Permitted Route Problem

[najaB]

My view: purchase of a fare does not simply give the passenger the right to travel between the two points named on the ticket. Rather, it gives the right (to quote from the definition of fare in the TSA) to make one or more journeys on the Network. If the right to make some of these journeys (e.g. Shoreham to Leatherhead) was removed, then that is the material change. (And for anyone wondering: no, the TSA doesn't define journey!)

That is one way of looking at it, but I don't know that it would hold up in court. The TOC would likely argue that the passenger is still free to make as many journeys as they want within the validity of the ticket and I'm not sure a court would disagree.

In any case the passenger is free to withdraw from the contract if the ticket no longer suits their needs.

 

[yorkie]

And how, exactly, would a change to the routeing guide that closes a loophole be a material change to a the contract when it is still possible to travel between the two points named on the ticket? The customer would be within their rights to refund the unused portion of the season ticket if it no longer suits their needs, but I can't see how the TOC could be forced to continue to allow travel by the now not-valid route.

Absolute rubbish.

The contract is set at the time of purchase, and the permitted routes are a part of that contact.

I am aware of a case where a train company tried to get out of their contractual obligations and it ended up costing them a substantial 4-figure sum.

 

[bb21]

As an aside, I'm particularly miffed to see this useful route being exposed in public and (presumably now) removed, as I've been aware of it for many years and have used it to travel between Gatwick Airport and East Croydon. It's been there for so long, through so many updates and changes to the Routeing Guide, that I find it hard to think of it as just an "error in the routeing guide", as thedbdiboy puts it - to me it was a permitted route and nothing less.

Aww, hard luck. Look on the bright side: you managed to use this loophole for a good few years. That's a good result. All loopholes are at risk of closing sooner or later. All it takes is an observant guard and proactive passenger finance staff.

It always sucks when a loophole closes, but no one can really have any complaint about such a bonkers route going. We just move on to the next one.

 

[furlong]

it is only in error that the routeing guide permits it.

Whether or not a route is reasonable has been completely irrelevant for 20 years! The term 'reasonable' got removed and the routeing guide was introduced to provide precise definition of the routes that are permitted.

All the noble talk about rights and TSA ignores the fact that outside a handful of people hardly anyone understands exactly what the TSA and the routeing guide allow (including the DfT).

A Train Company agreed to honour the Routeing Guide when it signed its franchise agreement. If it was not prepared to provide its staff with the training and technical backup to abide by that part of the agreement then it should not have bid for the franchise in the first place. Given that nationalrail.co.uk can now answer the vast majority of such queries definitively, how hard can it be for a company to train its staff on the ground in the right way of using that website (or an internal or portable equivalent) to check validity whenever there is a dispute?

 

[bb21]

Does NRE accurately reflect the paper version of the Routeing Guide?

 

[MikeWh]

... is not a reasonable or intended route and that it is only in error that the routeing guide permits it.

Whether or not a route is reasonable has been completely irrelevant for 20 years! The term 'reasonable' got removed and the routeing guide was introduced to provide precise definition of the routes that are permitted.

Well I think it is quite clear that the route in question would never have been deemed reasonable at the time that that word was the one used. What thedbdiboy is saying is that it was never intended to be a permitted route in the routeing guide either. I struggle to see how anyone can be disputing this part of his post.

 

[furlong]

In the words of the original version:

In the past, tickets were valid by "any reasonable route". What was a "reasonable route" between a particular origin station and destination station was never precisely defined and would often depend on the knowledge and experience of the members of staff consulted. Occasionally customers would meet on-train staff with ideas of what was "reasonable" different from those of the rail staff or travel agent who had originally given the route to the customers.

The new independent operators require a more precise definition of the routes that a customer may use for a particular journey. The routes that a customer may use are now known as "permitted routes". These permitted routes are precisely defined and the definitions are published in this National Routeing Guide.

The National Routeing Guide is available to all station and on-train staff and to ATOC Appointed Travel Agents.

