SWT Ticket offices "not allowed" to give passengers copy of NRCoC

[cmovcc]

when I purchased my annual season ticket I expected to be given a copy of the contract I was agreeing to or at least sign something stating that I have read it and agree.

nope, nothing.

if any disagreements ever go to court, it will likely say that the contract in question was not presented at the point of sale: the customer was not aware of it, and hence could not agree to it; the contract is therefore unenforceable.

 

[RJ]

That's not how it works - you can have a copy of the contract if you ask for it or download it online, as described on the reverse of the ticket.

 

[455driver]

RJ post 87 above-

I like the way the FOI request has been very selective in its quote from the SWT PC-

For example. South West Trains' Passenger's Charter states:
“Copies of this Passenger's Charter and the National Rail
Conditions of Carriage are available from staffed stations, [...]”
(pg. 3)

Which then goes on to say "to be viewed" or something like that.

 

[cmovcc]

(disclaimer: I am not a lawyer)

I realise that it's how the system currently operates, but that doesn't mean it's legal, as that's not how contract enforcement works.

not showing the contract at time of purchase is the same as having a size 1 font on a car purchase contract that you can't see.
as you couldn't read it at the point you notionally accepted the contract, those terms are unenforceable, and the court will likely rule in favour of the party that has been disadvantaged.

there might be some case law/some clause in one of the railways acts which changes this, but contract law is one of the bedrocks of English law, and a court will likely take a dim view of large multinationals attempting to force invisible terms on the public, when the company should know better.

doing some googling I found George Mitchell (Chesterhall) Ltd v Finney Lock Seeds Ltd (1982), where Lord Denning MR stated:

"None of you nowadays will remember the trouble we had - when I was called to the Bar - with exemption clauses. They were printed in small print on the back of tickets and order forms and invoices. They were contained in catalogues or timetables. They were held to be binding on any person who took them without objection. No one ever did object. He never read them or knew what was in them. No matter how unreasonable they were, he was bound. All this was done in the name of "freedom of contract." But the freedom was all on the side of the big concern which had the use of the printing press. No freedom for the little man who took the ticket or order form or invoice. The big concern said, "Take it or leave it." The little man had no option but to take it. The big concern could and did exempt itself from liability in its own interest without regard to the little man. It got away with it time after time. When the courts said to the big concern, "You must put it in clear words," the big concern had no hesitation in doing so. It knew well that the little man would never read the exemption clauses or understand them. It was a bleak winter for our law of contract."

clearly if you're not even aware of the contract until you've forked over your money (and can then see what you've agreed to on the back of the ticket), they're acting in a dubious (possibly unlawful) manner.

English common law is generally very fair, and the current state of affairs is very biased towards the rail industry against the consumer.

 

[455driver]

When was the last time somebody got on a bus and signed the contract you are entering into?

 

[cmovcc]

same applies to them too
just because noone's challenged them doesn't mean what they're doing is OK

 

[Greenback]

It would be a rather time consuming and tedious way of life if every transaction we ever entered into, such as a visit to the sueprmarket, going to see a film, the purchase of a newspaper, buying a pint down the pub ro whatever, was accompanied by having to view and accept a writen contract at the point of sale.

The negatives would ar outweigh any possble benefits in my view.

 

[wintonian]

Although I do wonder sometimes when the tax man stretches out his grubby palm, if they should sign some kind of contract on behalf of the state for the provision of certain services to a minimum standard.

 

[island]

The matter of unfair terms in consumer contracts legislation has come up at great lengths in this forum before. This legislation may or may not come into play vis à vis the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, but certainly will not affect other legislation, such as the Railway Bye-laws or Regulation of Railways Act. Should you be taken to court for a ticketing infringement, you will get the sum total of nowhere with this line of argument.

Incidentally, when you first buy a monthly or longer season ticket from a National Rail ticket office, I think you'll find you will have to fill in and sign an application form making reference to the NRCoC.

