transmanche
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,018
Not me, the NRCoC.
You're obviously not going to agree with me over this. You're happy with your interpretation, I am with mine. I suggest we leave it there.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Which T&Cs take precedence on PTE products?
- Thread starter transmanche
- Start date
- Status
You're obviously not going to agree with me over this. You're happy with your interpretation, I am with mine. I suggest we leave it there.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
The NRCoC does not apply to every ticket valid for travel on rail. The whole point of tickets to/from London International and London Eurostar is so that the whole journey to subject to CIV with the NRCoC not applying to any part.
No the NRCoC specifically says "a contract" not "the contract".
I was more than happy to leave any further comments to a lawyer many posts ago.
However if there is no relevant case law and someone wishes to fight a test case concerning the validity of PTE ts&cs vs NRCoC, I'll happily put my money where my mouth is and back them with a sum of £100.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Yes but the CIV offers more favourable terms than the NRCoC. While I'm unsure whether the clause relating to more favourable terms has been deleted from the NRCoC or not, I can't see anyone complaining about being offered a better deal.
This thread has been split from the Saveaway partly used in peak hours thread.
From Merseyrail's Guide to Saveaways:
Merseyrail cannot override the NRCoC by 'redefining' what constitutes a journey.
RAZOR1965 said:
From Merseyrail's Guide to Saveaways:
From the NRCoC:Merseyrail said:
It is fairly clear that Waterloo - NLW is one unbroken journey, even though you need to change trains. I would say that as long as you don't take too long to walk between Central and Lime Street you'll be fine, especially if you have the receipt showing the time and place you bought the ticket. You won't be the first to do it and you won't be the last.Condition 16 said:
Merseyrail cannot override the NRCoC by 'redefining' what constitutes a journey.
Last edited:
I don't think that the meaning could be much clearer.
The term journey is both used and clarified in the Saveaway terms and conditions; I don't see any sense in looking for a different definition elsewhere.
To join in the pedantry; the NRCoC doesn't clarify 'journey'. It defines 'break of journey', a term which is used within the NRCoC, but not the Saveaway conditions, which only refer to two separate journeys. The NrCoC has nothing to say about how to deal with two separate journeys.
It's a bit of a stretch to even link the two, never mind claiming that one document takes precedence over another, despite the term in question being explicitly and clearly spelled out.
I often complain about the lack of clear meanings in the terms and conditions, and hence the problems of different interpretations. This just seems like a slightly desperate attempt to to claim ambiguity where none really exists.
The term journey is both used and clarified in the Saveaway terms and conditions; I don't see any sense in looking for a different definition elsewhere.
To join in the pedantry; the NRCoC doesn't clarify 'journey'. It defines 'break of journey', a term which is used within the NRCoC, but not the Saveaway conditions, which only refer to two separate journeys. The NrCoC has nothing to say about how to deal with two separate journeys.
It's a bit of a stretch to even link the two, never mind claiming that one document takes precedence over another, despite the term in question being explicitly and clearly spelled out.
I often complain about the lack of clear meanings in the terms and conditions, and hence the problems of different interpretations. This just seems like a slightly desperate attempt to to claim ambiguity where none really exists.
This is clearly not two separate journeys; it's one journey with a change of trains.
If the T&Cs want to allow you to only board trains at certain times, and you then get penalised for changing, then they should not refer to journeys and simply use plain and simple English and say it how it is.
Although it's clear to me that the journey is from origin to destination, some might say there's doubt about the meaning of the term 'journey', so we may need to make note as to what to do if there is doubt about the meaning of a term...
If the T&Cs want to allow you to only board trains at certain times, and you then get penalised for changing, then they should not refer to journeys and simply use plain and simple English and say it how it is.
Although it's clear to me that the journey is from origin to destination, some might say there's doubt about the meaning of the term 'journey', so we may need to make note as to what to do if there is doubt about the meaning of a term...
The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 said:
OwlMan
Established Member
Surely condition 1(c) of the NRCOC covers this
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.
If a ticket entitles you to any goods or services from another party (including the right to travel in another partys transpot 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.
Tickets remain the property of the relevant Train Company. Each ticket is issued subject to:
(a) these Conditions;
(b) the applicable Byelaws;
(c) the conditions which apply to Electronic Tickets, Smartcards, other devices used for storing Electronic Tickets and certain types of reduced and discounted fare tickets as set out in the notices and other publications issued by the Train Companies whose trains you are entitled to use;
and (d) the conditions set out in the notices and other publications issued by another person if the ticket enables you to use any of their goods or services. 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.
