Which T&Cs take precedence on PTE products?

[transmanche]

Merseyrail cannot override the NRCoC by 'redefining' what constitutes a journey.

Why not?

Remember the Saveaway product is not a 'National Rail' product. It's a PTE product valid on buses, ferries as well as trains, so different CoCs may apply. A similar comparison would be where Oyster cards are used on National Rail. These are subject to the "Oyster Conditions of Use on National Rail services" which clearly state:

1.1 Where these Conditions of Use differ from the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, these Conditions of Use take precedence when you are using your Oyster card.

 

[Merseysider]

Why not?

Because the Conditions say so

58. Limitation of authority of a Train Company’s staff or agents
A Train Company’s staff or agents have no authority to waive or change these Conditions.

Remember the Saveaway product is not a 'National Rail' product. It's a PTE product valid on buses, ferries as well as trains, so different CoCs may apply.

Issued subject to the National Rail Conditions of Carriage.

Call me a pedant, but different T&C can apply to the ticket so long as they supplement and not contradict the NRCoC. In this case, no condition would be enforceable that gives a different definition of a 'journey' if it is of disbenefit to the passenger.

Yes, the OP is making one journey for the purposes of the NRCOC. This means that he could claim delay compensation based on the whole journey for example.

However I don't think that has any relevance to the time restrictions for the Saveaway. The published restrictions are very clear that you can't pass through a barrier after 0630. It is no different to the evening CDR restrictions in Greater Manchester where you can catch the 1550 into Manchester, but changing onto the 1630 back out the other side is not allowed.

I believe there is a distinct difference. If we consider that the through journey is a through journey, then it is allowed using a Saveaway as the journey began at a permitted time, which is what counts.

GM restrictions are on specific trains, so even if your journey began at a permitted time, you can't change on to a later train at a barred time. I hope I'm making sense!

If the validity of the Saveaway was instead "not valid on bus/train/ferry services timed to depart between 0631 and 0929" then that would be clearly invalid after Liverpool.

In short, I am of the opinion it's valid because I believe it to be one journey (not two) begun at a permitted time.

 

[crehld]

Why not?

Because condition 58 of the NRCoC quite clearly and explicitly states that train companies (which Merseyrail is) cannot change or amend the aforementioned conditions.

For completeness:

58. Limitation of authority of a Train Company’s staff or agents
A Train Company’s staff or agents have no authority to waive or change these Conditions

Remember that it is not just passengers who are bound by the NRCoC, but train companies too.

 

[transmanche]

Because the Conditions say so

58. Limitation of authority of a Train Company’s staff or agents
A Train Company’s staff or agents have no authority to waive or change these Conditions.

That's totally irrelevant to this situation because it simply means that a TOC isn't bound just because one of their employees says something that isn't true.

Remember, I wasn't commenting on whether or not the ticket was valid to make the journey. Merely responding to your assertion that "Merseyrail cannot override the NRCoC" - where I presume you mean Merseytravel and not Merseyrail.

Issued subject to the National Rail Conditions of Carriage.

Yes, that's preprinted on all RSP ticket stock. And what do the NRCoCs say?

If a ticket entitles you to any goods or services from another party (including the right to travel in another party’s transport services), it is also evidence of a contract between you and that other party. The conditions relating to these additional goods or services may be different, and will be obtainable from that other party.

In this instance, the 'other party' is Merseytravel.

Call me a pedant, but different T&C can apply to the ticket so long as they supplement and not contradict the NRCoC.

Well that's clearly not the case, as in the example I posted earlier.

 

[crehld]

That's totally irrelevant to this situation because it simply means that a TOC isn't bound just because one of their employee's says something that isn't true.

Hmmm... not sure about that interpretation.

Remember, I wasn't commenting on whether or not the ticket was valid to make the journey. Merely responding to your assertion that "Merseyrail cannot override the NRCoC" - where I presume you mean Merseytravel and not Merseyrail.

