Which T&Cs take precedence on PTE products?

[Camden]

Yes, that is a better wording. Why don't you write and suggest it to them?

 

[transmanche]

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!

Of course they can, and the NRCoC even confirms they can!

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.

That's a very different restriction from the only currently imposed, as it would stop you from making journeys which involved changing after 06:30 at Moorfields, Liverpool Central, Hooton, Hamilton Square, Birkenhead North, Sandhills, Kirkdale, Edge Hill or Huyton. Whereas the current situation only seem to prevent journeys which involve changing after 06:30 at Lime Street or Liverpool South Parkway. So your 'simplification' would actually reduce the passenger benefit offered by the PTE's Saveaway product.

 

[Jonfun]

A PTE cannot simply redefine that term on a whim!

Why not? It's their product, if you choose to buy it in preference to alternative tickets then you accept their conditions and follow them.

The restrictions are made explicitly clear and I don't think that's at all passenger unfriendly. However, I agree with Camden in that if people start abusing the product all they'll do is tighten up the conditions to say not valid before 0930, which isn't beneficial for anyone.

My view on tickets is a simple one. If you don't want to adhere to the conditions or restrictions, be they route, time, booked train only, break of journey, what constitutes a journey, whether you have to carry a stuffed monkey with you on a Friday etc, then you don't buy the ticket and purchase a ticket which doesn't have that restriction. It really, really grates me to see people who buy cheap tickets and then try and wriggle out of following the conditions, because it's exactly this reason that tickets get withdrawn or restrictions tightened up. And then the same people moan about the nasty railway being "passenger unfriendly"!

 

[TUC]

In terms of clarifying the issue overall in the NRCoC, could this be addressed by including something along the lines of 'Where passengers are travelling on rail services when using non-National Rail tickets (for example, products issued by PTEs), all parts of these Conditions of Carriage continue to apply, except for where the terms and conditions of the non-National Rail ticket in relation to traveling on the relevant rail journey are different to those of the NRCoC, in which case the terms and conditions of the ticket are applicable'.

 

[transmanche]

In terms of clarifying the issue overall in the NRCoC, could this be addressed by including something along the lines of 'Where passengers are travelling on rail services when using non-National Rail tickets (for example, products issued by PTEs), all parts of these Conditions of Carriage continue to apply, except for where the terms and conditions of the non-National Rail ticket in relation to traveling on the relevant rail journey are different to those of the NRCoC, in which case the terms and conditions of the ticket are applicable'.

Which is pretty much what the NRCoC already 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.

 

[Bletchleyite]

To be honest, and I don't think I'll be popular, I think PTE tickets *should* be able to override certain terms of the NRCoC, because the whole point of a joint tariff is that it has a unified set of T&Cs (so far as ticketing goes) across all modes of transport.

Therefore I have no issue with this term as it stands.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

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.

I don't see why there is any need for a discussion about what a journey means, as it is made 100% clear what it means in this case - a journey for the purposes of the ticket restrictions is delimited by a railway ticket barrier or boarding a bus. There is no question of what that means. And as someone says, this has always been the definition used on the Saveaway, so it can't have been that much of a problem on a ticket that is over 30 years old!

What some people are doing are applying the definition of "journey" per the NRCoC to a context to which that definition is irrelevant. The definition of "journey" per the NRCoC is relevant only to the use of that word within the NRCoC. It has no relevance outside.

Think of it this way - if it used the word "fish" instead of "journey", would there be an issue of it overriding the NRCoC? No, of course not (though it would be a little silly). So there is no issue with the fact that the word "journey" has two meanings here, as each is clearly and explicitly defined in each document as to its context within that document.

And in this case, the "arrival at Liverpool" definition would have exactly the same effect on this journey as the definition currently used, as (that I know of) the only way to make a connection on a rail journey in the Merseytravel area without a station-to-station walk that *does* pass through a barrier is at Liverpool Lime St.