In the case of electronic tickets and tickets issued on Oyster cards, see Condition 9.1.
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. 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.
If a ticket entitles you to any goods or services from another party (including the right to travel in another partys transpot 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.
Tickets remain the property of the relevant Train Company. Each ticket is issued subject to:
(a) these Conditions;
(b) the applicable Byelaws;
(c) the conditions which apply to Electronic Tickets, Smartcards, other devices used for storing Electronic Tickets and certain types of reduced and discounted fare tickets as set out in the notices and other publications issued by the Train Companies whose trains you are entitled to use;
and (d) the conditions set out in the notices and other publications issued by another person if the ticket enables you to use any of their goods or services. 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.
In the case of electronic tickets and tickets issued on Oyster cards, see Condition 9.1.
The definition with regards to Saveaways is quite clear as far as I am concerned. Whether it's legally enforceable is less clear going on this thread. In which case, what is the OP to do?
Go for it and hope for the best? Maybe the OP can show the barrier staff at Lime Street this thread to try and convince them!
Or buy a ticket that will allow them to complete their journey with no worry of being stopped and possibly missing their train?
For me, only the second option makes sense. I do not think it is wise to advise someone who may not have much knowledge of ticketing/ NRCoC/ Byelaws etc to chance it in this situation. The rules regarding Saveaways should be well known to all transport staff on Merseyside as they have been in place for a long time and I believe they are right to enforce them. The issue with the legality of the Saveaway T&Cs has nothing to do with front line staff.
Because the Conditions say so
Although Stagecoach think the NRCoC doesn't apply to Megatrain tickets.
I'm afraid this is one of the biggest problems with the contemporary railway industry. You think, as do many others, that this is unequivocally and indubitably the case, presumably because that's what it says in iKB? But what it says there isn't relevant to the needs of the customer, and cannot change the terms of the ticket, or the NRCoC, or influence the contract. If any of these things dictate that it must be excessed, I am sure it can be and it would be.
The Railway needs a new ethos - what can we do for our customers, especially those who are still willing to pay? Rather than the current 'these are the rules, you do what we say end of'.
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,151
I do not necessarily disagree with your assertion, however in the case of the aforementioned example, the questions then becomes "How do you excess a Ranger/Rover ticket out of a time restriction?"
There are two possible solutions I can see, either insert another clause into Condition 12 of the NRCoC which explicitly states that such an excess fare would not be available on Ranger and Rover tickets, or that an explicit mechanism is defined, eg. charge the difference between the Off-Peak and Anytime fares for the journey made.
But then in the latter case, questions would need to be asked as to what to do when the Off-Peak fare offers more generous time restrictions than the Ranger/Rover, especially if it were unrestricted, potentially leading to something extremely messy.
I agree with your sentiment in principle, but I cannot see a reasonably tidy way of implementing it, so the only realistic solution I can see is for the non-availability to be made clearer.
This is not a sale of goods though. It is a contract for service, no "good" changes hands (not even the ticket - that remains the property of the TOC).
Furthermore issuer is arguably acting as an agent for the TOCs, meaning the contract can be enforced against the TOC rather than the retailer.
I've adressed this previously, there is at least one Sales Of Goods and Services Act and services are covered by at least some of the legislation. However I was trying to address the assertion that because Saveaway is a Merseytravel product that "the" contract is with Merseytravel. If you have a Hotpoint product, under fundamental Contract Law you have a contract with the retailer, not with Hotpoint.
I agree that the NRCoC makes it clear that contract is assigned from the retailer to the ToC in the case of train travel.
What the exact contractual relationship between a consumer and PTE is, I don't know but would welcome clarification. Although I'm happy that the NRCoC leads me to believe that other non-TOC parties cannot vary the NRCOC in a less favourable manner (so it is the business of the TOC to enforce this in their contracts with the other parties in order to satisfy their NRCoC obligations to me), I am aware that a court may not agree with the latter bracketed interpretation if it there is a significant contractual relationship between the ticket buyer and the PTE.
It isn't primarily a contemporary railway industry issue. The lack of clarity on the legal position of the terms and conditions of PTE tickets vs (then) British Rail was just as much an issue in BR days. It's just that there weren't forums like this to highlight it!