Not sure what the grounds for such a presumption are. For the purpose of clarity, perhaps JakeF could clarify if he meant to say Merseyrail or Merseytravel?

Yes, that's preprinted on all RSP ticket stock. And what do the NRCoCs say?

In this instance, the 'other party' is Merseytravel.

Ah, I'm glad you pointed that out. In which case we need to enter into a debate about which conditions take precedence. Allow me to kick off: the OP's planned journey is entirely on the National Rail network served by national rail train operating companies (Merseyrail and Northern). All journeys on the national rail network operated by national rail train operating companies are subject to the NRCoC. Therefore the NRCoC take precedence over the conditions of other services provided by Merseytravel (buses, ferries, etc.) which are not actually being used by the OP... Discuss!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Ah, I'm glad you pointed that out. In which case we need to enter into a debate about which conditions take precedence. Allow me to kick off: the OP's planned journey is entirely on the National Rail network served by national rail train operating companies (Merseyrail and Northern). All journeys on the national rail network operated by national rail train operating companies are subject to the NRCoC. Therefore the NRCoC take precedence over the conditions of other services provided by Merseytravel (buses, ferries, etc.) which are not actually being used by the OP... Discuss!

Consider, in your discussion, Megatrain tickets, which do not fully follow the NRCoC either. I think from that we can conclude that tickets not managed by the railway itself can be different.

 

[Merseysider]

Where do you get that from? They would be charged an Anytime Day Single from Lime St to Newton-le-Willows which is £4.80. You can't excess a Saveaway. There isn't even an Off Peak Day Single from which you could have derived that figure.

The conditions of carriage...

...If a restriction applies and the ticket you are using is not valid for the train you are travelling in, then:
(a) you will be liable to pay an excess fare (the difference between the price paid for the ticket you hold and the price of the lowest priced ticket available for immediate travel that would have entitled you to travel in that train for the journey shown on the ticket)
...

Saveaway=£5.10
WLO-NLW=£6.90 SDR

Doesn't matter if the machine being used can't excess a Saveaway. The staff can do it manually or sell "SUNDRY" tickets to the value of the excess required.

And transmanche, I fail to see how "other party" is relevant? No "other party" comes into it. It's a rail only journey.

 

[transmanche]

Hmmm... not sure about that interpretation.

Well, it's a moot point as Merseytravel is not an 'agent' of the train company. (In fact the reverse is true, the TOC is an agent of Merseytravel.)

Not sure what the grounds for such a presumption are. For the purpose of clarity, perhaps JakeF could clarify if he meant to say Merseyrail or Merseytravel?

Again, a moot point, The product being sold is a Merseytravel product, not a product of any TOC.

Ah, I'm glad you pointed that out. In which case we need to enter into a debate about which conditions take precedence. Allow me to kick off: the OP's planned journey is entirely on the National Rail network served by national rail train operating companies (Merseyrail and Northern). All journeys on the national rail network operated by national rail train operating companies are subject to the NRCoC. Therefore the NRCoC take precedence over the conditions of other services provided by Merseytravel (buses, ferries, etc.) which are not actually being used by the OP... Discuss!

The journeys being taken are irrelevant. The product is a Merseytravel product, sold on their behalf by a TOC. The NRCoC apply to any journey on the National Rail network and the NRCoC makes it clear that the "other party's" CoCs apply.

So the Saveaway conditions apply, even to those journeys made wholly on the National Rail network.

 

[lejog]

Consider, in your discussion, Megatrain tickets, which do not fully follow the NRCoC either. I think from that we can conclude that tickets not managed by the railway itself can be different.

No we certainly can not. The NRCoC is a contract between the passenger and the companies proving the service(s) on which he travels. It replaces the normal fundamental legal contract between a buyer and a seller when money is handed over and because of the current nature of the rail industry makes it an agreement between the passenger and the TOCs. So much is clear in the first two lines of the NRCoC.

If any other body tries to impose conditions counter to the NRCoC and the TOC tries to enforce these on your journey then then the TOC is in clear breach of contract and should be sued for any losses that occur.

