What proof do you need of a valid route?

[Daimler]

I'm going to be travelling from Hemel Hempstead to Oxford sometime this week, and I fancy using Wrexham & Shropshire from London to Banbury.

I had a play on East Coast's site, and it turns out this is a valid route with a route London ticket (in my case, the £22.00 Y-P Railcard day return).

However, I'm a bit worried that the guard on WSMR/Cross Country may think it's a bit of an odd route, and may challenge it - is this likely, and if so what would I need to show him that it is actually valid (I'm not quite as good as some people on here are with route maps and whatnot!). Would the simple itinerary printed off East Coast's site suffice?

 

[ashworth]

I know what you mean about feeling a bit worried about being challenged.
Whenever I'm doing a journey that may seem a bit off route, I usually make sure that I know exactly which day I am going and then a few days before, even for a Day Return book online, usually with East Coast, and request reserved seats for for at least part of the journey.

 

[ChrisTheRef]

Print out the itinerary from East Coast's site

 

[Daimler]

Print out the itinerary from East Coast's site

I probably will do - they can't argue with that, I guess!

 

[yorkie]

If it lets you get a reservation, do that and bring the printout too.

 

[barrykas]

London to Oxford via Banbury isn't a permitted route, as you double back through Kings Sutton. (There's also an explicit negative easement in the Routeing Guide that states that journeys from stations South of Kings Sutton may not go via Banbury to London, nor via Banbury and London to stations beyond London. And that applies in both directions).

Also, Wrexham & Shropshire don't offer reservations between Marylebone and Banbury or Leamington Spa, so the "well I got a reservation so it must be valid" option won't work either.

Cheers,

Barry

 

[yorkie]

If the customer agrees to a particular itinerary and makes a purchase with that itinerary then that forms a contract. This contract would need to be honoured.

 

[barrykas]

Just because a web-based journey planner gives you an itinerary based on what you've entered, it doesn't mean that the itinerary is valid on a through ticket!

In fact, just because a Ticket Office gives you an itinerary, it doesn't necessarily make it valid! Like the significant number of stations, particularly those on the former Southern Region, selling restricted tickets at peak times.

A classic example being journeys from the likes of Gerrards Cross and High Wycombe to SWT destinations. I've lost count of the number of people who seem to think that such tickets are valid to travel to Banbury, changing there for CrossCountry.

Incidentally, entering the OP's journey into the journey planner on the National Rail website produces a Railcard-discounted fare of £25.15 using a combination of two tickets...Namely an Off-Peak Day Single from Hemel to Banbury, and an Advance Single from Banbury to Oxford.

Cheers,

Barry

 

[Failed Unit]

Just because a web-based journey planner gives you an itinerary based on what you've entered, it doesn't mean that the itinerary is valid on a through ticket!

In fact, just because a Ticket Office gives you an itinerary, it doesn't necessarily make it valid! Like the significant number of stations, particularly those on the former Southern Region, selling restricted tickets at peak times.

A classic example being journeys from the likes of Gerrards Cross and High Wycombe to SWT destinations. I've lost count of the number of people who seem to think that such tickets are valid to travel to Banbury, changing there for CrossCountry.

Incidentally, entering the OP's journey into the journey planner on the National Rail website produces a Railcard-discounted fare of £25.15 using a combination of two tickets...Namely an Off-Peak Day Single from Hemel to Banbury, and an Advance Single from Banbury to Oxford.

Cheers,

Barry

How is the customer supposed to know.

For example I have got a journey from Edinburgh - Market Rasen.

Route:
Edinburgh - Doncaster - Grimsby Town - Market Rasen.

(This involves doubling back between Barnetby and Grimsby Town).

Normally I would get off at Barnetby anyway but with the length of the connection I am going to stay on until Grimsby based on the fact that the journey has been booked. I have a printout and a seat reservation between Barnetby and Grimsby. (Well infact Doncaster - Grimsby)

Surely it would be harsh if the gaurd on either train decides to excess me as I have done the journey in good faith and in accordance to the information I have been provided.