 

[cool110]

...the only way to make a connection on a rail journey in the Merseytravel area without a station-to-station walk that *does* pass through a barrier is at Liverpool Lime St.

There's also Liverpool South Parkway with the Northern Line platforms separate from the City Line/mainline platforms

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's also Liverpool South Parkway with the Northern Line platforms separate from the City Line/mainline platforms

Is there actually a ticket barrier between the two, though? If there isn't, there's not a problem.

 

[cool110]

Is there actually a ticket barrier between the two, though? If there isn't, there's not a problem.

That's what I meant, each end has it's own set of barriers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's what I meant, each end has it's own set of barriers.

OK, I stand corrected, in that case I guess there are two such situations.

 

[TUC]

Which is pretty much what the NRCoC already says:

No it doesn't. It says that the party's conditions may be different. It doesn't say which has precedence.

 

[transmanche]

It doesn't say which has precedence.

It doesn't need to, as it isn't a case of one set of conditions 'winning' over another set. Merely that the other set of conditions apply.

Simply replace the appropriate words (my bold):

If a ticket entitles you to the services included as part of the Saveaway product from Merseytravel (including the right to travel in another party’s transport services), it is also evidence of a contract between you and Merseytravel. The conditions relating to the Saveaway product may be different, and will be obtainable from Merseytravel.

 

[crehld]

But how can you have two sets of conditions apply simultaneously when there in conflict with each other, in this case the definition of a journey?

 

[bb21]

To be honest, and I don't think I'll be popular, I think PTE tickets *should* be able to override certain terms of the NRCoC, because the whole point of a joint tariff is that it has a unified set of T&Cs (so far as ticketing goes) across all modes of transport.

Therefore I have no issue with this term as it stands.

I have no problem with that if that is how some of you feel.

Some people seem to be giving the impression that because they don't think there is any issue themselves, people shouldn't be challenging the existing terms if they felt necessary. That is what I disagree with fundamentally. I think there is the potential for some confusion having heard the arguments for so it is not a completely pointless challenge, even though I would never initiate such a challenge myself as I do not consider it an important enough issue for me to spend any time on.

It all boils down to whether the NRCoC can be overwritten by specific terms of a PTE product for travel on National Rail services. I do not believe that it is permitted having read it again, but I suspect there will unlikely be any consensus on this issue any time soon. (Whether you or I think it should is, again, irrelevant.)

Really, if as some people alleged, that such a challenge would result in a knee-jerk reaction from the PTE to totally bar journeys starting before 0630, then I will suggest that they are misdirecting their anger.

As it happens, since you mentioned it, I disagree that PTE products should be allowed to overwrite the NRCoC. With a little care and effort, PTE products do not have to contain contradictory terms to the NRCoC for any travel on National Rail services. It's not rocket science. But I won't go into too much detail as I will save that for another thread.

I don't see why there is any need for a discussion about what a journey means, as it is made 100% clear what it means in this case - a journey for the purposes of the ticket restrictions is delimited by a railway ticket barrier or boarding a bus. There is no question of what that means. And as someone says, this has always been the definition used on the Saveaway, so it can't have been that much of a problem on a ticket that is over 30 years old!

I think I have addressed this issue already. Having not been challenged for however long a period of time does not mean it is fully compliant and not contradictory with some other terms.

What some people are doing are applying the definition of "journey" per the NRCoC to a context to which that definition is irrelevant. The definition of "journey" per the NRCoC is relevant only to the use of that word within the NRCoC. It has no relevance outside.

Think of it this way - if it used the word "fish" instead of "journey", would there be an issue of it overriding the NRCoC? No, of course not (though it would be a little silly). So there is no issue with the fact that the word "journey" has two meanings here, as each is clearly and explicitly defined in each document as to its context within that document.

Again, back to the issue as to whether the NRCoC can be overwritten for travel on National Rail services.

And in this case, the "arrival at Liverpool" definition would have exactly the same effect on this journey as the definition currently used, as (that I know of) the only way to make a connection on a rail journey in the Merseytravel area without a station-to-station walk that *does* pass through a barrier is at Liverpool Lime St.

