Travelled on the next available train (after cancellation) but being charged.

[najaB]

Yep, yet another contradiction, nicely spotted. Funny, it took you a second look to find this one, and I missed it entirely until you mentioned it!

There is not contradiction. One term deals with how delays that occur while travelling are dealt with, the other deals with delay or cancellation of a train you're intending to travel on. There's no point inventing contradictions that don't exist.

 

[AlterEgo]

There is not contradiction. One term deals with how delays that occur while travelling are dealt with, the other deals with delay or cancellation of a train you're intending to travel on. There's no point inventing contradictions that don't exist.

What if the cancelled train was the second leg of an +connections ticket? Is that "while travelling"?

What if the train you are travelling on is late but is then cancelled and you're kicked off at some station?

Do you have to be in motion to be defined as "while travelling"? Can you be defined as "while travelling" if you are stood at the station?

Even the OP refers to his mum taking "the next available train". It is not clear whatsoever. Even you required more than one look at the TnCs to find, in a section which has nothing to do with delays or cancellations, some more (contradictory) info.

I think I have demonstrated to the best of my ability that the terms and conditions are contradictory and do not make it clear what passengers should, can, or are entitled to do.

They are a mess.

 

[najaB]

What if the cancelled train was the second leg of an +connections ticket? Is that "while travelling"?

Yes.

What if the train you are travelling on is late but is then cancelled and you're kicked off at some station?

Yes, that's while travelling.

Do you have to be in motion to be defined as "while travelling"? Can you be defined as "while travelling" if you are stood at the station?

Nope don't need to be in motion, you just need to have caught the first train on your itinerary.

Even you required more than one look at the TnCs to find, in a section which has nothing to do with delays or cancellations, some more (contradictory) info.

No, I didn't have to take two looks. I simply replied to the post you had made.

I think I have demonstrated to the best of my ability that the terms and conditions are contradictory and do not make it clear what passengers should, can, or are entitled to do.

Since you appear not to have noticed:

• Tickets are valid ONLY on the date and train service(s) shown on the ticket(s).
• Where applicable, you must travel in the Class and reserved seat(s) shown on the ticket(s).
• Tickets may only be used on the services of the Train Company (or geographic route where applicable) shown next to ‘Route’ on the ticket.
• If the ‘Route’ also states ‘and Connections’, travel is allowed on appropriate connecting trains where shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary.

I think that pretty much sums up what passengers 'can, should and are entitled to do'.

They are a mess.

They could be improved, but are far from a the mess you make them out to be.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Here's one for those who say 'next available' always means 'next': I'm at Waverley Station with an Advance VTWC ticket to Birmingham. The inbound train is delayed by 30 minutes, should I be allowed on the XC service that's about to depart? What if there's a VTEC service in 15 minutes that would connect at York to an XC service to Birmingham - should VTEC and XC be expected to carry me for free? What happens when I get to Newcastle and try to get on the XC service?

Or should VTWC just convey me on their next service?

 

[rdwarr]

...
Here's one for those who say 'next available' always means 'next': I'm at Waverley Station with an Advance VTWC ticket to Birmingham. The inbound train is delayed by 30 minutes, should I be allowed on the XC service that's about to depart? What if there's a VTEC service in 15 minutes that would connect at York to an XC service to Birmingham - should VTEC and XC be expected to carry me for free? What happens when I get to Newcastle and try to get on the XC service?

Or should VTWC just convey me on their next service?

We're talking about infrequent rail users here; not forum "experts". They wouldn't know the difference between a VTWC and a VTEC (or an XC or EMT or Thameslink for that matter) service, let alone the fact that it made a difference to their ticket's validity.

 

[AlterEgo]

Finally, someone making the point that it's how things appear to the totally uninitiated that matters.

najaB - there's more than one correct answer to "while travelling" to the uninitiated. You seem unable to grasp how these conditions appear to those unfamiliar with them. You and I know what they mean. But not the newbies. Case in point again, the OP refers to the "next available train", as did his mother, to mean "the next train you can get on". Unable to put oneself in the shoes of Mrs B Jones of Acacia Avenue - 'twas ever thus on the railway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We're talking about infrequent rail users here; not forum "experts". They wouldn't know the difference between a VTWC and a VTEC (or an XC or EMT or Thameslink for that matter) service, let alone the fact that it made a difference to their ticket's validity.

Nor the fact that you seem to need to cross reference the conditions about delays "you can take the next available train" with other conditions.

It is not clear. People get caught out all the time. I am leaving this one here as I have made enough posts on the subject to convince others that this is the case, even I'm not going to convince everyone.