The Megatrain ts&cs do say "Bookings for megatrain services are in accordance with the National Rail Conditions of Carriage. Some of these conditions are clarified or specifically amended below." followed by a long list which I think are mostly clarifications that the product is an Advance ticket and requires a reference number rather than a ticket. They do sneek in a clause saying compensation will not be paid.

If any lawyer gives good legal reasons why the NRCoC should not be applied by TOCs in preference to any other ts&cs, I would defer. But saying that companies have attempted to do change NRCoC terms is certainly not an argument that they can or that they would be enforcable if challenged in court.

 

[crehld]

Well, it's a moot point as Merseytravel is not an 'agent' of the train company. (In fact the reverse is true, the TOC is an agent of Merseytravel.)

Again, a moot point, The product being sold is a Merseytravel product, not a product of any TOC.

The journeys being taken are irrelevant. The product is a Merseytravel product, sold on their behalf by a TOC. The NRCoC apply to any journey on the National Rail network and the NRCoC makes it clear that the "other party's" CoCs apply.

So the Saveaway conditions apply, even to those journeys made wholly on the National Rail network.

This is interesting - what about where PTEs set the national rail fares? Are we to suggest that because these are essentially PTE products they are not bound by the NRCoC, being bound by the PTE specific rules instead? I'd disagree personally (Perhaps we should start a separate discussion)

 

[transmanche]

No we certainly can not. The NRCoC is a contract between the passenger and the companies proving the service(s) on which he travels. It replaces the normal fundamental legal contract between a buyer and a seller when money is handed over and because of the current nature of the rail industry makes it an agreement between the passenger and the TOCs. So much is clear in the first two lines of the NRCoC.

Well, being pedantic, the NRCoC isn't a contract per se, it forms part of the contract.

I assume you're referring to this part:

When you buy a ticket to travel on scheduled services on the National Rail Network you make an agreement with the Train Companies whose trains the ticket allows you to use.

If any other body tries to impose conditions counter to the NRCoC and the TOC tries to enforce these on your journey then then the TOC is in clear breach of contract and should be sued for any losses that occur.

I agree, but that is not the case in this situation. As I stated earlier, the ticket is sold on behalf of Merseytravel, not on behalf of a TOC. And the NRCoC clearly states:

If a ticket entitles you to any goods or services from another party (including the right to travel in another party’s transport services), it is also evidence of a contract between you and that other party. The conditions relating to these additional goods or services may be different, and will be obtainable from that other party.

The service you have purchased is that offered by the Saveaway product and the other party is Merseytravel.

If any lawyer gives good legal reasons why the NRCoC should not be applied by TOCs in preference to any other ts&cs, I would defer.

I would counter by saying can you find a lawyer who gives a good legal reason why the Saveaway CoCs should not be apply in this case?

But saying that companies have attempted to do change NRCoC terms is certainly not an argument that they can or that they would be enforcable if challenged in court.

Good luck with that.

As I posted earlier, when you use an Oyster card on National Rail, the conditions clearly state:

1.1 Where these Conditions of Use differ from the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, these Conditions of Use take precedence when you are using your Oyster card.

Do you think TfL/ATOC/whoever did that without getting solid legal advice?

 

[lejog]

Again, a moot point, The product being sold is a Merseytravel product, not a product of any TOC.

See my previous post. It is irrelevant that the product is a Merseytravel product, the NRCoC applies between the passenger and the TOC.

The journeys being taken are irrelevant. The product is a Merseytravel product, sold on their behalf by a TOC.

The Saveaway ticket is sold by Travel Centres, TOCs, Network Rail (assuming they manage Lime St) and many other businesses large and small throughout Merseyside (possibly the country) that provide Paypoint machines. It is a good example of why the normal contract between buyer and seller has been changed to one between buyer and provider of services for rail travel. If normal law applied, you could be disputing rail compensation with your local corner shop

The NRCoC apply to any journey on the National Rail network and the NRCoC makes it clear that the "other party's" CoCs apply.