I agree some people try it on, but if you book a journey and ask for specific trains, how is joe public supposed to know that the journey that have been told to do is infact not permitted. Someone buying an off-peak ticket online and the travelling in the peak is different, as is someone that just selects a ticket but not specific trains to prove they have got an artinary!

On my recent Market Rasen - Ashford journey via HS1 the only reason I didn't get a supplement is because I had the printout I made when booking it which state us London St Pancras - Ashford rather than tube to Charing Cross.

 

[yorkie]

validity doesn't come into it if you agree a specific product with a specific itinerary when you make the purchase, this forms a legally binding contract and consumer rights apply

I cannot reproduce this route though, but if it was offered and the agreement between the parties was made then that is what counts

 

[Ferret]

validity doesn't come into it if you agree a specific product with a specific itinerary when you make the purchase, this forms a legally binding contract and consumer rights apply

I cannot reproduce this route though, but if it was offered and the agreement between the parties was made then that is what counts

Hmm, I'm not necessarily disagreeing here Yorkie but contracts become very messy when agents are involved (such as thetrainline.con and Railuneasy). Then there's always the concepts of misrepresentation/mistake within contract law. I'd have to do some research but it may not be as black and white as you think.......

 

[barrykas]

Surely the National Conditions of Carriage apply? Specifically:

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.

And, in this case:

13. The route you are entitled to take

(a) You may travel between the stations shown on the ticket you hold in:
(i) a through train;
(ii) trains which take the shortest route which can be used by scheduled passenger services; or
(iii) trains which take the routes shown in the National Routeing Guide (details as to how you can obtain this information will be available when you buy your ticket).
(b) If you are using a Zonal Ticket you may travel in trains which take any route within the zone or zones shown on the ticket.
(c) Together, the routes referred to in (a) (ii), (a) (iii) and (b) above are the
"permitted routes".
(d) The use of some tickets may be restricted to trains which take:
(i) routes passing through, or avoiding, particular locations; or
(ii) the most direct route.
These restrictions will be shown on the ticket.
(e) If you make your journey by a route other than those referred to in (a) and (b) above, you will be liable to pay an excess fare. This excess fare will be the difference between the price paid for the ticket you hold and the price of the lowest priced ticket(s) available for immediate travel that would have entitled you to travel by that route.
(f) For the purposes of this Condition, a "through train" is one which may be
used by a passenger to make their entire journey without changing trains.

And:

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

But hey, what do I know about it? I'm just a railway employee who's had to deal with such issues in the past on an annoyingly regular basis...And about 80% have been down to Trainline and 20% down to other stations. (And I've had arguments with passengers when endorsing their ticket with the time of the first train it's valid on if selling an off-peak ticket in the peak).

 

[michael769]

Hmm, I'm not necessarily disagreeing here Yorkie but contracts become very messy when agents are involved (such as thetrainline.con and Railuneasy). Then there's always the concepts of misrepresentation/mistake within contract law. I'd have to do some research but it may not be as black and white as you think.......

It is not, the contract is with the agent and not the TOC and the TOC would be under no obligation (as they are not a party to your contract) to honor the ticket unless it is valid under their own rules or the national conditions of carriage.

Your only remedy would be against the agent from whom you could recover the cost of the invalid ticket and any other costs you incur as a result of their failure to ensure that the ticket was valid. But thats not much use to you on the journey if you are faced with having to shell out for another ticket(s), or in the worst case find yourself being interviewed by BTP under suspicion of travelling without a valid ticket.

 

[Ferret]

It is not, the contract is with the agent and not the TOC and the TOC would be under no obligation (as they are not a party to your contract) to honor the ticket unless it is valid under their own rules or the national conditions of carriage.