 

[najaB]

Finally, someone making the point that it's how things appear to the totally uninitiated that matters.

The uninitiated that you refer to don't even know that the terms that you find so confusing even exist. So it's a pointless argument.

 

[EssexGonzo]

Yet another example of how our fragmenting rail system is not working for the passenger.

To the average person, a train from A to B is just a train, whoever's name is on the side.

Whatever the policy, rules of carriage and t&cs say about this is irrelevant to stranded passengers who's train has been cancelled.

And in their eyes, a member of train staff asking for more money on a later train in these circumstances is bizarre!

Put yourselves in the traveller's shoes.

 

[najaB]

Yet another example of how our fragmenting rail system is not working for the passenger.

That's one way to look at it, however another way to look at is that TOC-only Advance fares work for the passenger as they are normally significantly cheaper than the unrestricted alternatives.

 

[455driver]

Yes, most sensible people ask for clarification of the facts before jumping to conclusions.

Why?
It is obviously the nasty railways fault! :roll:

Edit-
Reading further posts I se I am correct!
This forum is sooo predictable.

 

[Llanigraham]

Yet another example of how our fragmenting rail system is not working for the passenger.

To the average person, a train from A to B is just a train, whoever's name is on the side.

Whatever the policy, rules of carriage and t&cs say about this is irrelevant to stranded passengers who's train has been cancelled.

And in their eyes, a member of train staff asking for more money on a later train in these circumstances is bizarre!

Put yourselves in the traveller's shoes.

Whose fault is that?
You cannot blame to TOC's.

 

[35B]

I don't think he did. He is absolutely right though that people perceive themselves to be travelling on "the railway" rather than TOC A etc. That is despite 20+ years of franchising and mass attempts to make us think the railways can be run like airlines. They then forget that there is virtually no marginal cost in allowing passengers onto their trains if the capacity exists - even if there is revenue foregone.

Too many railway staff let the majority of their colleagues down by failing to grasp this and forgetting the importance of the network.

Some of them are front line, some back office and some senior management.

 

[455driver]

Whose fault is that?

The Governments!

You cannot blame to TOC's.

Oh yes they will!

 

[Solent&Wessex]

It strikes me that many people - experienced or inexperienced travellers - want all the benefits of individual separate train companys and the Advance or TOC specific fares that result, as they are normally cheaper. But then want none of the ensuing responsibilities and default to "it's all British Rail anyway, does it matter what train I travel on?".

All this could be solved by doing away with all these troublesome complicated tickets anf just have Any Permitted fares. Then people will start moaning when all the cheap fares have gone.

 

[najaB]

It strikes me that many people - experienced or inexperienced travellers - want all the benefits of individual separate train companys and the Advance or TOC specific fares that result, as they are normally cheaper. But then want none of the ensuing responsibilities and default to "it's all British Rail anyway, does it matter what train I travel on?".

All this could be solved by doing away with all these troublesome complicated tickets anf just have Any Permitted fares. Then people will start moaning when all the cheap fares have gone.

That is so true!!!

 

[yorkie]

...Unless you work for the prosecutions department of the TOC concerned, you don't know if that was the only reason they decided not to proceed....

Err, given his previous experience in the industry (which I can vouch for; he resolved cases which were posted on here and for which I had helped people with), I think you will have to take his word for it that if he says he knows, he knows.

Having met you both, with respect, he is the one in a position to know

 

[najaB]

Having met you both, with respect, he the one in a position to know

I'm happy to accept that.

The decision of one TOC still proves exactly nothing with regards to the enforceability of the terms by other TOCs.

 

[yorkie]

It is disappointing that, here we are, 72 hours later, and we still do not know what ticket(s) were held, what itinerary was originally planned, what itinerary was actually followed, what ticket(s) were charged for, or what advice was sought/given.

Just a gentle reminder of the 'sticky' thread, for future reference: Please read before posting in Disputes & Prosecutions

 

[Gareth Marston]

Yes the OP should get back to "us" promptly but not everyone is in the position to have the time to post regularly especially if they have to get info from a third party first as seems to be the case here. I've got an I pad in the lounge, the PC upstairs and the smartphone but not everyone has.

Just back from pub and a friends birthday other half has put some awful rubbish on tv

 

[Starmill]

It strikes me that many people - experienced or inexperienced travellers - want all the benefits of individual separate train companys and the Advance or TOC specific fares that result, as they are normally cheaper. But then want none of the ensuing responsibilities and default to "it's all British Rail anyway, does it matter what train I travel on?".