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
I would agree, and would suggest a sensible rule (which has always been what I understood anyway) would be that excesses can only be done between different Single and Return fares, and not "special" fares like Rangers/Rovers, and definitely not PTE tickets which aren't regular train tickets.
As for "what if I need extra validity on a Rover/Ranger/PTE ticket", the answer is "add an appropriate Single or Return fare to bring you back into validity". FWIW, DB make this explicit on their Laender tickets.
Just to be clear, a Saveaway is a decent value, fiver for the day, ticket, which gives you the passenger unlimited Travelcard type travel throughout the whole of the wider city of Liverpool, and even a bit beyond into Chester and a couple of other places.
As is common with such travelcards, you can't use it in the peak.
I just thought this worth pointing out, in this discussion about whether the NRCoCs should take precedence over its single sensible restriction (which would probably result in it having to massively increase in price), that it is a good value day ticket being spoken about here, rather than some sort of cheeky rip off.
As is common with such travelcards, you can't use it in the peak.
I just thought this worth pointing out, in this discussion about whether the NRCoCs should take precedence over its single sensible restriction (which would probably result in it having to massively increase in price), that it is a good value day ticket being spoken about here, rather than some sort of cheeky rip off.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
If too many people argued about it, I would imagine it would change to "you may not be on a train between these times", which would be more restrictive.
Playing catch-up here so apologies for the long post.
There does seem to be some fundamental lack of understanding in the above discussions over what the role is of PTEs in funding services and offering certain ticketing arrangements. This isn't helped by PTEs' own terms and conditions too often failing to be explicit about their relationship with the NRCoC. Unfortunately, as happens too often with London vs non-London issues, care has been taken to ensure clarity on Oyster's relationship with the NRCoC in a way that isn't apparent for PTEs, and it is that which is at the heart of the problem. The PTEs are as much to blame as National Rail for this as too often their overall terms and conditions for their products are woefully ill-defined.
PTEs' powers in this regard are set out in section 13 of the Railways Act 2005. The relevant parts are:
'(3)A Passenger Transport Executive for a passenger transport area in England and the Secretary of State may enter into arrangements under which one or both of the following occurs
(a)sums become due from the Executive to the Secretary of State in respect of services for the carriage of passengers by railway within that area or in respect of station services or bus substitution services provided within that area; and
(b)the Secretary of State undertakes to exercise or perform his powers and duties in relation to or in connection with such services in a particular way.
(4)A Passenger Transport Executive for a passenger transport area in England may enter into agreements for purposes relating to or connected with the provision, by a person who is a franchisee or franchise operator in relation to a franchise agreement, of
(a)services for the carriage of passengers by railway within that area; and
(b)station services provided for purposes connected with any such services.'
So specific tickets offered by PTEs form part of the general agreements they have with relevant TOCs for purposes related to, or connected with, a franchise operator of passenger services. This does not make the PTE the operator of the service, rather it is one party to an agreement related to the service. One aspect of such agreements can be that TOCs accept certain tickets developed by the PTE, be they Saveaways or others. In effect, PTEs are buying access to specified rail services for holders of these tickets.
There is a fundamental distinction in law between the actions of a company's staff or agents and the actions that a company as a body corporate takes. This condition makes no reference to bodies corporate and so would seem to be irrelevant to this issue.
The problem is that the overall context of the NRCoC is in terms of rail tickets. When you buy a PTE product, unless it is otherwise stated, a contract may well exist between you and the PTE, the PTE may well have a contract with the TOC in terms of acceptance of the ticket, but that does not necessarily create a direct contract between you and the TOC. The applicability of the rest of the NRCoC is a moot point, but that is not the same as a contract being created.
Yes I agree.
Having said all this, there is clearly the need for wider aspects of the NRCoC beyond ticket validities to apply to passengers holding PTE products in terms of the wider good order of the railway. I think that the approach that a court would take if asked to determine how PTE products' conditions and the NRCoC inter-relate would partly depend upon the approach to interpretation that a judge took, but would likely to be along the lines that the NRCoC is relevant except where either a PTE condition clearly overrode it or, faced with a contradiction or the context of an issue, common sense would mean that a specific NRCoC section cannot be taken to be applicable.
This cannot be a substitute though for PTEs and National Rail ensuring clarity. One does wonder why so little attention and skill is used on this issue when Oyster has conditions and inter-relationships with National Rail which, whether you agree with them or not, have clearly been well thought through.