"If a ticket entitles you to any goods or services from another party (including the right to travel in another party’s transport services), it is also evidence of a contract between you and that other party. The conditions relating to these additional goods or services may be different, and will be obtainable from that other party."

In the case of tickets such as Saveaway which are also valid on bus and ferry services, there are also contracts with other companies ONLY with respect to the services provided by the other party . The NRCoC doesn't apply to commercial bus or ferry services.

 

[transmanche]

See my previous post. It is irrelevant that the product is a Merseytravel product, the NRCoC applies between the passenger and the TOC.

Of course it is relevant! If your local station started selling lottery tickets, would you claim that the NRCoC would apply to them too? Of course not, the National Lottery conditions would apply.

In this case Merseytravel (not a TOC) product has been purchased, so Merseytravel's Saveaway conditions will apply.

 

[lejog]

Well, being pedantic, the NRCoC isn't a contract per se, it forms part of the contract.

NRCoC Clause 1 "1. Your contract. A ticket that has been issued to you is evidence of a contract between you and each Train Company whose trains you have the right to use"

I assume you're referring to this part:

I agree, but that is not the case in this situation. As I stated earlier, the ticket is sold on behalf of Merseytravel, not on behalf of a TOC. And the NRCoC clearly states:
The service you have purchased is that offered by the Saveaway product and the other party is Merseytravel.

I've quoted the relevant section above, the only reference to other parties in NRCoC confirms their right to set ts&cs for any non-rail travel covered by a ticket.

I would counter by saying can you find a lawyer who gives a good legal reason why the Saveaway CoCs should not be apply in this case?

Good luck with that.

As I posted earlier, when you use an Oyster card on National Rail, the conditions clearly state:

Do you think TfL/ATOC/whoever did that without getting solid legal advice?

In my experience of managing large contracts, it is exceedingly common for lawyers to dream up clauses that contradict each other in one document, let alone 2 and to include clauses that would not be uphold under English Law in any court. It keeps their fees rolling in.

 

[transmanche]

I've quoted the relevant section above, the only reference to other parties in NRCoC confirms their right to set ts&cs for any non-rail travel covered by a ticket.

You do realise that the NRCoC isn't pick and mix? You can't simply ignore things because they don't fit your existing opinion.

 

[lejog]

Of course it is relevant! If your local station started selling lottery tickets, would you claim that the NRCoC would apply to them too? Of course not, the National Lottery conditions would apply.

In this case Merseytravel (not a TOC) product has been purchased, so Merseytravel's Saveaway conditions will apply.

Fundamental English contract law has said for many centuries that when money changes hands, a contract is formed between the buyer and seller. Not between the buyer and supplier of whatever you are buying. If you buy a new fridge and it is faulty, old law and the modern Sales of Goods Acts make it plain the retailer is responsible to you for replacement not the manufacturer. The manufacturer may in practice handle the replacement on behalf of the retailer, but if it becomes a legal matter it is between you and the retailer.

As far as I'm aware a lottery ticket does not allow you to travel on TOCs services, so no it would not be the basis of contract between a passenger and a TOC.

 

[lejog]

You do realise that the NRCoC isn't pick and mix? You can't simply ignore things because they don't fit your existing opinion.

Sorry which section of the NRCoC are you accusing me of ignoring? I repeat the only section of the NRCoC I can see that relates to other parties says

"If a ticket entitles you to any goods or services from another party (including the right to travel in another party’s transport services), it is also evidence of a contract between you and that other party. The conditions relating to these additional goods or services may be different, and will be obtainable from that other party."

Oh and also one that says TOCs aren't responsible for other parties not providing their goods or services.

So yes a Saveaway ticket also provides a contract with other parties (ie non TOCs) with respect to other goods and services (ie non-train travel, in this case services buses and ferries). It would be difficult for there to be a contract between a passenger and a TOC for services TOCs don't provide, whether they be bus services, ferry services or indeed lottery tickets.