Your only remedy would be against the agent from whom you could recover the cost of the invalid ticket and any other costs you incur as a result of their failure to ensure that the ticket was valid. But thats not much use to you on the journey if you are faced with having to shell out for another ticket(s), or in the worst case find yourself being interviewed by BTP under suspicion of travelling without a valid ticket.

That's kind of what I thought (though it's well over 10 years since I studied contract law and even then I found it confusing!!!!). That said, it should be very simple to secure a remedy from the agent if they have made a misrepresentation - in this case told you that a route is valid when it is not.

 

[googolplex]

However could it not be argued that (e) in Section 13 of the NRCoC falls foul of Section 5(1) of the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 in relation to ticket purchases where the ticket holder is following the itinerary produced when they purchased their ticket?
Surely it creates an imbalance of rights and obligations if an individual purchases a ticket through a website and follows the itinerary accompanying that ticket, and is then determined to be off-route and charged an excess fare, with no alternative available at that point.
Whilst it may just be a case of paying the excess and then reclaiming it - surely this could drag on for a while, would it not be better for the NRCoC to be modified to account for this?
Also, would people requesting info on how to access the routing guide just be told to check it on the National Rail Enquiries website?

 

[Daimler]

Hmm...so I can't rely on East Coast's website to tell me if a route is valid or not? I always assumed that if I typed in 'Hemel Hempstead to Oxford via Banbury' and it offered me a fare and a journey, the ticket in question would be valid.

It seems that the National Rail website doesn't offer this fare, having said that.

I might as well not take the risk and stick with FGW - their refurbished Mk3s are growing on me, so it's not the end of the world!

EDIT - Buying returns Hemel - Banbury, then Banbury - Oxford only costs about £3 more anyway, so if I really want to travel with WSMR I can always do that.

 

[glynn80]

Just because a web-based journey planner gives you an itinerary based on what you've entered, it doesn't mean that the itinerary is valid on a through ticket!

Why not? All web based booking engines have the National Routeing Guide data programmed into the software running their systems. I believe theTrainline uses IPTIS as its NRG engine and Atos Origin's WebTIS uses RJIS, both of which obtain their NRG data from RSPs data factory. This is the reason behind persons sometimes obtaining different results, with regard to routeing, by using different sites, as both interpret the guide slightly differently.

If for any reason those data feeds have been interpreted incorrectly, that is not a mistake that the passenger should be forced to rectify at their own cost, it should be rectified to the detriment of the booking agent. A passenger should not be expected to "double check" routeing in the guide, when a web-based booking engine has ruled a route permitted. In fact I have been told by members of the DfT that web-based booking engines make up for the complexity of the NRG and allow passengers to conveniently check the validity of their routes.

 

[Skip 10]

Why not? All web based booking engines have the National Routeing Guide data programmed into the software running their systems. I believe theTrainline uses IPTIS as its NRG engine and Atos Origin's WebTIS uses RJIS, both of which obtain their NRG data from RSPs data factory. This is the reason behind persons sometimes obtaining different results, with regard to routeing, by using different sites, as both interpret the guide slightly differently.

If for any reason those data feeds have been interpreted incorrectly, that is not a mistake that the passenger should be forced to rectify at their own cost, it should be rectified to the detriment of the booking agent. A passenger should not be expected to "double check" routeing in the guide, when a web-based booking engine has ruled a route permitted. In fact I have been told by members of the DfT that web-based booking engines make up for the complexity of the NRG and allow passengers to conveniently check the validity of their routes.

As you have pointed out the passenger is not to know, how is the TM ment to know what system the ticket has been booked through and if that system is giving the correct information? Therfore in this case The correct result would be for an excess to be issued by the TM and for the customer to then claim a refund from the agent who has incorectly advised when selling the ticket, as it is the agent selling the ticket who is at fault and not the passenger and certainly not TM or TOC.