There does seem to be some fundamental lack of understanding in the above discussions over what the role is of PTEs in funding services and offering certain ticketing arrangements. This isn't helped by PTEs' own terms and conditions too often failing to be explicit about their relationship with the NRCoC. Unfortunately, as happens too often with London vs non-London issues, care has been taken to ensure clarity on Oyster's relationship with the NRCoC in a way that isn't apparent for PTEs, and it is that which is at the heart of the problem. The PTEs are as much to blame as National Rail for this as too often their overall terms and conditions for their products are woefully ill-defined.
PTEs' powers in this regard are set out in section 13 of the Railways Act 2005. The relevant parts are:
'(3)A Passenger Transport Executive for a passenger transport area in England and the Secretary of State may enter into arrangements under which one or both of the following occurs
(a)sums become due from the Executive to the Secretary of State in respect of services for the carriage of passengers by railway within that area or in respect of station services or bus substitution services provided within that area; and
(b)the Secretary of State undertakes to exercise or perform his powers and duties in relation to or in connection with such services in a particular way.
(4)A Passenger Transport Executive for a passenger transport area in England may enter into agreements for purposes relating to or connected with the provision, by a person who is a franchisee or franchise operator in relation to a franchise agreement, of
(a)services for the carriage of passengers by railway within that area; and
(b)station services provided for purposes connected with any such services.'
So specific tickets offered by PTEs form part of the general agreements they have with relevant TOCs for purposes related to, or connected with, a franchise operator of passenger services. This does not make the PTE the operator of the service, rather it is one party to an agreement related to the service. One aspect of such agreements can be that TOCs accept certain tickets developed by the PTE, be they Saveaways or others. In effect, PTEs are buying access to specified rail services for holders of these tickets.
No it isn't, nor does it claim to be. It sets certain conditions which apply to passengers and TOCs. That is not the same as a contract.
PTEs having the right to set fares as part of a wider agreement with TOCs does not make the fares and related tickets PTE products. It is simply them having the ability to set a fare as part of the agreement and related funding they are providing.
I think that is talking about a different kind of situation to PTE products. It is referring to where a rail ticket also includes the right to use other services. Examples could be PlusBus or where a rail ticket also includes the use of ferries. This is indicated by the fact that it refers to a ticket gives rights to 'another party's' services. i.e. it is rail plus another party. That is different to most PTE products where rail is simply one of several equal parties for which a ticket is valid."If a ticket entitles you to any goods or services from another party (including the right to travel in another partys 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.
But when a PTE product is sold by a ticket seller such as a TOC, they are acting as an agent of the PTE. That does not create a direct contract in terms of the provision of the services that the ticket may give access to, even if it creates a contract in terms of their duties to ensure that a valid ticket has been sold. An equivalent is when a ticket agent sells a ticket for a gig. They have legal and contractual responsibilities if they have sold an invalid ticket, but it does not mean they have any direct contractual liaiblities if, for example, you turned up at the concert and the theatre for reasons of their own decided not to let you in.
The final sentence highlights the problem. PTE tickets are usually not the property of a TOC. Indeed they often include a condition that they remain the property of the PTE.
A PTE fare could, because that is usually just a National Rail ticket where the PTE happen to set the fare as part of their wider agreement with the TOC. A PTE product is not a discounted ticket as it is not a National Rail ticket at all. Rather it is a PTE product that allow access for holders onto specified rail services.
There is a fundamental distinction in law between the actions of a company's staff or agents and the actions that a company as a body corporate takes. This condition makes no reference to bodies corporate and so would seem to be irrelevant to this issue.
The problem is that the overall context of the NRCoC is in terms of rail tickets. When you buy a PTE product, unless it is otherwise stated, a contract may well exist between you and the PTE, the PTE may well have a contract with the TOC in terms of acceptance of the ticket, but that does not necessarily create a direct contract between you and the TOC. The applicability of the rest of the NRCoC is a moot point, but that is not the same as a contract being created.
Yes I agree.
What is your basis for saying it is a contract? It does not claim to be such.
Absolutely. Be it Rovers, Rangers or PTE products, a holder of one may well have had benefit of multiple journeys far in excess of what individual tickets would have cost. There is no justification for allowing excess arrangements.