That was what I was trying to do, was it not?

It doesn't need to, as it isn't a case of one set of conditions 'winning' over another set. Merely that the other set of conditions apply.

Simply replace the appropriate words (my bold):

Is Merseytravel an agent, or a party offering goods/services in the context of National Rail services?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But how can you have two sets of conditions apply simultaneously when there in conflict with each other, in this case the definition of a journey?

They don't conflict. Each defines a journey for its own purposes. There is no need for them to be read cross-purposes.

"Passing a ticket barrier" is only defined as delimiting the journey for the purposes of the time restrictions. For all other purposes as defined in the NRCoC, it retains the regular definition.

This problem is only arising because both use the word "journey". If Merseytravel used a different word ("trip", perhaps) it would not be a conflict. So to me, that means there is not a conflict.

I don't see why there is any problem with this, given that TOCs are essentially free to define ticket time restrictions in near enough any way they like, and there are huge variations even on regular tickets.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Again, back to the issue as to whether the NRCoC can be overwritten for travel on National Rail services.

As stated I don't believe, having thought about it more, that this term does override the NRCoC any more than any other ticket restriction, of which there are a wide variety with many definitions, some based on blanket times, some based on arriving at a particular place or departing it as part of your journey, some based on where *the train you use* arrives/departs a particular place regardless of whether you were on it when it did.

That was what I was trying to do, was it not?

Sorry, my misunderstanding.

 

[bb21]

That's a very different restriction from the only currently imposed, as it would stop you from making journeys which involved changing after 06:30 at Moorfields, Liverpool Central, Hooton, Hamilton Square, Birkenhead North, Sandhills, Kirkdale, Edge Hill or Huyton. Whereas the current situation only seem to prevent journeys which involve changing after 06:30 at Lime Street or Liverpool South Parkway. So your 'simplification' would actually reduce the passenger benefit offered by the PTE's Saveaway product.

"... except when interchanging between trains at the same station without passing through ticket barriers."

Pretty much what it says now with minimal alteration but now fully compliant with the NRCoC.

There may be other ways.

 

[TUC]

It doesn't need to, as it isn't a case of one set of conditions 'winning' over another set. Merely that the other set of conditions apply.

Simply replace the appropriate words (my bold):

But it's not just about Merseytravel and Saveaway is it? That's too narrow an approach.

 

[tony_mac]

They don't conflict. Each defines a journey for its own purposes. There is no need for them to be read cross-purposes.

But wouldn't that make most of the last 75 posts completely pointless?
(FWIW, I quite agree)

 

[transmanche]

But how can you have two sets of conditions apply simultaneously when there in conflict with each other, in this case the definition of a journey?

There's no conflict at all. The NRCoC says that Merseytravel's conditions apply for the Saveaway product.

If you're still unsure, the introduction the NRCoC also says:

You can:
Start, break or resume your journey using trains on which your ticket is valid unless you are told about particular restrictions that apply to the use of your ticket.

Well clearly you have been told about the restrictions.

And as tony_mac highlighted way back in post #16, the NRCoC doesn't appear to define the meaning of the word 'journey', merely the definition of a 'break of journey' (condition 16) - whereas Merseytravel clearly and explicitly state exactly what defines a 'journey' in the Saveaway conditions.

 

[Bletchleyite]

But wouldn't that make most of the last 75 posts completely pointless?
(FWIW, I quite agree)

I think it had to some extent set off on a discussion of general overriding of the NRCoC by PTE tickets, e.g. the West Yorkshire tickets that bar 19(c) splits, which do appear to be in breach of the NRCoC.

 

[transmanche]

Pretty much what it says now with minimal alteration but now fully compliant with the NRCoC.

Notwithstanding that I don't agree that the conditions of a PTE product necessarily have to be 'compliant' with the NRCoC, I don't see any 'non-compliance' or incompatibility in this situation.

 

[bb21]

There's no conflict at all. The NRCoC says that Merseytravel's conditions apply for the Saveaway product.