 

[Daimler]

As you have pointed out the passenger is not to know, how is the TM ment to know what system the ticket has been booked through and if that system is giving the correct information? Therfore in this case The correct result would be for an excess to be issued by the TM and for the customer to then claim a refund from the agent who has incorectly advised when selling the ticket, as it is the agent selling the ticket who is at fault and not the passenger and certainly not TM or TOC.

It does seem rather customer-unfriendly to make the benign and unsuspecting passenger do all the running around trying to get a refund for money he has been - ultimately - wrongly charged, simply because various organisations can't get their act together to supply consistent, correct information.

I'm not sure if I really like the argument 'if the TOC doesn't know and the passenger doesn't know, we'll inconvenience the passenger'.

 

[glynn80]

As you have pointed out the passenger is not to know, how is the TM ment to know what system the ticket has been booked through and if that system is giving the correct information?

Well if the customer prints off their itinerary that displays the route they want to take, as one that the web-based booking engine has allowed the passenger to book (and thus is a permitted route), there should be no question for the TM what route was being displayed and thus what route the passenger was led to believe was valid.

Therfore in this case The correct result would be for an excess to be issued by the TM and for the customer to then claim a refund from the agent who has incorectly advised when selling the ticket, as it is the agent selling the ticket who is at fault and not the passenger and certainly not TM or TOC.

Or the correct result could be the TM logging the arisen issue and reporting back to his superiors. His superiors could then log an official complaint through the ATOC channels to the web-based booking engine involved and attempt to get the route removed from their routeing guide interpretation (if of course it was deemed to not be a permitted route within the official ATOC NRG)

 

[Daimler]

Or the correct result could be the TM logging the arisen issue and reporting back to his superiors. His superiors could then log an official complaint through the ATOC channels to the web-based booking engine involved and attempt to get the route removed from their routeing guide interpretation (if of course it was deemed to not be a permitted route within the official ATOC NRG)

That seems a much fairer result for the passenger.

 

[Skip 10]

Well if the customer prints off their itinerary that displays the route they want to take, as one that the web-based booking engine has allowed the passenger to book (and thus is a permitted route), there should be no question for the TM what route was being displayed and thus what route the passenger was led to believe was valid.


Or the correct result could be the TM logging the arisen issue and reporting back to his superiors. His superiors could then log an official complaint through the ATOC channels to the web-based booking engine involved and attempt to get the route removed from their routeing guide interpretation (if of course it was deemed to not be a permitted route within the official ATOC NRG)

There are many diffrent ways the issue could be resolved and everybody would have a diffrent answer. The 1st part of the question is, would the barriers at Marylebone accept the ticket? its off route so I would imagine not. 2nd point why would someone be traveling that route to get to Oxford? The chances are this would be due to someone wanting to try out WSMR and that is fair enough, but doesnt give somone the exscuse to use an off route ticket. There are guidelines there for a reason and as has been previously stated you cant pass through Kings Sutton twice.

To be 100% honest I would proberbly have a chat with the passenger check the itinery and let them know that ticket wasnt valied for that route and not to travel back that way. I would also report it when I booked off. However there are many out there who would charge the excess. Dont forget not all WSMR trains are worked by WSMR staff and the passenger still has to travel from Banbury to Oxford and not be questiond then. If however it appeared that the passenger knew the ticket wasnt valied and was trying their luck it would have to be an excess issue.

Ticket issuing is a can of worms at best and Ive had many times when someone has been told something is valid from the place of purchase only to find out it isnt when they try to use it. How do you stop it without giving those that are trying to take advantage the chance to get away with it, whilst also being able to help those that have made an honest mistake?

 

[John @ home]

would the barriers at Marylebone accept the ticket? its off route so I would imagine not.

Marylebone is not off-route with a Hemel Hempstead - Oxford route + London ticket. Map CS of the National Routeing Guide shows that Marylebone - Kings Sutton - Oxford is a permitted route for the London - Oxford leg of this journey.