All this could be solved by doing away with all these troublesome complicated tickets anf just have Any Permitted fares. Then people will start moaning when all the cheap fares have gone.

Why is that a surprise? Or something to be ashamed of? The point of the industry, the reason you are all there is to get passengers to where they want to be. People demand good service at low prices, it's how the market is supposed to work to serve them that, not just moan that they want it and charge them more because you can (which, forgive me, seems to be the approach you most often endorse). A fair deal can mean that no cake and eating need take place. But if there is, the customer gets to have their cake and eat it. You don't. Deal with it.

 

[ian959]

It is disappointing that, here we are, 72 hours later, and we still do not know what ticket(s) were held, what itinerary was originally planned, what itinerary was actually followed, what ticket(s) were charged for, or what advice was sought/given.

Just a gentle reminder of the 'sticky' thread, for future reference: Please read before posting in Disputes & Prosecutions

So perhaps threads should be locked until such time as all the required information is received, in accordance with the sticky thread? Then and only then will the thread be open for assistance? Save the OP from having to read a lot of argument that has little or no relevance to their actual problem?

 

[Flying Snail]

It strikes me that many people - experienced or inexperienced travellers - want all the benefits of individual separate train companys and the Advance or TOC specific fares that result, as they are normally cheaper. But then want none of the ensuing responsibilities and default to "it's all British Rail anyway, does it matter what train I travel on?".

That is a reasonable criticism of passengers who opt to ignore the reservations given to them when booking and few here would argue that penalising them in these circumstances is not justified.

However if the TOC fails to provide the booked train then expecting to be able to use whichever the next train that can get them to their destination is not an unreasonable proposition. Considering that in the case of the OP and most others where a booked train is cancelled the next train of any TOC will not get the passenger to their destination at their booked time they are hardly benefiting from the heinous crime of taking the wrong TOC's train.

The phrase "Next available service" without any qualifying wording does not convey any idea that a restriction based on factors that a passengers is not familiar with such as TOC or routing is to be applied. If the TOC's want this to be so then "In case of disruption travel on next TPE service only" or similar wording should be used and prominently presented to intending passengers.

Frankly I think the whole idea that passengers already inconvenienced by a cancelled service should be further hindered by TOC restrictions is stupid (and considering how often the "one railway" mantra is used by some posters here to explain unofficial staff privileges more than a little hypocritical too) but if the TOC's do wish to enforce such rules the least they could do is make it absolutely clear to customers that they will be held to such rules even when the TOC fails to run the service they have sold to them.

The idea that cheap advance fares are a result of the fractured TOC set-up is nonsense. BR introduced APEX fares well before privatisation and had the sell off not happened I am of no doubt that booked train only fares would have become equally commonplace due to the development of yield management systems.

Before someone argues that if it had been a flight ticket no one would expect to be able to use the next departure from a rival airline, this is true. It is also one of the big areas where the railway should be able to claim superiority over air travel, more options to get passengers to their destination and better customer service when things go wrong.

As previously said without more details it is impossible to be 100% on this situation but it does sound like something that should have been dealt with by the guard/RPI using discretion and not fining a passenger who was not purposely dodging the ticket rules.

 

[100andthirty]

That is a reasonable criticism of passengers who opt to ignore the reservations given to them when booking and few here would argue that penalising them in these circumstances is not justified.

However if the TOC fails to provide the booked train then expecting to be able to use whichever the next train that can get them to their destination is not an unreasonable proposition. Considering that in the case of the OP and most others where a booked train is cancelled the next train of any TOC will not get the passenger to their destination at their booked time they are hardly benefiting from the heinous crime of taking the wrong TOC's train.

The phrase "Next available service" without any qualifying wording does not convey any idea that a restriction based on factors that a passengers is not familiar with such as TOC or routing is to be applied. If the TOC's want this to be so then "In case of disruption travel on next TPE service only" or similar wording should be used and prominently presented to intending passengers.

Frankly I think the whole idea that passengers already inconvenienced by a cancelled service should be further hindered by TOC restrictions is stupid (and considering how often the "one railway" mantra is used by some posters here to explain unofficial staff privileges more than a little hypocritical too) but if the TOC's do wish to enforce such rules the least they could do is make it absolutely clear to customers that they will be held to such rules even when the TOC fails to run the service they have sold to them.

The idea that cheap advance fares are a result of the fractured TOC set-up is nonsense. BR introduced APEX fares well before privatisation and had the sell off not happened I am of no doubt that booked train only fares would have become equally commonplace due to the development of yield management systems.