If you're still unsure, the introduction the NRCoC says:

Well clearly you have been told about the restrictions.

The restrictions which must be consistent with the NRCoC?

If there is no requirement for individual ticket restrictions to comply with the NRCoC, then what is the point of large swathes of the NRCoC? We may as well remove the entirety of Conditions 10 to 20, 29 to 37, plus possibly more since whoever prices a fare can set whatever conditions they want to the ticket.

And as tony_mac highlighted way back in post #16, the NRCoC doesn't appear to define the meaning of the word 'journey', merely the definition of a 'break of journey' (condition 16) - whereas Merseytravel clearly and explicitly state exactly what defines a 'journey' in the Saveaway conditions.

Then we are back to this conflict below:

NRCoC say - leaving a train at Lime Street Low Level to join another at Lime Street High Level is not a break of journey, hence one journey;
Saveaway terms say - leaving a train at Lime Street Low Level to join another at Lime Street High Level is considered to have started a second journey;

Notwithstanding that I don't agree that the conditions of a PTE product necessarily have to be 'compliant' with the NRCoC, I don't see any 'non-compliance' or incompatibility in this situation.

I think we have established that such a difference in opinion is one of the root causes of disagreements in this thread.

If you disagree, that is fine. You don't have to agree with everything someone else says. You have the entitlement to your opinion just like everyone else does his. All I was doing was to demonstrate that it doesn't take a huge amount of effort to ensure compliance between the two.

 

[Bletchleyite]

NRCoC say - leaving a train at Lime Street Low Level to join another at Lime Street High Level is not a break of journey, hence one journey;
Saveaway terms say - leaving a train at Lime Street Low Level to join another at Lime Street High Level is considered to have started a second journey;

Only because the word "journey" is used by both. If you replace it on the Merseytravel ticket with "trip", the conflict no longer exists and the ticket restriction (just like any other) simply overlays the NRCoC nicely. It's one journey (per the NRCoC), however the time restriction does not permit a change of trains after a certain time unless done without crossing a ticket barrier.

 

[bb21]

Only because the word "journey" is used by both. If you replace it on the Merseytravel ticket with "trip", the conflict no longer exists and the ticket restriction (just like any other) simply overlays the NRCoC nicely. It's one journey (per the NRCoC), however the time restriction does not permit a change of trains after a certain time unless done without crossing a ticket barrier.

There is me thinking that the whole debate started with the use of the word "journey" by Merseytravel.

I hope you haven't only just realised that Neil.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There is me thinking that the whole debate started with the use of the word "journey" by Merseytravel.

I hope you haven't only just realised that Neil.

No, not at all, I just changed my view as to whether it conflicted with the NRCoC, because the NRCoC only defines a journey for its own purposes, not for any other purposes. In particular the NRCoC doesn't get involved in the wording of ticket time restrictions at all.

 

[transmanche]

The restrictions which must be consistent with the NRCoC?

If there is no requirement for individual ticket restrictions to comply with the NRCoC, then what is the point of large swathes of the NRCoC? We may as well remove the entirety of Conditions 10 to 20, 29 to 37, plus possibly more since whoever prices a fare can set whatever conditions they want to the ticket.

I would agree, if this were a standard 'National Rail' ticket. But it's not.

First thing you need to do is to stand back a bit and look at what is being purchased. The customer isn't purchasing a normal 'National Rail' ticket with the fare and conditions set by a TOC. What they are buying is a PTE product. Merseytravel is not an agent of any TOC, the reverse is true - the TOC (along with bus companies, etc) is an agent of Merseytravel in delivering the services offered as part of the Saveaway product

Then we are back to this conflict below:

NRCoC say - leaving a train at Lime Street Low Level to join another at Lime Street High Level is not a break of journey, hence one journey;
Saveaway terms say - leaving a train at Lime Street Low Level to join another at Lime Street High Level is considered to have started a second journey;

There's no conflict here for two reasons.