 

[transmanche]

Fundamental English contract law has said for many centuries that when money changes hands, a contract is formed between the buyer and seller.

I've snipped most of what you said as that was about the sales of goods, rather than the supply of services.

As far as I'm aware a lottery ticket does not allow you to travel on TOCs services, so no it would not be the basis of contract between a passenger and a TOC.

Well the sale of a Saveaway ticket is no different to the sale of a lottery ticket. The contract is for the supply of a Saveaway ticket which offers the advertised benefits of that product and to which the Saveaway conditions apply. Quite simple.

If you dispute that, then even relying on the NRCoC fails as (and this is the important bit that you keep ignoring) because under the NRCoC it is clear that the service you have purchased is that offered by the Saveaway product and the other party is Merseytravel. And thus the Saveaway condition apply.

Whichever way you try to interpret it, the Saveaway conditions apply!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

So yes a Saveaway ticket also provides a contract with other parties (ie non TOCs) with respect to other goods and services (ie in this case services buses and ferries).

No, completely wrong.

Again, the 'service; is all of the benefits offered by the Saveaway, not just the non-train ones. And the other party is 'Merseytravel' who operate the Saveaway Ticket Scheme.

In buying a Saveaway you have not purchased a 'train ticket which also allows use of buses and ferries'. You have bought a Saveaway ticket, with all the benefits and conditions it provides.

 

[Polarbear]

On a slight tangent, would the same apply with regard to the "Daysave" ticket? The difference being that this is a Merseyrail product rather than a Merseytravel product?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Saveaway=£5.10
WLO-NLW=£6.90 SDR

What on earth makes you think you can do that? It's a PTE ticket. You can't excess it.

I think this is one thing that might need a test case - in my view a PTE ticket is a special case, because you have a contract with the PTE under their T&C and they have a contract with the TOC(s) to supply rail travel for that ticket, so I think the NRCoC can be exempted, simply because the passenger does not have a contract with the TOC but instead with the PTE (or ticketing umbrella company, in some cases). That is in my view why things like this and the WY "no 19(c) splits" rule is valid. However some people disagree with me - and the only way to resolve that is for a Court to decide, I guess.

 

[Merseysider]

What on earth makes you think you can do that? It's a PTE ticket. You can't excess it.

I think this is one thing that might need a test case - in my view a PTE ticket is a special case, because you have a contract with the PTE under their T&C and they have a contract with the TOC(s) to supply rail travel for that ticket, so I think the NRCoC can be exempted, simply because the passenger does not have a contract with the TOC but instead with the PTE (or ticketing umbrella company, in some cases). That is in my view why things like this and the WY "no 19(c) splits" rule is valid. However some people disagree with me - and the only way to resolve that is for a Court to decide, I guess.

This isn't a dig, at all, but that's the same kind of reasoning as the staff who won't excess "online" tickets that are printed via TOD. A ticket is a ticket is a ticket.

I'd be happy to be part of a test case. I live in Merseyside now so would be quite easy. I doubt there'd be any issues.

 

[transmanche]

This isn't a dig, at all, but that's the same kind of reasoning as the staff who won't excess "online" tickets that are printed via TOD. A ticket is a ticket is a ticket.

"All National Rail tickets are equal, but some tickets are more equal than others". However, a Saveaway isn't a National Rail ticket!

 

[Wolfie]

Consider, in your discussion, Megatrain tickets, which do not fully follow the NRCoC either. I think from that we can conclude that tickets not managed by the railway itself can be different.

I believe that yorkie for one would challenge that. I seem to recall him assisting someone in successfully challenging Megatrain's attempts to assert exactly that...

 

[crehld]

Consider, in your discussion, Megatrain tickets, which do not fully follow the NRCoC either. I think from that we can conclude that tickets not managed by the railway itself can be different.