Having said all this, there is clearly the need for wider aspects of the NRCoC beyond ticket validities to apply to passengers holding PTE products in terms of the wider good order of the railway. I think that the approach that a court would take if asked to determine how PTE products' conditions and the NRCoC inter-relate would partly depend upon the approach to interpretation that a judge took, but would likely to be along the lines that the NRCoC is relevant except where either a PTE condition clearly overrode it or, faced with a contradiction or the context of an issue, common sense would mean that a specific NRCoC section cannot be taken to be applicable.
This cannot be a substitute though for PTEs and National Rail ensuring clarity. One does wonder why so little attention and skill is used on this issue when Oyster has conditions and inter-relationships with National Rail which, whether you agree with them or not, have clearly been well thought through.
I would suggest that common sense should be enough to ensure clarity.
Ordinary people don't go to the small print in order to make their journey. The ticket is of a type that allows travel with a discrete geographical area, not a 200 mile journey where any "whole journeys starting from before 9:30" might make any sense.
There are plainly obvious reasons as to why it is that individual journeys are treated as individual journeys, to prevent the ticket being scammed to give peak travel at (good value) off-peak prices.
Are the irrelevant pedantics really more important than the straightforward operation and value of an entire city's Travelcard? It's a system that has operated for many, many years without any issues.
The single journey and peak restrictions make perfect sense, and are perfectly fair.
Ordinary people don't go to the small print in order to make their journey. The ticket is of a type that allows travel with a discrete geographical area, not a 200 mile journey where any "whole journeys starting from before 9:30" might make any sense.
There are plainly obvious reasons as to why it is that individual journeys are treated as individual journeys, to prevent the ticket being scammed to give peak travel at (good value) off-peak prices.
Are the irrelevant pedantics really more important than the straightforward operation and value of an entire city's Travelcard? It's a system that has operated for many, many years without any issues.
The single journey and peak restrictions make perfect sense, and are perfectly fair.
Last edited:
I remain of the view that:
1)As correctly stated at: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/46427.aspx
2) accordingly, the NRCoC forms part of the contract to travel;
3) the word "Condition", as used above, refers to a Condition of the NRCoC;
4) any ticket valid for travel on a scheduled passenger train service is a "ticket" within the meaning of the NRCoC and also within the meaning of related railway legislation, such as byelaw 18;
5) regardless of the separate contracts formed with other parties relating to the contract for travel by other methods of transport, and for other services, the contract for travel by domestic rail is with the TOCs whose services one has the right to use, with Merseytravel acting as agent, in the same way as Megatrain acts as agent for the sale of Megatrain tickets, with the contract for travel formed with the relevant TOCs,
7) section 13 of the Railways Act 2005 provides that certain bodies may enter into private agreements with each other; nothing in this section regulates the contract entered into by the passenger, nor provides for the non-application of the NRCoC to such contracts for travel;
8) it is contrary to the conditions of their franchise agreements, to stated advertising, and to wider public policy, for TOCs, and their agents, to be able to sell tickets for domestic rail travel which are not subject to the NRCoC at all; in which case the contracts for travel might then, in the absence of other statutory or governmental regulation, be subject to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations after all, which I understand do not normally apply to contracts for travel by rail, which would make it substantially more difficult for the TOCs to seek to enforce onerous or unclear terms (perhaps including NRCoC Condition 4 on PFs, albeit that these are governed by actual legislation?);
9) it is contrary to the conditions of their franchise agreements, to stated advertising, and to wider public policy, for TOCs, and their agents, to be able to pick and choose which aspects of the NRCoC they wish to follow, and would also result in highly undesirable uncertainty for all concerned;
10) Merseytravel, as agents for the TOCs in relation to rail travel, may introduce additional conditions relating to Saveaway tickets, but these additional conditions may not, under any circumstances, deny passenger rights contained in the NRCoC unless the NRCoC itself expressly permits this; insofar as such conditions purport to deny such rights, such conflicting conditions are null, void and of no effect;
11) insofar as any ambiguity exists, the principle of contra proferentem means, in this context, that the passenger is entitled to the most favourable interpretation, which would reinforce the principle that the NRCoC prevails over the less favourable conflicting conditions.
12) notwithstanding all the above, I see no reason why these additional conditions, (or, as the case may be, restriction codes), may not prescribe a different definition of "journey" for the purpose of time restrictions, from that which would naturally apply for other purposes, provided this is made clear, (and so long as fares regulation is not contravened, but this is not relevant to this ticket type);
13) I believe that, in this case, it is made sufficiently clear, and hence that the time restriction validly applies to Saveaway tickets involving a change of train notwithstanding that the journey is commenced before the time specified, and notwithstanding that the NRCoC applies to the contract for travel;
14) were this not the case, it would be trivially simple for Merseytravel, on behalf of the relevant TOCs, to amend the published condition relating to time restrictions so as to make it enforceable, perhaps by introducing a blanket ban on all journeys before 09:30; this would not be in the interests of passengers!