The first reason is that the NRCoC states that Merseytravel's Saveaway conditions apply when using a Saveaway ticket. So you follow the Saveaway rules.

The second reason is in the part of my post you didn't quote. The NRCoC says:

You can:
Start, break or resume your journey using trains on which your ticket is valid unless you are told about particular restrictions that apply to the use of your ticket.

And as the Saveaway product has particular restrictions regarding the trains on which the ticket is valid (that are widely advertised) it's clear that you can't use the ticket if you pass through a barrier after 06:30.

 

[bb21]

I would agree, if this were a standard 'National Rail' ticket. But it's not.

First thing you need to do is to stand back a bit and look at what is being purchased. The customer isn't purchasing a normal 'National Rail' ticket with the fare and conditions set by a TOC. What they are buying is a PTE product. Merseytravel is not an agent of any TOC, the reverse is true - the TOC (along with bus companies, etc) is an agent of Merseytravel in delivering the services offered as part of the Saveaway product

I have just typed up a long paragraph when I realised that the same arguments have already been presented before, by OwlMan in Post 22 and several people onwards from there, so I shan't repeat what have already been said as otherwise we will just end up with another 70 posts with the same things being repeated.

I must say that I do find the replies by TUC in Post 48 and that by jkdd77 in Post 50 most fascinating. No, I don't know who is right, but obviously I have my own opinion on who I am more inclined to agree with.

There's no conflict here for two reasons.

The first reason is that the NRCoC states that Merseytravel's Saveaway conditions apply when using a Saveaway ticket. So you follow the Saveaway rules.

The second reason is in the part of my post you didn't quote. The NRCoC says:

And as the Saveaway product has particular restrictions regarding the trains on which the ticket is valid (that are widely advertised) it's clear that you can't use the ticket if you pass through a barrier after 06:30.

Yes, you have already made that point earlier. I think we will just be going around in circles.

I get what you are trying to say, but ultimately there are fundamental differences in our respective understanding of the relationship between Saveaway terms and the NRCoC.

I didn't quote the NRCoC extract in your post in my reply because double-layered quotation is not something the forum software automatically does, but that is a side point. I did actually take that extract from the NRCoC into account, and noted your point about the "restriction" referred to by the NRCoC, and my reply was to both your comment and the NRCoC extract regarding the quotation.

I think we will have to agree to disagree as the differences are just too big to reconcile, otherwise I will just end up repeating the same things I have already said.

 

[Camden]

I think one thing that the small print crew are overlooking in this NRCoC vs PTE rules battle is that the Saveaway isn't a train ticket.

It allows multiples of single journeys to be undertaken throughout the wider city of Liverpool by train, bus and ferry. So who is to say that the train's rules must trump all? Just because the ticket also allows access to the railway network?

The Saveaway allows access onto the railway network according to the rules set by the PTE, but it also allows access onto the bus network and the ferries too. In Liverpool, there are approximately twice the number of bus journeys undertaken than by train.

"A journey" could start at a bus stop, at a ferry terminal or indeed at a Merseyrail station. I assume that the NRCoC definition of "journey" doesn't mean starting from when you arrive at the bus stop for the late running number 50. But certainly a person's Saveaway journey might.

The ticket has to work across all modes of travel, not just train.

 

[bb21]

So who is to say that the train's rules must trump all?

Quite simply, no one is saying that. The NRCoC is only relevant when travelling on National Rail services.

The PTE can do wwhatever it likes with buses.

 

[Camden]

Quite simply, no one is saying that. The NRCoC is only relevant when travelling on National Rail services.

The PTE can do wwhatever it likes with buses.

But you must surely take the point that a travelcard sensibly needs one rule to cover all modes to operate normally, not a list of unwieldy (and conflicting) conditions for each?

Additionally, direct relevance may come into it where the NRCoC states

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.

Someone buying a Saveaway hasn't bought a ticket to travel on scheduled services on the National Rail Network. They've bought a Saveaway, from Merseytravel, not even a TOC or TOCs.