Since that was written, what's changed is that it has been computerised and this has been used as an excuse to make it immeasurably more complicated for a human to deal with! Fortunately, sites like nationalrail.co.uk now make it easy to check the validity of specific journeys. (Yet there is still no official website showing the envelope of all permitted routes between two stations.)

 

[MikeWh]

It is my opinion that the NRCoC and NRG that were current at the time of purchase apply for the whole life of the ticket, even after a changeover has been done as changeover is a right under the original contract. However, other people who are knowledgeable in this area do not share the same view.

I'm not sure I can agree that one must go back to the permitted routes for a new ticket at the time of purchase of the old, different ticket. The right of a changeover is part of the NRCOC, as is using the price of the ticket at the time of the original purchase. The list of available routes, however, would logically be set at the time of changeover which is when you start making use of that ticket.

 

[najaB]

Absolute rubbish.

The contract is set at the time of purchase, and the permitted routes are a part of that contact.

And if a route that wasn't permitted at the time of purchase becomes permitted during the lifetime of the ticket?

 

[yorkie]

That could probably subsequently be withdrawn at a later date. Though I do believe some reasonable notice may be required.

In the most extreme example I know of, Thebigcheese was told by Southeastern gateline staff at St Pancras that his ticket validity had changed during the course of the day and was no longer valid for his journey home in the evening.

 

[najaB]

That could probably subsequently be withdrawn at a later date. Though I do believe some reasonable notice may be required.

And would the passenger be allowed to use a route that wasn't valid when the ticket was purchased since "[t]he contract is set at the time of purchase, and the permitted routes are a part of that contact"?

 

[AlterEgo]

Indeed all the NRCoC says is that you "may take trains which take the routes shown in the National Routeing Guide".

I disagree that this *alone* sets in stone the permitted routes for the entire duration of a ticket's validity. It may be that there is consumer law or some legal precedent we could draw upon.

 

[bb21]

The new Act coming in on 1st Oct could potentially make things interesting.

 

[yorkie]

And would the passenger be allowed to use a route that wasn't valid when the ticket was purchased since "[t]he contract is set at the time of purchase, and the permitted routes are a part of that contact"?

It's not a breach of contract to make the routeing options less restrictive

 

[319321]

In the words of the original version:
Since that was written, what's changed is that it has been computerised and this has been used as an excuse to make it immeasurably more complicated for a human to deal with! Fortunately, sites like nationalrail.co.uk now make it easy to check the validity of specific journeys. (Yet there is still no official website showing the envelope of all permitted routes between two stations.)

NationalRail.co.uk does not show every permitted route though, as it has additional hidden rules preventing some journeys from being shown.

 

[najaB]

It's not a breach of contract to make the routeing options less restrictive

Agreed. Now is the passenger entitled to use the less restrictive routes?

 

[PermitToTravel]

The answer to that would be clear if the contract, like any sensibly written one, had defined notice periods et al; rather than leaving us to guess.

 

[najaB]

The answer to that would be clear if the contract, like any sensibly written one, had defined notice periods et al; rather than leaving us to guess.

I agree with that. The problem we face at the moment is that it doesn't.

So, if you hold the view that the routeing guide that applied at the time of purchase determines the permitted routes throughout the lifetime of the ticket, then you could end up in the perverse situation where a customer could be legitimately denied travel on a through train if that train didn't exist when their ticket was bought (where the route is only permitted because it's a through train).

(That was a very clumsy sentence!)

 

[yorkie]

I agree with that. The problem we face at the moment is that it doesn't.

So, if you hold the view that the routeing guide that applied at the time of purchase determines the permitted routes throughout the lifetime of the ticket, then you could end up in the perverse situation where a customer could be legitimately denied travel on a through train if that train didn't exist when their ticket was bought (where the route is only permitted because it's a through train).

(That was a very clumsy sentence!)

This is one of the most absurd arguments I've come across. It clearly isn't the case, and it is - as you admit - perverse.