 

[cmovcc]

Incidentally, when you first buy a monthly or longer season ticket from a National Rail ticket office, I think you'll find you will have to fill in and sign an application form making reference to the NRCoC.

yes, this is exactly what I expected, and they failed to do!

there's clearly a measure of risk here: the industry isn't too worried about people taking them to court over £20 of tickets here and there as a rational person would not do this, as all they're likely to win is the cost of their ticket back (clearly not worth the time and effort).

but they are more concerned about those with £5000 season tickets: they normally make you sign a form accepting the NRCoC... the technical error of forgetting to do this leaves themselves wide open if a case ever came before the court.

 

[Greenback]

I don't think that I ever signed anything, or completed any application form when I bought my first annual season. I recall that FGW used to have application forms for season tickets, but I always thought that was to make issuing them at the window speedier, as all the information required for the record was there, rather than having to go through the list of questions and fill in the answers at the window.

I must confess I am not sure what case would ever come to court, how the TOC's are wide open, or what they are leaving themselves wide open to.

 

[island]

but they are more concerned about those with £5000 season tickets: they normally make you sign a form accepting the NRCoC... the technical error of forgetting to do this leaves themselves wide open if a case ever came before the court.

No, no it doesn't. You don't have to accept any NRCoC to be bound by the Regulation of Railways Act and the Railway Bye-laws, any more than you have to accept the terms and conditions of being given a driving licence to be bound by section 36 of the Road Traffic Act (which says among other things that you can't turn right on a no right-turn sign).

 

[exile]

But that's a separate issue - bylaws cover people who don't pay a fare at all. However conditions forming part of a contract clearly are relevant to the normal law of contract as with any transaction. Generally when you enter into a contract you have to tick a box or sign to say you've read the contract. What this thread is about is the vendor refusing to let the buyer read these conditions, which is clearly unacceptable.

 

[sheff1]

With the pressure for the railway to reduce costs, can we really argue that paper copies should be printed?

Of course we shouldn't need to argue this. Equally, though, we shouldn't need to argue with members of staff who refuse to accept as valid copies of the NRCoC printed on white A4 paper.

The ideal solution would be for TOCs to ensure their employees understand and comply with the NRCoC, as then passengers wouldn't need to carry copies to refute false assertions. The chances of this happening ............ ?

 

[Flamingo]

Lots of posts from people demanding all staff stick to the NRCoC and know them intimately.

Fair enough, I agree with that.

What will happen if this becomes a two-way thing, with staff demanding passengers always stick to the contract THEY have entered into, and enforcing this to the letter?

Be careful what you wish for, is all I'm saying...

 

[Ediswan]

Lots of posts from people demanding all staff stick to the NRCoC and know them intimately.

Not me. I'll settle for all staff knowing they apply, and being prepared to make reference to a copy when appropriate.

 

[Flamingo]

So you want staff to apply them?

 

[Greenback]

Of course we shouldn't need to argue this. Equally, though, we shouldn't need to argue with members of staff who refuse to accept as valid copies of the NRCoC printed on white A4 paper.

The ideal solution would be for TOCs to ensure their employees understand and comply with the NRCoC, as then passengers wouldn't need to carry copies to refute false assertions. The chances of this happening ............ ?

I completely agree. I think that the issue about the NRCoC online is not as important as the central issue here, which is that TOC staff should be adequately trained and not come out with such drivel in the first place!

But that's a separate issue - bylaws cover people who don't pay a fare at all. However conditions forming part of a contract clearly are relevant to the normal law of contract as with any transaction. Generally when you enter into a contract you have to tick a box or sign to say you've read the contract. What this thread is about is the vendor refusing to let the buyer read these conditions, which is clearly unacceptable.

I thought it was established that the failure to print off the NRCoC by the SWT employee was an error. Of course, this was not at a point when anything was being sold or bought. In any case, I think that the whole discussion about contracts is a distraction to the main issue here, which, once again, is either poor training of front line staff, misinformation or a lack of comprehension.

 

[wintonian]

t you wish for, is all I'm saying...

No that's quite a fair point, however there are those passengers who will wish to visibly see far grater enforcement of the rules - of course if it's them that has fallen foul then they should just be let off with a warning from the overly aggressive member of staff.

 

[sheff1]

Lots of posts from people demanding all staff stick to the NRCoC and know them intimately.

Fair enough, I agree with that.

What will happen if this becomes a two-way thing, with staff demanding passengers always stick to the contract THEY have entered into, and enforcing this to the letter?

