buying at the first opportunity: does one have the right to specify format

[34D]

Do I have the right to specify the format I'd like my ticket in?

For example, let's say I board at a station in zones 1-6 with no working facilities (think Crews Hill when the one and only TVM has been vandalised again).

I want to load a 1-6 weekly onto my oyster. An FCC RPI comes round and insists on selling me a weekly paper ticket.

This issue is also about to exist outside of London. From the start of Sep, the WYPTE metrocard will be issued on ITSO. There are numerous unstaffed stations in WY and ones with basic TVMs which don't (yet) have ITSO readers. Also I doubt Northern booking offices will get readers straight away.

Thanks

 

[yorkie]

I suggest asking the relevant TOCs/bodies if arrangements are/will be in place for passengers to exchange paper tickets for electronic tickets held on smart cards, and what the procedures will be.

 

[island]

Well, in the situation described you could deny holding a photocard or passport-sized photo, which would force the matter.

 

[34D]

I suggest asking the relevant TOCs/bodies if arrangements are/will be in place for passengers to exchange paper tickets for electronic tickets held on smart cards, and what the procedures will be.

I think with the cards up north (Get Me There and M-Card) the time to ask will be after they have bedded down for a couple of months.

Agree though

 

[sheff1]

Well, in the situation described you could deny holding a photocard or passport-sized photo, which would force the matter.

Is this referring to Oyster ?

The W Yorks weekly and monthly smartcard tickets are transferable and a photocard is not therefore required. If someone really wants one on a smartcard the options seem to be to purchase from a Payzone (which are apparently widely available in the county) or online. I have not seen any indication one way or the other as to whether it will be possible to renew/top up at Payzones outwith W Yorks if you aleady hold a card.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Do I have the right to specify the format I'd like my ticket in?

For example, let's say I board at a station in zones 1-6 with no working facilities (think Crews Hill when the one and only TVM has been vandalised again).

I want to load a 1-6 weekly onto my oyster. An FCC RPI comes round and insists on selling me a weekly paper ticket....

Unless there is a price difference, I would say you do not have a choice, based on the NRCoC.

....

3. Where the full range of tickets is not available

If you cannot buy an appropriate ticket for the journey you want to make because the
range of tickets that is available at the station from which you intend to start your journey
is restricted, you must buy a ticket or Permit to Travel before you travel that entitles you to
make at least part of the journey. Then you must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, buy
an appropriate ticket to complete your journey. In these circumstances, you only need to pay
the fare that you would have paid if you had bought a ticket immediately before your journey.
The price you will have to pay will be reduced by the amount paid for the ticket or Permit to
Travel.

....

If the price is the same it is 'reasonably practicable' to buy the ticket in paper format, even if it is inconvenient.

....Also I doubt Northern booking offices will get readers straight away....

Realistically you could remove those last two words and still have a very good chance of being right. They can't even get 'chip & Pin' readers.

 

[34D]

Lol. The prices (I believe) are to stay the same, but (as already pointed out) the t&cs are better with the ITSO version.

Then again, the two are to have different names (metrocard versus mcard) so an Mcard is a different part of the full range.....

 

[DeeGee]

You must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, buy an appropriate ticket to complete your journey. In these circumstances, you only need to pay the fare that you would have paid if you had bought a ticket immediately before your journey.
The price you will have to pay will be reduced by the amount paid for the ticket or Permit to Travel.

An appropriate ticket to complete the journey is a single. Would you not be able to buy a single from the RPI then use it to get a discount off your weekly Travelcard?

 

[michael769]

An appropriate ticket to complete the journey is a single.

But does it cost the same as the ticket they intended to buy as as per the condition you quote?

In any event in what way is a weekly travel card not an appropriate ticket?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

The quote is "....You must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, buy an appropriate ticket to complete your journey....". I think DeeGee is suggesting that the single is an appropriate ticket for the journey and to be fair I couldn't fault that logic. The single could then be used as part payment for the intended ticket at the next opportunity, though it is a lot of messing around, especially if the passenger does not pay cash.

 

[34D]

Northern Rail don't seem to understand part payment sadly....

When the PAYG part of M-Card starts then touching in may be another option.

 

[michael769]

The quote is "....You must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, buy an appropriate ticket to complete your journey....". I think DeeGee is suggesting that the single is an appropriate ticket for the journey and to be fair I couldn't fault that logic. The single could then be used as part payment for the intended ticket at the next opportunity, though it is a lot of messing around, especially if the passenger does not pay cash.

I understand their logic but that condition does not specify what an appropriate ticket is so I would interpret it as the ticket most suitable to the passengers journey. If a railcard met their needs better than a single then that would be the ticket.

