Maybe, but I am going to advise people accordingly because that way if people choose not to accept my advice, they can't say they were not warned.
Fair enough, but I do feel that it's overreacting a little to say that you should consult a solicitor to use a ticket whose validity is as clear as this one. It is not as if one is proposing to use a ticket whose validity is extremely tenuous because it relies on your own interpretation of the Routeing Guide, for instance. All you are doing is using exactly the rights you have explicitly been told you get.
I do not think the average person should merely 'consider' the potential problems (which include a criminal record, if convicted).
If they shouldn't be "considering" it, what should they be doing?
Sounds great in theory, but in practice I know of people who were unexpectedly prosecuted for using tickets that were far more obviously valid than in this case, and who did not have the time or finances or wish to deal with stress to achieve a victory. I therefore have serious concerns regarding the potential outcomes of any cases involving this more contentious example of disputed validity.
Again, I'm not sure how one person's decisions give ground for serious concerns. If a particular person wants to use a ticket in this way, it is fair game to warn them about the potential issues they might face, but ultimately they can decide whether they want to deal with them or not. Other peoples' decisions are not entirely relevant IMO!
While I don't deny that can happen, it is not clear to everyone that there is a contractual right to a break of journey under the through trains rule. Yes, your argument may win in court,however see the concerns expressed by
@RJ who we both know to be experienced and knowledgeable in the area of railway ticketing validity & disputes:
I agree that RJ is a very experienced and knowledgeable member of the forum. I haven't come to my standpoint just as it is, either. I came to it by reading the text you are given to tell you what rights and conditions apply to a given ticket, and then referring to some legal contacts I have. They agreed with my interpretation and therefore I feel confident in that what I am saying is correct. Of course, that's not to say that that is the way a Court would find it - many find that Magistrates' Courts don't deliver reliable justice, to put it nicely - but ultimately, if someone wanted they could still take the matter further to have a proper legal determination. In many cases where that has happened, including some on this forum I believe, the train company (at least during the privatised era) has backed off, fearing an adverse precedent.
If one applied the same level of caution equally across all ticketing matters, it could surely be said that you should consult a solicitor before boarding without a ticket at a station like in the circumstances mentioned
here, where
no-one disputes that the OP is in the right, and yet the train company are proposing a prosecution! I don't think there is any point in taking it to the nth degree. You decide what you want to do and you sometimes have to take a risk. People should be informed about the risk but they needn't be nannied about it and told in the strongest terms possible to outright avoid it. That should be reserved for when it is unquestioned that the proposed actions are completely wrong.