Be careful what you wish for, is all I'm saying...

I am quite happy to stick to the NRCoC and any other associated ticket conditions. As far as I know, I always do and have certainly never been found to be in breach of them despite what various staff members I have encountered have claimed. Should I mistakenly breach the conditions at some point in the future I would grit my teeth and take the consequences ... after all the fault would be all mine.

 

[Flamingo]

I am quite happy to stick to the NRCoC and any other associated ticket conditions. As far as I know, I always do and have certainly never been found to be in breach of them despite what various staff members I have encountered have claimed. Should I mistakenly breach the conditions at some point in the future I would grit my teeth and take the consequences ... after all the fault would be all mine.

Well, I respect that, but there are a large number of passengers who don't share your views.

 

[sheff1]

Well, I respect that, but there are a large number of passengers who don't share your views.

No doubt there are

If they are falling foul of conditions which are 'too complicated' they (or their advocates) should be campaigning for a rationalisation which, of course, is a different discussion all together.

 

[Mark_H]

Ladies and gentlemen,

I don't think this is very cool. You all know what I stand for - standing up for the fair treatment of the little man. However, I'm also pro-railway. I don't believe this was a good idea.

I'm not sure what is uncool about this. He has encountered a change that has some potential to disadvantage passengers, whose interests the DfT are supposed to balance with those of the TOCs, and is asking about it. In addition, he is highlighting a contradiction between the different documents, which is surely not a good state of affairs for anyone who wants to know their rights and responsibilities when traveling.

Now, obviously he would like to see this reversed, because he is encountering totally unacceptable situations which a sufficiently "official" looking copy of the NRCoC might solve. (Another solution would be improved staff training, but passengers have no direct control over that, whereas getting a copy of the NRCoC to wave ought to be achievable.) The DfT might say they have approved the change in the interests of efficiency (no out-of-date copies floating around, reduced costs, forests saved, etc), which I do think is reasonable, but having allowed the change the DfT ought to recognise something needs doing to make sure the NRCoC can be referred to at will when passengers and staff interact.

I'm not sure what the best solution would be, but some options spring to mind: provide official printed copies to passengers if ordered online for a token fee (using a Print on Demand provider to prevent stockpiles); have staff carry a copy, whether paper or electronic, and pass it over on demand; have non-removable copies available at ticket offices and gatelines; have all TOCs consistently educate their staff on the NRCoC and treat breaches of it very seriously. (I'm quite sure there are other, better, solutions that could be thought up if someone in the DfT takes longer than the 60 secs I just spent.)

The only option I'm quite sure isn't acceptable is to have staff ignore the NRCoC and refuse to follow it even when presented, which is what appears to be happening with some small minority.

 

[maniacmartin]

Today I produced the officially-printed copy of LO's Customer Charter and pointed out that it clearly says that the legal contract between a passenger and LO is the NRCoC. They didn't have a copy of the NRCoC to reference, but I did (courtesy of SWT).

I then pointed out Appendix C, which clearly mentions LOROL as a Train Company to which the document applies. However, the staff member claimed that London Overground is not part of National Rail, it is part of TfL, along with London Underground and the DLR. I said I know that LO is a TfL concession, but it also part of National Rail and it's own charter says the NRCoC applies.

I was told that the NRCoC only applies on London Overground to tickets sold by London Overground, not by other TOCs, therefore the NRCoC is irrelevant. I pointed out that the NRCoC doesn't say this - in fact it says if a TOC issues a ticket valid on another TOCs services, it acts as the agent, but this fell on deaf ears, as LO apparently wouldn't sell such a ticket

 

[Starmill]

I had a guard on an East Midlands Train service charge me £70something for a new ticket, so I paid for it with a fat wad of Rail Travel Vouchers. She went through each one and said out of date...out of date...out of date and so on. I didn't even bother to respond - I just sat there and smiled at her whilst she demanded another method of payment. She looked at them again and then came the dawn. She had missed the "VALID FOR 12 MONTHS FROM THE DATE SHOWN" text, assuming the date shown was the expiry date.