1)As correctly stated at: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/46427.aspx
2) accordingly, the NRCoC forms part of the contract to travel;
3) the word "Condition", as used above, refers to a Condition of the NRCoC;
4) any ticket valid for travel on a scheduled passenger train service is a "ticket" within the meaning of the NRCoC and also within the meaning of related railway legislation, such as byelaw 18;
5) regardless of the separate contracts formed with other parties relating to the contract for travel by other methods of transport, and for other services, the contract for travel by domestic rail is with the TOCs whose services one has the right to use, with Merseytravel acting as agent, in the same way as Megatrain acts as agent for the sale of Megatrain tickets, with the contract for travel formed with the relevant TOCs,
; (6) this contract is governed by, and subject to, the NRCoC, which itself forms part of the contract to travel, as provided for by the franchise agreements, and the NRCoC itself; insofar as the TSA relates to interavailable tickets, it further reinforces that the tickets are subject to the NRCoC; accordingly, the ticket is the property of the relevant TOCs as per the NRCoC, at least in relation to the travel by rail envisaged by that contract; it may also be the property of Merseytravel as well;NRCoC Condition 1 said:
7) section 13 of the Railways Act 2005 provides that certain bodies may enter into private agreements with each other; nothing in this section regulates the contract entered into by the passenger, nor provides for the non-application of the NRCoC to such contracts for travel;
8) it is contrary to the conditions of their franchise agreements, to stated advertising, and to wider public policy, for TOCs, and their agents, to be able to sell tickets for domestic rail travel which are not subject to the NRCoC at all; in which case the contracts for travel might then, in the absence of other statutory or governmental regulation, be subject to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations after all, which I understand do not normally apply to contracts for travel by rail, which would make it substantially more difficult for the TOCs to seek to enforce onerous or unclear terms (perhaps including NRCoC Condition 4 on PFs, albeit that these are governed by actual legislation?);
9) it is contrary to the conditions of their franchise agreements, to stated advertising, and to wider public policy, for TOCs, and their agents, to be able to pick and choose which aspects of the NRCoC they wish to follow, and would also result in highly undesirable uncertainty for all concerned;
10) Merseytravel, as agents for the TOCs in relation to rail travel, may introduce additional conditions relating to Saveaway tickets, but these additional conditions may not, under any circumstances, deny passenger rights contained in the NRCoC unless the NRCoC itself expressly permits this; insofar as such conditions purport to deny such rights, such conflicting conditions are null, void and of no effect;
11) insofar as any ambiguity exists, the principle of contra proferentem means, in this context, that the passenger is entitled to the most favourable interpretation, which would reinforce the principle that the NRCoC prevails over the less favourable conflicting conditions.
12) notwithstanding all the above, I see no reason why these additional conditions, (or, as the case may be, restriction codes), may not prescribe a different definition of "journey" for the purpose of time restrictions, from that which would naturally apply for other purposes, provided this is made clear, (and so long as fares regulation is not contravened, but this is not relevant to this ticket type);
13) I believe that, in this case, it is made sufficiently clear, and hence that the time restriction validly applies to Saveaway tickets involving a change of train notwithstanding that the journey is commenced before the time specified, and notwithstanding that the NRCoC applies to the contract for travel;
14) were this not the case, it would be trivially simple for Merseytravel, on behalf of the relevant TOCs, to amend the published condition relating to time restrictions so as to make it enforceable, perhaps by introducing a blanket ban on all journeys before 09:30; this would not be in the interests of passengers!
Last edited:
Well the easiest thing for Merseytravel to do in that case is to simply withdraw the generous acknowledgement that pre half six in the morning isn't really peak, which allows those very early morning travellers to use a great value Saveaway ticket, and simply tell the people of Liverpool "Sorry, it's not valid before half nine in the morning at all now, because someone complained".
After reading all this, though, they'll probably just point to their perfectly reasonable and generous rule which only blocks out a three hour morning peak window, and politely tell anyone whining about it where to go.
All this for the sake of one person and a £4.80 fare for a peak journey. Versus a city travelcard which has been operating perfectly fine since the 1970s.
