ForTheLoveOf
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 6,416
I've been having a think about tickets where there's a disparity between the restrictions the passenger is told about when buying, and the restrictions contained in the fares database.
I think there are two scenarios I'm imagining - where the database (and presumably intended) restrictions and/or permitted routes are more restrictive than the passenger has been told when buying, and vice versa.
Which of these would count when it came to the question of whether a ticket was valid for the purposes of RoRA and the Byelaws, e.g. if an RPI checked?
As a concrete example, there are many double-backs that aren't really intended to be allowed, but that are nevertheless shown as permitted routes by nationalrail.co.uk (e.g. doubling back for stations on the Watford DC line). On the other hand, there are fares like the 'Southern Only' tickets which are arguably valid on Gatwick Express due to the brand vs. TOC distinction.
I would think the accepted validity in the context of any contractual claim (e.g. Delay Repay) would be based on what you are told when sold the ticket. But for criminal law purposes, could you for example have been said to have evaded your fare if you held a ticket not intended to be valid, that you were nevertheless sold as valid?
I think there are two scenarios I'm imagining - where the database (and presumably intended) restrictions and/or permitted routes are more restrictive than the passenger has been told when buying, and vice versa.
Which of these would count when it came to the question of whether a ticket was valid for the purposes of RoRA and the Byelaws, e.g. if an RPI checked?
As a concrete example, there are many double-backs that aren't really intended to be allowed, but that are nevertheless shown as permitted routes by nationalrail.co.uk (e.g. doubling back for stations on the Watford DC line). On the other hand, there are fares like the 'Southern Only' tickets which are arguably valid on Gatwick Express due to the brand vs. TOC distinction.
I would think the accepted validity in the context of any contractual claim (e.g. Delay Repay) would be based on what you are told when sold the ticket. But for criminal law purposes, could you for example have been said to have evaded your fare if you held a ticket not intended to be valid, that you were nevertheless sold as valid?