I would argue that claiming that because a single could be appropriate for some passengers journeys it was then the only ticket that could be offered is unreasonably fettering the condition, and IMO would constitute a material breach of the condition.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I understand their logic but that condition does not specify what an appropriate ticket is so I would interpret it as the ticket most suitable to the passengers journey. If a railcard met their needs better than a single then that would be the ticket....

There are relatively few journeys made that a single (or return) could not be an appropriate/suitable ticket for (if you take a generalised meaning). Another ticket may also be appropriate/suitable, but this would not stop a single from being appropriate/suitable for the journey.

....I would argue that claiming that because a single could be appropriate for some passengers journeys it was then the only ticket that could be offered is unreasonably fettering the condition, and IMO would constitute a material breach of the condition.

It states "an appropriate ticket", to assume there can only be one appropriate ticket would be wrong in many cases.

 

[michael769]

There are relatively few journeys made that a single (or return) could not be an appropriate/suitable ticket for (if you take a generalised meaning). Another ticket may also be appropriate/suitable, but this would not stop a single from being appropriate/suitable for the journey.

A single would not be appropriate for someone seeking wishing to make a regular daily journey where there is a material difference in cost compared to an appropriate multi-journey ticket. Not would it be appropriate if the passenger was inconvenience by having to seek a refund.

A draw your attention to the lack of any provision in the NCoC to empower the ToC to decide what is and is not appropriate and I am confident a court would take the view that relative cost and/or convenience as reasonable factors to take into consideration when determining appropriateness of a ticket.

It states "an appropriate ticket", to assume there can only be one appropriate ticket would be wrong in many cases.

Exactly! Which is why I would argue that an interpretation that suggests that only a single should be issued is fettering.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Erm....

"You must, as soon as is reasonably practicable, buy an appropriate ticket to complete your journey"

Journey (singular), not multiple journeys (plural). So whilst a season ticket may be appropriate for the journey, a single could also be appropriate, there is no fettering going on with that interpretation.

However, to say that a single is not an appropriate ticket to complete the journey because the passenger wants a season instead is fettering the condition.

Naturally, if both are available then there is a choice.

 

[michael769]

I think you don't understand how disputes of this nature play out in court.

When it comes to standard terms in consumer disputes the courts will almost always resolve any ambiguity in favor of the consumer. Many organisations have had nasty shocks trying to enforce conditions like this in our courts, and I suspect with ToCs becoming more aggressive in using the legal system it is only a matter of time before they suffer a similar shock.

 

[island]

I think you don't understand how disputes of this nature play out in court.

When it comes to standard terms in consumer disputes the courts will almost always resolve any ambiguity in favor of the consumer. Many organisations have had nasty shocks trying to enforce conditions like this in our courts, and I suspect with ToCs becoming more aggressive in using the legal system it is only a matter of time before they suffer a similar shock.

That's true in the civil courts. Is it true in the criminal courts?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I think you don't understand how disputes of this nature play out in court.

When it comes to standard terms in consumer disputes the courts will almost always resolve any ambiguity in favor of the consumer. Many organisations have had nasty shocks trying to enforce conditions like this in our courts, and I suspect with ToCs becoming more aggressive in using the legal system it is only a matter of time before they suffer a similar shock.

What ambiguity is there?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I think you don't understand how disputes of this nature play out in court.

When it comes to standard terms in consumer disputes the courts will almost always resolve any ambiguity in favor of the consumer. Many organisations have had nasty shocks . . . .

Indeed.
Post Denning, the shift in judgements towards the customer in general consumer transactions has shifted palpably in favour of the customer.

But, is this shift reflected in the application of Railway Law? I don't see much evidence of it!

And is there a legislative basis for arguing that Consumer Legislation applies to rail travel?

As far as I am aware, that legislation only applies to: the sale of certain complex rail products; to marketing and promotion; to the compensation and appeal procedures; and, to the provision of ancilliary services.
The basic contract to convey a person by rail between 2 stations is subject to Contract Law and, of course, a raft of Railway Law, but not to the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations nor to The Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations.

 

[michael769]

I in no way intend to imply that consumer law applies on the Railway.

But if a court is presented with a contract dispute between a ToC and a passenger how might they perceive it? And given those perceptions how might the bench act?

There is no codified law that says courts should err on the side of a consumer, but they still do for the most part, partly because standard clauses are often glaringly unjust, and partly because it is felt to be fairest given the imbalance in power than exists between the two sides. I would argue that the same factors are in play on the railway and there is no reason to think that a bench would react in a different manner.

I agree that the unfair terms legislation would not apply, but my original argument did not involve an unfair term but discussed how a court might choose to resolve what is arguably ambiguous language.