After reading all this, though, they'll probably just point to their perfectly reasonable and generous rule which only blocks out a three hour morning peak window, and politely tell anyone whining about it where to go.
All this for the sake of one person and a £4.80 fare for a peak journey. Versus a city travelcard which has been operating perfectly fine since the 1970s.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
They are also no more restrictive neither more silly than the way in the UK (including in this case) each time you board a bus is considered a separate journey requiring usually a separate single fare to be paid.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
To look at this another way (again in Merseytravel's favour):
On normal tickets under the NRCoC, you can restrict in a number of ways. A not uncommon one in the South East is basing it upon when a given train leaves London or arrives at it, regardless of where you happen to board. I don't see why that is hugely different to this case.
The debate here seems purely about the definition of "journey", and I see no reason it should not be different for a PTE ticket than a normal railway one where it applies to ticket restrictions (rather than, say, the obligation of the railway with regard to split ticketing during delays). You can codify a time restriction in any way you want - I don't believe there are any restrictions on that (!) and there are loads of different types.
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,151
What a lovely approach when imperfections are pointed out in the terms and conditions! :roll:
So you would prefer that because the terms are unclear in one passenger's eyes which meant he might take advantage, you would then inconvenience all your other passengers who have stuck to absolutely everything you stipulated and in the way you wished the ticket to be used?
That would make things so much easier - "Not valid on trains that arrive at or depart Liverpool Central or Lime Street after 0645 and before 0900." No need for any discussion about "journey" and whatnot then. There can also be some easements to allow journeys entirely within outer reaches of the ticket validity so that passengers are not adversely affected by such changes.
There are right ways and wrong ways to go about resolving an issue. These two examples I quoted above demonstrate quite clearly the differences between a knee-jerk reaction and a well thought through alternative.
No. Actually, it's not my preference in the slightest (and I think that came across just fine in my post). Just the only way that this could be responded to in any way which preserves the Saveaway as an affordable ticket.
The system serves tens of millions of people every year, not just one, and preserving the peak hour for peak hour paid travel is essential. The simple and easy to understand restriction (of one train journey = one single journey and no travel starting in the peak) is in place to ensure this. If it wasn't then it would be simple for peak time travelers to just buy a Saveaway, and nigh on impossible to prevent it being used this way.
My own preference is that people realise when they are taking "the rules" to extremes, recognise that this is a decent value travelcard with a sensible, simple and easy to understand restriction, and can the whole conversation. I feel there may be rather more meritable discussion subjects regarding "unfair" T&Cs than a PTE offering a decent value day ticket with one single (very generous) restriction.
So instead of simply thinking "Oh my train leaves at 7am I can't use the Saveaway" the passenger who usually just turns up and goes has to look up the timetable of when it calls at a city centre station? Even though they might be going from Bromborough to Chester. Or Formby to Southport. Or Southport to Bootle. Or Kirkby to Ormskirk...
The existing restriction is plainly simple, perfectly reasonable. It doesn't have to be made easier. It's as easy as anyone could make it already.
Last edited:
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,151
I do not necessarily disagree with this, however you are forgetting one very important issue. There is nothing against anyone who entered into a contract to take a more favourable interpretation of some of the terms to himself. Should such a dispute proceed to court, the court will not be looking at how good value a ticket this is, or how many of us would prefer that no one makes a fuss for fear that the terms would be altered to everyone's detriment. The court would only be interested in what the contract says and whether there is any contradiction. I have no idea which way such a judgement would go, because it is far from clear which side is correct and how a court would handle such a challenge.
So looking up the timetable twice a year is such hardship then? Really?
It does not seem to be the case to me if there is a whole thread dedicated to discussing whether a PTE product can overwrite the NRCoC. Just because you think it is plain and simple does not mean it necessarily is.
That's not a discussion about what the term means, but an orthogonal one about whether it ought to be applied.
I haven't seen anyone say that they can't understand what it means - I think it's clearer than an awful lot of others.
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,151
Yes, it is a discussion about a side issue, but one that has direct impact on whether certain conditions are enforceable.
Maybe it is down to individual interpretation, but that to me makes the issue complicated and unclear.
Well I guess your average Joe and Jane from Kirkby, Bootle, Aigburth, and Birkenhead must all be a brainy old lot, being that this ticket has been in existence since the 1970s, and used by countless millions of people during that time without any kind of problem.
