).

But I don't see any battle that is lost. It is merely a question of your contractual rights. I don't see where "defending" against dishonesty comes into it.

I certainly wouldn't deny that it might be perceived as overtravelled. But that does not mean that it necessarily must be, or that it is necessarily wrong.

 

[Starmill]

That is of limited relevance given you are on a through service from the origin to the destination printed on your ticket. If you are taking such a service, it is always a permitted route!

A through train is a permitted route for that journey. If a route is permitted only because it is a through train, it is open for debate whether you may break your journey. This is a very long standing controversy which has been discussed many times before and I'm not prepared to go into it again here!

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

A through train is a permitted route for that journey. If a route is permitted only because it is a through train, it is open for debate whether you may break your journey. This is a very long standing controversy which has been discussed many times before and I'm not prepared to go into it again here!

Without going into it too much, my view is that it is permitted - as long as the trains you take are still "direct" services from the origin on your ticket to the destination on your ticket. Again, unless that contractual right is unambiguously reserved, any ambiguity must be interpreted in the consumer's favour.

 

[Starmill]

Not really. It is a contractual dispute like any other. The say you are unreasonable and/or dishonest; you say you are simply exercising your contractual rights

I don't think this either. If somebody accuses me of being merely wrong, but I am not wrong, then fair enough. It's unlikely they can do anything about it but if they try I can demonstrate I'm not wrong.

However, if I'm accused of being dishonest this is something that can't just be allowed to stand.

A contractual dispute could be down to incomplete information, genuine errors or differences of interpretation without bad faith being involved.

 

[yorkie]

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.

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, but some journey planners do not have any such logic implemented. This is a failing in those journey planners.

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?

The reason it is not valid is because you should not call at the destination twice, as your ticket expires once you reach your final ticketed destination.

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?

You'd have to ask Trainline or their journey planning provider that question, but I suspect we won't get an answer posted here.

It may seem odd but if someone bought a season ticket for Cheam to Queens Park and the routing guide at the time said it was permitted then surely it is.

I am confident @Haywain wasn't suggesting otherwise!

Yes, whatever routes are permitted by the routeing guide at the time would remain permitted for the duration of the contract. But this thread isn't about Season tickets, nor is it about the routeing guide.

(I think I know what @Haywain was getting at and it was an encounter with @Drsatan using a Manor Park or Tadworth to Stonebridge Park ticket via Carlisle in 2012 because a booking engine allowed it at the time; this was due to an incorrectly encoded easement)

... you will have used up all your routing points before you get to your first one.....

If anyone said that, I would simply state they are talking nonsense 'technobabble'. I am not prepared to discuss the Long Eaton example in this thread; feel free to create a new thread with appropriate title, give me a mention in that thread, and I will analyse it properly using correct terminology and without hyperbole.

What about a normal person who has a ticket restricted to one TOC and wants to use another? That currently is the price of a new ticket? Surely they might expect it to be the price different paid.

I don't understand why that question is being asked in this thread, but it's been asked many times before: https://www.google.com/search?q=can+you+excess+a+toc+restricted+fare+site:railforums.co.uk

If they don't expect that, then what about the example of someone with an off peak ticket valid on any operator and they wish to travel in the peak. Should they hiya new ticket because that's what they might expect to do, given its what happens ith TOac restricted tickets.

See our Fares Guide: RailUK Fares & Ticketing Guide - Section 4 - Excesses, Upgrades & Supplements or simply read Condition 9.4.

If you wish to compare and contrast these two scenarios above, create a thread for that purpose, tag me in and I'll reply there.

What I'm saying is that just because people expect something, doesn't mean what they don't expect is wrong.

I'm not sure what that is meant to mean, but let's move on...

 

[yorkie]

Without going into it too much, my view is that it is permitted - as long as the trains you take are still "direct" services from the origin on your ticket to the destination on your ticket. Again, unless that contractual right is unambiguously reserved, any ambiguity must be interpreted in the consumer's favour.

For clarity, can you confirm that you're stating it is your belief that SilverRail are correct to offer this ticket as valid calling at Stratford twice?

 

[RJ]

Out of interest, is there a purpose to having the validity of staying on a train that has served the destination on the ticket tested?

I can understand if there was a reason, like making a saving on an actual journey being made. But I'm at a bit of a loss as to why this needs to go to court etc?

If one really wants to sit on the train for a few hours by virtue of the direct train rule, why not just buy a return ticket from London to Stratford and do the loop that way?