Also like when I spend the Sainsburys Brand Match vouchers at the self-service machines. Above a certain amount, it requires manual verification by the attendant. When they swipe their ID card, there's an instruction on the screen with words to the effect of "Enter the amount shown on the coupon." Sometimes, they don't get it and call for a manager for help. I just stand there and wait - a extra minute or so won't hurt and I'm happy to wait for that extra amount of time if stating the obvious might make someone feel bad.

Hmmmmm I'd say that it is almost more rude to let her make the mistake!

I would be inclined not to worry about that if the TM took a quick glance at my ticket and concluded "Nope, that's not valid, £70 please!" Thankfully, that must be unlikely

Whatever the weather, that's an excellent gag - IF you carry RTVs around with you! Who does that? And more to the point; you let them expire!?!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Today I produced the officially-printed copy of LO's Customer Charter and pointed out that it clearly says that the legal contract between a passenger and LO is the NRCoC. They didn't have a copy of the NRCoC to reference, but I did (courtesy of SWT).

I then pointed out Appendix C, which clearly mentions LOROL as a Train Company to which the document applies. However, the staff member claimed that London Overground is not part of National Rail, it is part of TfL, along with London Underground and the DLR. I said I know that LO is a TfL concession, but it also part of National Rail and it's own charter says the NRCoC applies.

I was told that the NRCoC only applies on London Overground to tickets sold by London Overground, not by other TOCs, therefore the NRCoC is irrelevant. I pointed out that the NRCoC doesn't say this - in fact it says if a TOC issues a ticket valid on another TOCs services, it acts as the agent, but this fell on deaf ears, as LO apparently wouldn't sell such a ticket

Sometimes I am so glad I don't live in London. As an outsider, my understanding has always been that LO is part of the National Rail network, with TfL acting like a PTE. Kind of like Merseyrail and Merseytravel? In both cases, are the tracks not maintained by NR? And very much distinct from LU/DLR.

And on that last point... LO don't sell 1-6 Travelcards!?

 

[Mark_H]

Today I produced the officially-printed copy of LO's Customer Charter and pointed out that it clearly says that the legal contract between a passenger and LO is the NRCoC. They didn't have a copy of the NRCoC to reference, but I did (courtesy of SWT).

I then pointed out Appendix C, which clearly mentions LOROL as a Train Company to which the document applies. However, the staff member claimed that London Overground is not part of National Rail, it is part of TfL, along with London Underground and the DLR. I said I know that LO is a TfL concession, but it also part of National Rail and it's own charter says the NRCoC applies.

I was told that the NRCoC only applies on London Overground to tickets sold by London Overground, not by other TOCs, therefore the NRCoC is irrelevant. I pointed out that the NRCoC doesn't say this - in fact it says if a TOC issues a ticket valid on another TOCs services, it acts as the agent, but this fell on deaf ears, as LO apparently wouldn't sell such a ticket

You appear to be stuck in a Kafka-esque state (or a version of Terry Gilliam's Brazil, if that's more your style). Clearly no level of written proof is going to trump the "knowledge" (or lack thereof) of whoever you are encountering. It's not reasonable to expect all staff to know all the rules all the time, but if some are outright ignoring what is put right in front of them, then I think you would be fully justified in complaining as widely, loudly and high-up as you can manage.

 

[tony_mac]

there might be some case law
...
clearly if you're not even aware of the contract until you've forked over your money (and can then see what you've agreed to on the back of the ticket), they're acting in a dubious (possibly unlawful) manner.

There is case law. In general, if you fork over the money then see unacceptable conditions attached you can get an immediate refund, and no harm is done.

Thompson v London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company

So here the giving of the ticket in plain terms indicated that there are conditions, and that one of the conditions is that the person shall find them at a certain place and accept them, and that is I think quite a plain indication that the carrier has made that offer upon terms and conditions only, and that any answer that he had not brought the conditions sufficiently to the notice of the person accepting the offer must be set aside as perverse.

However, that predates a great deal of consumer protection legislation, so the situation now probably isn't 100% clear.

 

[Mark_H]

There is case law. In general, if you fork over the money then see unacceptable conditions attached you can get an immediate refund, and no harm is done.