It couldn't be made any simpler, and if someone for whatever non-reason wants to make a fuss about it I feel fully confident that, regardless of any statement of supposed contract, any complaint would simply (and rightly) be met with a stony face and being told where to go. And ultimately if the Liverpool PTE were to be ridiculously forced to change the condition to suit the pedants in order to continue to offer the ticket, it would have to switch to the previously stated far less generous offer of simply being invalid before half nine. Not really a result.
99.9% of passengers will not consider they have "entered into a contract" and reach for the small print (which they will not even realise exists). They buy a train ticket, they use the train. The simpler and more overt the restrictions the better as far as they are concerned.
As I said before:
It couldn't be made any simpler, and if someone for whatever non-reason wants to make a fuss about it I feel fully confident that, regardless of any statement of supposed contract, any complaint would simply (and rightly) be met with a stony face and being told where to go. And ultimately if the Liverpool PTE were to be ridiculously forced to change the condition to suit the pedants in order to continue to offer the ticket, it would have to switch to the previously stated far less generous offer of simply being invalid before half nine. Not really a result.
99.9% of passengers will not consider they have "entered into a contract" and reach for the small print (which they will not even realise exists). They buy a train ticket, they use the train. The simpler and more overt the restrictions the better as far as they are concerned.
Aside from that most people don't like to study timetables, Merseyrail is a turn up and go system. I wouldn't fancy having to look up the Tube timetable to find out when my tube was passing through Victoria before getting on (especially if I wasn't even going near Victoria, which is the equivalent!). I don't see why the people of Liverpool should have to be massively inconvenienced and put through the mangle...
... for the sake of one person who pondered if they could wrangle a plainly peak hour journey from Lime Street out of the Saveaway, saving themselves a whole £4.80, and exactly the kind of journey the restriction is meant to prevent.
As I said before:
Last edited:
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,151
At first, possibly, but as I said earlier, should such a dispute proceed to a court of law, it is not what the PTE would like to do that matters. It would be up to the court to make a decision based on evidence presented by both sides.
No, not all challenges will produce favourable results for the passenger. I never said so. Some fights are not worth having in my opinion, this being one. What I do support however is the right of a passenger to register a dispute should a grey area arise. The pricing authority set the terms and conditions for a product, and if they make a mess of things (which may lay unchallenged for decades) there is nothing wrong in my opinion for a passenger to take advantage.
Yes, provided that such terms are legitimate.
There is a trade-off. Of course the simpler the restrictions are the better things would be, but there is one crucial element you are missing - that it must be legally enforceable. There is no point having some terms which contradict more overarching conditions no matter how simple it is. (I am not passing judgement on the legality of those in relation to the Saveaway, as I don't know, but things are far from simple and clear judging by the discussions ensued.)
Massively inconvenienced?
I'm not sure that I can even be bothered to point out the ridiculousness of comparing Merseyrail to London Underground. If one's local service only runs every fifteen minutes, I doubt many would not have given the timetable a glancing look so that they are aware which service at the latest they would need to catch to get to work. Miss one and there will not be another one along in a few minutes. (Your argument may possibly stand for a leisure trip but I doubt many would do that for a journey to work.)
These are all side arguments anyway. That is just one possible way to word the restrictions which can totally eliminate potential issues (since someone mentioned it). There are other ways if you are so bothered about looking up a timetable. (In fact I think simply changing one word in the existing condition would mean that it complies with the NRCoC.) I don't really see why you think the most likely change in the face of a challenge would be to bar all journeys before 0930, if the PTE really cared about the overwhelming majority of its passengers rather than having an ego trip in its dispute with one passenger.
You may not like it, but there is nothing wrong with someone studying the contract they entered into and registering a dispute because of a difference in interpretation. Simply because you or I don't like it doesn't mean it is wrong for them to do so.
As to your repeated claims that it is a good value product, I totally agree. I think it is excellent value, but I don't see how the price is relevant in a discussion about the enforceability of one of its conditions. Two completely separate issues.
I disagree. The term "journey" clearly means from origin to destination, which may or may not involve a change of trains. A PTE cannot simply redefine that term on a whim!
If the T&Cs want to allow you to only board trains at certain times, and you then get penalised for changing, then they should not refer to journeys and simply use plain and simple English and say it how it is.
For example they could say "Not valid for boarding any train between 0631 and 0929" that would be very clear and make perfect sense.
- Status