Megatrain disagree:

11. Bookings for megatrain services are in accordance with the National Rail Conditions of Carriage.

 

[First class]

The October 2011 NRCoC had this statement included:

These Conditions set out your rights and any restrictions to those rights. The Train Companies may give you more extensive rights than those set out in these Conditions and, if they do so, these may be found in each Train Company’s Passenger’s Charter or other publications. Details of where you can find this information will be available when you buy your ticket. The Train Companies may not give you less extensive rights, except in the case of some types of reduced and discounted fare tickets where the relevant condition(s) specifically allow them to do so. These Conditions set out the minimum level of rights you are entitled to expect

A PTE fare or ticket (or indeed Megatrain) could easily fall into those types of "reduced" or "discounted" fare ticket types.

BUT

The NRCoC was revised in 2012 and that statement disappeared. I personally, having looked further into this, believe that it was removed as a simple oversight.

In any event, the replacement NRCoC will keep you all busy.

 

[ASharpe]

According to NRCOC:

11. The period during which you can use a ticket
The period during which a ticket is valid is printed on the ticket or will be made clear to you when you buy your ticket. If you use a ticket after the expiry of the ticket’s validity, you may be treated as having joined a train without a ticket and Condition 2 or 4 will apply.

So if I had an Anytime Day Single, which says 01 JLY 15 as the date, could I use it in the early morning the next day?

The Anytime T&Cs say:

Anytime Day (Single and Return) tickets must be used on the date shown on your ticket and up to 04:29 the following day.

Does the NRCOC allow the period of validity to be extended by 4.5 hours given that:

58. Limitation of authority of a Train Company’s staff or agents
A Train Company’s staff or agents have no authority to waive or change these Conditions.

Does the 04:29 rule need to be explicitly stated to passengers or printed on the ticket to be valid?

Edit:
If validity can't be restricted by T&Cs then would you also agree that it can't be extended either.

 

[lejog]

I've snipped most of what you said as that was about the sales of goods, rather than the supply of services.

No it was about fundamental English contract law. I knew I shouldn't have mention Sales of Goods Acts, even though one is specifically called Sales Of Goods And Services Act, because you would try to twist things.

Well the sale of a Saveaway ticket is no different to the sale of a lottery ticket. The contract is for the supply of a Saveaway ticket which offers the advertised benefits of that product and to which the Saveaway conditions apply. Quite simple.

What contract do you mean by "the contract"? I'm referring in all my posts to the contract contained within the NRCoC between a passenger and the TOCs on which the passenger's ticket is valid.

If you dispute that, then even relying on the NRCoC fails as (and this is the important bit that you keep ignoring) because under the NRCoC it is clear that the service you have purchased is that offered by the Saveaway product and the other party is Merseytravel. And thus the Saveaway condition apply.Whichever way you try to interpret it, the Saveaway conditions apply!

Of course I dispute that, instead of just stating it as fact, please state the clause of the current NRCoC (May 2012) which backs you up on this.

To back my claim up here are 3 extracts from the current NRCoC

The first lines of Introduction say.
When you buy a ticket to travel on scheduled services on the National Rail Network you make an agreement with the Train Companies whose trains the ticket allows you to use." Merseytravel is not a listed Train Company.

Part 1 Section A Part 1 Your contract
"A ticket that has been issued to you is evidence of a contract between you and each Train Company whose trains you have the right to use. Where the company selling you the ticket is not one of the Train Companies on whose services you are travelling, the seller is acting as agent for the Train Company or Companies in whose trains you are entitled to travel." Again the contract is between you and one or more TOCs, not Merseytravel. Yes a ticket seller may be the agent of a TOC (but see Clause 58).....

58. Limitation of authority of a Train Company’s staff or agents
A Train Company’s staff or agents have no authority to waive or change these Conditions.... but agents do not have the right to change the NRCoC.

No, completely wrong. Again, the 'service; is all of the benefits offered by the Saveaway, not just the non-train ones. And the other party is 'Merseytravel' who operate the Saveaway Ticket Scheme.

In buying a Saveaway you have not purchased a 'train ticket which also allows use of buses and ferries'. You have bought a Saveaway ticket, with all the benefits and conditions it provides.