Before someone argues that if it had been a flight ticket no one would expect to be able to use the next departure from a rival airline, this is true. It is also one of the big areas where the railway should be able to claim superiority over air travel, more options to get passengers to their destination and better customer service when things go wrong.

As previously said without more details it is impossible to be 100% on this situation but it does sound like something that should have been dealt with by the guard/RPI using discretion and not fining a passenger who was not purposely dodging the ticket rules.

Well said!!!

 

[najaB]

As previously said without more details it is impossible to be 100% on this situation but it does sound like something that should have been dealt with by the guard/RPI using discretion and not fining a passenger who was not purposely dodging the ticket rules.

As you say, we don't have the necessary detail, but my suspicion is that the OP's Mum and the station staff didn't reach a common understanding of what was supposed to happen (I'm not ascribing blame to either side). To the guard on the second train - who had no way to know what conversation had been had previously - the situation was simple: the passengers were on his train without a valid ticket.

Is it the contention that they should have been allowed to travel without a ticket because 'the man on the platform' said they could?

 

[Haywain]

The idea that cheap advance fares are a result of the fractured TOC set-up is nonsense. BR introduced APEX fares well before privatisation and had the sell off not happened I am of no doubt that booked train only fares would have become equally commonplace due to the development of yield management systems.

Whilst I don't disagree that advance fares would exist now without privatisation, I suspect that the current low level of many such fares is driven by the existence of competition between TOCs. This is the upside of competition which everybody likes, whereas the downside is that the tickets are more restrictive - in BR days such tickets generally had a geographical route restriction but now it is usually operator restricted, even after a cancellation.

 

[Flying Snail]

As you say, we don't have the necessary detail, but my suspicion is that the OP's Mum and the station staff didn't reach a common understanding of what was supposed to happen (I'm not ascribing blame to either side). To the guard on the second train - who had no way to know what conversation had been had previously - the situation was simple: the passengers were on his train without a valid ticket.

Is it the contention that they should have been allowed to travel without a ticket because 'the man on the platform' said they could?

No. They should have been allowed travel because their booked train had been cancelled.

In that case it is far from unreasonable to suspect that some staff member may have allowed them travel part of the journey either to get them out of his/her hair or as a genuine attempt to help along someone inconvenienced by the initial cancellation.

The excuse of "the man on the platform said it's OK" should definitely not be allowed for people whose booked train runs but when it is cancelled it is obvious that booked passengers will have to find alternative trains to get to their destination.

I don't think that you and many others here appreciate how little many passengers understand or care about the minutiae of rail companies and ticketing nuances. The quote from the OP where the passenger's response to who they travelled with was "The Trainline" says it all. People like that look up their journey, buy a ticket (usually the cheapest one the can find) and travel as they are advised by the printout from the website.

If the original train hadn't been cancelled then they most likely would have travelled exactly as stated. It is only when things go wrong are they likely to fall foul of the overly complex ticketing rules that we all find so fascinating but if forced to deal with would have many occasional rail passengers reaching for the car keys.

The whole idea of barring passengers from subsequent services when their original train has been cancelled is just ridiculous, it is further penalising passengers whose plans have already been disrupted by an earlier cancellation.

I can see where a passenger gains an advantage from a cancellation say someone booked on a slow service switching to a faster TOC and arriving ahead of their booked time but other than that it is just being punative for no good reason.

If the TOCs are that keen to gain revenue or prevent other TOC passengers having a free ride on their trains then they could always instigate a procedure to retain or record all other TOC advances used following a disruption and bill that TOC directly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whilst I don't disagree that advance fares would exist now without privatisation, I suspect that the current low level of many such fares is driven by the existence of competition between TOCs. This is the upside of competition which everybody likes, whereas the downside is that the tickets are more restrictive - in BR days such tickets generally had a geographical route restriction but now it is usually operator restricted, even after a cancellation.

While there are some flows that are probably cheaper due to inter-TOC competition these are far from the only ones offering cheap advances and would be only a very small % of the overall market.

The flipside of course is that we wouldn't have the price-gouging TOCs either (XC comes to mind) who use their position to price their flows much higher than average.

 

[sheff1]

Is it the contention that they should have been allowed to travel without a ticket because 'the man on the platform' said they could?

If the man on the platform (i) said they could and (ii) is an Authorised Person, then of course they would have the necessary authority regardless of any interpretation of what is an 'available train'. Whether either, neither or both of those things is the case we do not know.

 

[najaB]

No. They should have been allowed travel because their booked train had been cancelled.

There has been no claim made by the OP that the TOC they booked with denied them travel. We also don't know exactly what the passengers were told vs what they heard.