 

[najaB]

This is one of the most absurd arguments I've come across. It clearly isn't the case, and it is - as you admit - perverse.

I agree it is perverse and unlikely to happen in real life, but you can't simultaneously hold that the customer is entitled to take advantage of new routes that become available and that the TOC is bound to honour all the routes that applied at the time the ticket was purchased.

I think that would be known as 'having one's cake and eating it too'.

 

[yorkie]

As I said before, it's not a breach of contract to make the routeing options less restrictive.

 

[Muzer]

The new Act coming in on 1st Oct could potentially make things interesting.

Which one, sorry? I've been a little out of the loop.

 

[AlterEgo]

As I said before, it's not a breach of contract to make the routeing options less restrictive.

Agreed, and this is the crux of the matter. The law is skewed towards the consumer as far as I know it. this is no bad thing.

 

[bb21]

Which one, sorry? I've been a little out of the loop.

Consumer Rights Act. See this post.

I know the actual act came in in 2015, but you get my point I hope.

 

[MichaelAMW]

I agree with that. The problem we face at the moment is that it doesn't.

So, if you hold the view that the routeing guide that applied at the time of purchase determines the permitted routes throughout the lifetime of the ticket, then you could end up in the perverse situation where a customer could be legitimately denied travel on a through train if that train didn't exist when their ticket was bought (where the route is only permitted because it's a through train).

(That was a very clumsy sentence!)

No, you've mixed two things up. The permission to use a through train has nothing to do with the routeing guide and that permission would be present both when the ticket was bought and used. There is nothing in that permission that says you can only use a through train that exists when you buy the ticket. So, I would disgree with both you and Yorkie that the suggestion is perverse: it's not that, it's simply incorrect.

 

[yorkie]

That is my view too; it's incorrect.

Perverse wasn't my choice of words, but more I see it as unusual that someone tries to make such an argument while seemingly admitting that their argument is perverse. Hmm!

Sorry but some of these downright incorrect anti-passenger arguments really do make my blood boil. Not sure if that's the intention or not but that's the effect!

 

[MichaelAMW]

That is my view too; it's incorrect.

Perverse wasn't my choice of words, but more I see it as unusual that someone tries to make such an argument while seemingly admitting that their argument is perverse. Hmm!

Sorry but some of these downright incorrect anti-passenger arguments really do make my blood boil. Not sure if that's the intention or not but that's the effect!

Indeed. A lot of this nonsense, by which I mean the obvious unreasonableness of some routes and the stupidly large RG compared with the original version, would be avoided by some kind of overall limiting rule, e.g. no route apparently permitted by the RG maps is permitted if it is more than 50% longer than the shortest route. (I'm obviously only saying 50% as a "for instance" rather than as a concrete proposal.) The maps could be bigger and fewer again, which would make it a lot easier to see at a glance what the permitted routes are.

 

[AlterEgo]

Indeed. A lot of this nonsense, by which I mean the obvious unreasonableness of some routes and the stupidly large RG compared with the original version, would be avoided by some kind of overall limiting rule, e.g. no route apparently permitted by the RG maps is permitted if it is more than 50% longer than the shortest route. (I'm obviously only saying 50% as a "for instance" rather than as a concrete proposal.) The maps could be bigger and fewer again, which would make it a lot easier to see at a glance what the permitted routes are.

You could alternatively abolish the entire RG and instead have only the shortest route valid, or any direct train. The RG really exists only to apportion revenue on Any Permitted tickets thanks to a fragmented franchising system. It is a ludicrously complex document.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Easy solution: allow the quickest route (plus n%) and apportion revenue with a journey planner. Everyone wins - passengers get to change at Birmingham rather than Tamworth when the trains to Tamworth run out, and TOCs don't have people going from London to Carlisle via Inverness

 

[Andrew1395]

NationalRail.co.uk does not show every permitted route though, as it has additional hidden rules preventing some journeys from being shown.

Really? What hidden rules are these then. I thought the website used a journey planner that applied the electronic national routeing guide logic.