 

[roversfan2001]

I disagree; when you are using a loophole ticket, if you are defending against a suspicion of dishonesty, then you have already lost the battle. No matter what you say, this practice looks like a case of travelling beyond your destination without paying for it. Someone who is 'enforcing their rights' to something that does not make any sense is also unlikely to win many allies to their case.

To make gains from loophole tickets, you need to do whatever you can to appear in common with other passengers.

On the other hand, I am of the opinion that if the TOCs/ATOC/whoever have errors in their journey planning systems/the routeing guide; passengers that have taken the time to become knowledgable on these matters have 'earned the right' to exploit these loopholes to their full effect. I appreciate that this is likely to result in loopholes being closed quicker and with more regularity, but that could quite easily happen while attempting to appear 'normal', indeed, 'acting dumb' is an art that requires a lot of skill to pull off and can quite often backfire.

For this specific example, I believe that it is valid for the journey round the Kent Coast, both due to the direct train rule in the routeing guide and the fact journey planners offer it as a route.

 

[Starmill]

Out of interest, is there a purpose to having the validity of staying on a train that has served the destination on the ticket tested?

No! There definitely isn't! I believe this is a point I've made a number of times now.

 

[Starmill]

On the other hand, I am of the opinion that if the TOCs/ATOC/whoever have errors in their journey planning systems/the routeing guide; passengers that have taken the time to become knowledgable on these matters have 'earned the right' to exploit these loopholes to their full effect.

Really? In this case though, if you view this as a right that you have somehow earnt, you are admitting to knowing that what you have bought has been offered to you in error.

If there is evidence that you knew this before you bought it, this could be terminal to your case.

 

[roversfan2001]

Really? In this case though, if you view this as a right that you have somehow earnt, you are admitting to knowing that what you have bought has been offered to you in error.

If there is evidence that you knew this before you bought it, this could be terminal to your case.

What could be an error could also be explained as the industry offering customers an increased number of journey opportunities. I must also admit that I have age on my side and that once I become a legal adult some of the loopholes that I use I may reconsider using knowing that I could be left stranded and have a higher chance of being reported for prosecution.

 

[RJ]

No! There definitely isn't! I believe this is a point I've made a number of times now.

Yes I think I'll quietly withdraw from this one. I'm all for supporting unusual cases where a wrong has been done, but I don't see that here.

 

[moliones]

Given that trainline also returns a £6.40, 3h20m itinerary for Stratford International to St Pancras International, via Margate, is this more or less valid? (You wouldn't call at the destination twice, but instead call again at the origin)

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

For clarity, can you confirm that you're stating it is your belief that SilverRail are correct to offer this ticket as valid calling at Stratford twice?

I wouldn't say correct or incorrect, but I see no explicit term in the NRCoT explicitly barring them from offering such an itinerary.

 

[Silverdale]

yorkie, upthread you asked me to clarify whether, and if so why, I think the booking engines are correct in offering itineraries via Ramsgate on these "direct" highspeed services.

My answer was that it appeared odd, but I couldn't say whether the booking engines had applied the routing rules correctly, as I didn't know which routing rules should be applied.

Now it appears that it's just a straight forward application of the "direct service" rule, and there is no overriding "first arrival at destination" routing rule which would mean that the booking engines are incorrect in offering these itineraries.

Accordingly, I say yes, odd as the itineraries appear, to me as a non-expert, the booking engines are correct in offering them and the reason is that they are allowed by carefully applying the routing rules.

yorkie, on this forum you regularly call out the instances where train companies misapply the rules and staff who you say don't understand the rules. So when you ask in the OP whether a customer should be able to purchase a St Pancras-Stratford ticket and travel on the 'via Ramsgate' itinerary, surely the answer has to be yes.

The cries of outrage that such a customer would be "exploiting a loophole" are misplaced. In fact they are dangerous. If you declare that an itinerary which is valid according to the rules, mustn't be allowed because it is "a loophole", where, exactly, would you stop? And who would get to choose what is "a loophole" and what isn't.

Split-ticketing, some may say, is "exploiting a loophole", isn't it?

 

[Kite159]

I look forward to hearing how @ForTheLoveOf gets on when they put their money where their mouth is to give it a go and travel all the way round the Kent Coast using a St Pancras - Stratford single ticket.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I look forward to hearing how @ForTheLoveOf gets on when they put their money where their mouth is to give it a go and travel all the way round the Kent Coast using a St Pancras - Stratford single ticket.

I certainly will the next time I'm round there! You can look forward to a trip report