Thompson v London, Midland and Scottish Railway Company


However, that predates a great deal of consumer protection legislation, so the situation now probably isn't 100% clear.

The interesting point about that case is that the passenger lost, because the existence of the conditions was mentioned on the rear of the ticket in a legible size, and the conditions themselves could be acquired at the station. Having the conditions available only on the internet is certainly a step away from that scenario (consider a passenger buying a walk-up ticket who lacks immediate internet access).

However, I don't think anyone's quoted what the NRCoC says about its' own availability:

[Your rights - a summary] This includes making these Conditions and the Byelaws available wherever you can buy a ticket and making it clear who to contact if things go wrong.

...

[Part 1, A, 1, d] Train Companies will ensure that you can be provided with or have access to the conditions applying to any ticket you buy, as well as the Byelaws, before you buy your ticket.

I think it's pretty clear that you are not immediately entitled to a printout to take away (although it's obviously good customer service) provided you are simply given "access" to them instead. (Presumably acceptable methods would include a paper copy stapled to a public noticeboard, or being handed a copy to read at the counter and return?) However, if they have not allowed "access" then they absolutely must "provide", whether by leaflet or printout.

Where this might be of use to Martin is that in the context of your enquiry to the DfT, the Manual does not appear to go far enough to meet the requirements of the NRCoC - telling passengers to get it online, or have it posted, clearly does not ensure you get access prior to being sold a ticket. The NRCoC, and the charters, are clearly attempting to meet the dictates of Thompson vs LMS, while The Manual is not.

Also, if a member of staff is proposing to sell you a ticket, the NRCoC requires them to provide or give access to the NRCoC prior to doing so, rather than you having to carry a copy that they will then rubbish. I'm assuming you are being told that your ticket is invalid and being asked to buy a new one? If so, they must be prepared to whip out the NRCoC or lead you to a copy prior to the transaction taking place.

 

[maniacmartin]

In this case it doesn't matter if they have 1,000 copies of the NRCoC to hand since they think it doesn't apply to them anyway, despite all the evidence to the contrary.

 

[RJ]

I'm not sure what is uncool about this. He has encountered a change that has some potential to disadvantage passengers, whose interests the DfT are supposed to balance with those of the TOCs, and is asking about it. In addition, he is highlighting a contradiction between the different documents, which is surely not a good state of affairs for anyone who wants to know their rights and responsibilities when traveling.

Now, obviously he would like to see this reversed, because he is encountering totally unacceptable situations which a sufficiently "official" looking copy of the NRCoC might solve. (Another solution would be improved staff training, but passengers have no direct control over that, whereas getting a copy of the NRCoC to wave ought to be achievable.) The DfT might say they have approved the change in the interests of efficiency (no out-of-date copies floating around, reduced costs, forests saved, etc), which I do think is reasonable, but having allowed the change the DfT ought to recognise something needs doing to make sure the NRCoC can be referred to at will when passengers and staff interact.

I've already explained why I disapproved of it, by way of positively explaining what I believed were misconceptions about The Manual entry and where such complaints could be more effectively targeted.

It is the case that many railway staff have no idea what significance, if any, the National Rail Conditions of Carriage bear to railway travel. It is therefore immaterial whether the conditions are presented to staff on A4 paper or a fancy blue booklet. Even in my four week retail training, only fleeting references were made to the NRCoC, the rest was custom made material which was derived from its contents but neglected to reference the NRCoC most of the time.

Hmmmmm I'd say that it is almost more rude to let her make the mistake!

I would be inclined not to worry about that if the TM took a quick glance at my ticket and concluded "Nope, that's not valid, £70 please!" Thankfully, that must be unlikely

Whatever the weather, that's an excellent gag - IF you carry RTVs around with you! Who does that? And more to the point; you let them expire!?!

The point was, they hadn't expired. There was a date printed on them. The vouchers were valid for 12 months after that date, whereas the TM incorrectly assumed that the date shown in itself was the expiry date.

I give the RTVs to staff who try and make me cough up for a new ticket or Penalty Fare that I'm not liable to pay. Seeing in the past, the TOC has taken several weeks to process refunds, putting up a fight they should know they will lose along the way, I'd sooner give them RTVs than have my hard earned cash tied up for weeks on end.