I ask again - why should TOC B take TOC A's passengers at no cost without any ticket acceptance being put in place?

 

[455driver]

No. They should have been allowed travel because their booked train had been cancelled.

They would have been allowed on the next train operated by the TOC their tickets would be valid on.
Why cant you get that?

In that case it is far from unreasonable to suspect that some staff member may have allowed them travel part of the journey either to get them out of his/her hair or as a genuine attempt to help along someone inconvenienced by the initial cancellation.

So 'the man on the platform said it would be okay' is what you are advocating!
Nope I cant see any problem with that at all! :roll:

The excuse of "the man on the platform said it's OK" should definitely not be allowed for people whose booked train runs but when it is cancelled it is obvious that booked passengers will have to find alternative trains to get to their destination.

So you want staff to check each and every claim that 'my train from <where-ever> has been cancelled can I catch that one (due out in 2 minutes).
Yeah that will work! :roll:

I don't think that you and many others here appreciate how little many passengers understand or care about the minutiae of rail companies and ticketing nuances. The quote from the OP where the passenger's response to who they travelled with was "The Trainline" says it all. People like that look up their journey, buy a ticket (usually the cheapest one the can find) and travel as they are advised by the printout from the website.

They tick a box to state that they understand the terms and conditions of the (cheap) tickets they are buying, end of!

If the original train hadn't been cancelled then they most likely would have travelled exactly as stated. It is only when things go wrong are they likely to fall foul of the overly complex ticketing rules that we all find so fascinating but if forced to deal with would have many occasional rail passengers reaching for the car keys.

If people want flexibility then buy a flexible ticket, okay when things go wrong on the railway then its the railways job to sort it out and they would have within the limitations of the ticket held!

The whole idea of barring passengers from subsequent services when their original train has been cancelled is just ridiculous, it is further penalising passengers whose plans have already been disrupted by an earlier cancellation.

They were not barred, they just had to stick with the TOC their ticket was valid on, same as if your National Express coach was cancelled you wouldn't be able to jump on a coach doing a day excursion which happened to be going where you wanted!

I can see where a passenger gains an advantage from a cancellation say someone booked on a slow service switching to a faster TOC and arriving ahead of their booked time but other than that it is just being punative for no good reason.

So sticking to the TOC on which your ticket is valid is punitive (sp) is it?
Try arguing that in court and let us know how you get on!

If the TOCs are that keen to gain revenue or prevent other TOC passengers having a free ride on their trains then they could always instigate a procedure to retain or record all other TOC advances used following a disruption and bill that TOC directly.

Or people could just say 'your problem is with TOC A, sort it out with them'!

 

[Bletchleyite]

So 'the man on the platform said it would be okay' is what you are advocating!
Nope I cant see any problem with that at all! :roll:

If the man on the platform did say that, then yes, in my view it is OK.

If it is not in the remit of the employment of the man on the platform to say that, then he MUST NEVER say that, or even come close to implying it, but instead clearly state he cannot give that authority and direct them to the ticket office or similar (or the guard BEFORE BOARDING) to obtain such authority.

If he is in doubt, he must always redirect them to someone who will not be in doubt, or simply say he does not know very clearly.

I think the best way to do that is to provide all TOC-uniformed customer-facing staff with a pack of small cards explaining what to do in the event of a cancellation.

FWIW, either the situation needs to be simplified, or the passenger needs to be required to get a stamp on their ticket from the ticket office (where present) to continue. That's the expectation with reservations-compulsory services like airlines and coaches.

So sticking to the TOC on which your ticket is valid is punitive (sp) is it?
Try arguing that in court and let us know how you get on!

There are cases where it could be punitive, such as if the cancelled train is the last of the day, or there is a very long wait for another of that TOC's trains.

 

[Flying Snail]

There has been no claim made by the OP that the TOC they booked with denied them travel. We also don't know exactly what the passengers were told vs what they heard.

I ask again - why should TOC B take TOC A's passengers at no cost without any ticket acceptance being put in place?

Because tomorrow it will be TOC B's cancelled train and passengers looking to travel on TOC A and they have already paid.

No the real question is why shouldn't they take them.

I have no problem with the railway coming down like a ton of whatever on top of fare evaders, disruptive or abusive passengers and anybody else trying to scam the system but penalising people who are trying to complete their journey after another part of the railway has failed them is just mean spirited, nasty and unnecessary.

All it achieves is to leave some customers with a very sour experience of the railway rather than feel like even after things went wrong everyone did their best to help them complete their journey with as little hassle as possible.