I can only reiterate (although I'm banging my head aginst a wall here), that I'm referring to the NRCoC, the contract between a passenger and the TOC (not Merseytravel) on which he is travelling, which specifically disallows agaents of the TOC from changing the contract. If I am travelling on a train and the TOC attempts to break the conditions of the NRCoC, the TOC are in breach of contract and I sue them. Merseytravel are not involved in any way or form.

 

[transmanche]

I can only reiterate

Reiterate all you want, but you have repeatedly made some fundamental flaws in your argument.

Your premise is that the Saveaway is a train company ticket subject solely to the NRCoC and that Merseytravel (as agents of the TOCs) cannot change the terms of the NRCoC. Is that a correct assumption?

My premise is that the Saveaway product is a Merseytravel product. Merseytravel is not an agent of the TOCs, in fact the reverse is true; the TOCs (along with bus companies etc) are agents of Merseytravel in delivering the services included as part of the Saveaway product. The NRCoC recognises this and it states (my bold):

If a ticket entitles you to any goods or services from another party (including the right to travel in another party’s transport services), it is also evidence of a contract between you and that other party. The conditions relating to these additional goods or services may be different, and will be obtainable from that other party.

• The services you are entitled to are those made available by the Saveaway product.
• The other party is Merseytravel.
• The evidence is the ticket (whether printed on RSP stock or otherwise).
• The contract is with Merseytravel.
• The conditions relating to these services are obtainable from Merseytravel.
• The conditions of the Saveaway product appear to be different in the interpretation of what constitutes an individual journey.

 

[OwlMan]

The NRCoC was revised in 2012 and that statement disappeared. I personally, having looked further into this, believe that it was removed as a simple oversight.

.

It is still there see section 1(c), although not quite worded so clear.

 

[lejog]

Reiterate all you want, but you have repeatedly made some fundamental flaws in your argument.

Your premise is that the Saveaway is a train company ticket subject solely to the NRCoC and that Merseytravel (as agents of the TOCs) cannot change the terms of the NRCoC. Is that a correct assumption?

That is not my premise. The NRCoC does not differentiate between "train company" tickets and "Merseytravel" tickets. The NRCoC informs the passenger of his contractual rights and obligations (on rail services only) when he holds any ticket valid for travel on rail.

My premise is that the Saveaway product is a Merseytravel product. Merseytravel is not an agent of the TOCs, in fact the reverse is true; the TOCs (along with bus companies etc) are agents of Merseytravel in delivering the services included as part of the Saveaway product.

I would not argue with the fact that Saveaway is a Merseytravel product. I disagree with you on the relevance that fact has with regard to the NRCoC. Whatever your argument about the general meaning of the word agent, Clause 1A1 defines it in the context of the NRCoC.

The NRCoC recognises this and it states

"If a ticket entitles you to any goods or services from another party (including the right to travel in another party’s transport services), it is also evidence of a contract between you and that other party. The conditions relating to these additional goods or services may be different, and will be obtainable from that other party"

The services you are entitled to are those made available by the Saveaway product.

The NRCoC is a contract between two parties, the passenger and the TOCs, the clause covers "goods or services from another party" i.e not all services made available by the Saveaway ticket, no. However I agree the Saveaway ticket "is also evidence of a contract with other parties."

The other party is Merseytravel.The evidence is the ticket (whether printed on RSP stock or otherwise).The contract is with Merseytravel.

Here you go again about "the contract". The fact there is also evidence of a contract between the passenger and other parties, does nothing to invalidate the NRCoC as a contract covering train travel, it just means there is evidence of a second contract. Nowhere in the NRCoC does it say the second contract overide the NRCoC (nor do the Merseytravel ts and cs claim this). The NRCoC says "The conditions relating to these additional goods or services may be different". Not the conditions applying to the services covered by the NRCoC, which the NRCoC makes plain can not by changed by other ticket sellers (Clause 58 and the definition of agent in clause 1A1.)