 

[Skip 10]

Marylebone is not off-route with a Hemel Hempstead - Oxford route + London ticket. Map CS of the National Routeing Guide shows that Marylebone - Kings Sutton - Oxford is a permitted route for the London - Oxford leg of this journey.

Good point my mistake.

 

[Failed Unit]

But hey, what do I know about it? I'm just a railway employee who's had to deal with such issues in the past on an annoyingly regular basis...And about 80% have been down to Trainline and 20% down to other stations. (And I've had arguments with passengers when endorsing their ticket with the time of the first train it's valid on if selling an off-peak ticket in the peak).

I can see you pain, but look at it from the other side of the fence, someone has bought a ticket in good faith and has sees no reason for it not to be valid. (the may in some cases have a reservation cover an off route section) They could have bought it from the TOC in questions website as many of them use the trainline. I too would be extremely ****** off if I got either excessed or penalty fared for been off route on a journey I bought of the TOC's website (even if it is trainline powered). To the average person in the street if they buy a ticket from Scotrails website they are buying it from Scotrail not the trainline (substitute Scotrail with various other TOC's if you want).

I know the railway industry is notorais for been one of the most customer unfreindly industrys in the UK. I guess this is the equivalent of buying a ticket for a concert from ticket master and then been turned away at the door by the promoter. Although in this case the error would probably be clearly with ticket master, the trainline isn't that simple if it was booked via the TOC in questions website.

Looks like this is a no win situation, the person who bought the ticket loses because they are off route because they were told to be and have a print out to "prove it". The RPI loses as they are just seen as a jobs worth hitting someone in the pocket that didn't have any idea they were doing anything wrong. The old ignorance is not an excuse line!

 

[dan_atki]

Can of worms alert (and why I believe Banbury is perfectly valid as WebTIS states). I believe the easement is deemed unenforcable in the Routeing Guide's present state.

We can see on map CS that Marylebone > Banbury > Oxford is a possible route. Not necessarily valid, because of the double back through Kings Sutton as mentioned above. Either way Marylebone > Kings Sutton > Oxford is valid.

I had a hunch which I just checked using an older version of the guide - Banbury group consists of Banbury and Kings Sutton. Good news for Daimler. Sadly, the current version of the 'Group Stations' list on ATOC's site is very much corrupt and if West Ruislip is intentionally a member of Banbury Group then I will buy a hat and eat it.

Now, why is this good news? Looking at the instructions of the guide we have the following:

GROUP STATIONS
Some stations are grouped together to improve interchange between trains by offering customers access to a wider choice of train services and station facilities. A customer may travel via any station in such a group, including doubling back, provided that the group is on one of the permitted routes between their origin and destination stations. This extended availability is for interchange purposes only and does not apply where the origin or destination stations are part of a group.

This is the situation we have in this journey, so the double back through Kings Sutton is allowed. To me it would seem this group has been made solely to permit the double back through Kings Sutton* of journeys which the prohibition in the easements says are not valid.

*I can't see it being used from the north to change at Kings Sutton to allow a double back through Banbury judging from the reasoning ATOC give of better journey opportunities and station facilities...

So we have a contradiction - the Routeing Guide in itself deems it a valid route, but an easement specifically disallows it. What overrules what? Thankfully that's not for the customer to decide as has been mentioned several times of late - the Unfair Terms in Trading Act allows the most beneficial interpretation to be used, in this case permitting travel via Banbury.

 

[Ferret]

Thankfully that's not for the customer to decide as has been mentioned several times of late - the Unfair Terms in Trading Act allows the most beneficial interpretation to be used, in this case permitting travel via Banbury.

Dan, has there actually been a case brought against a TOC/agent using that piece of law? If not, it may not be 100% advisable to rely on that piece of law. It all rests on what a Court would deem to be unfair...

 

[theblackwatch]

Interesting topic here, I personally think it would be very unfair to charge someone when they have bought a ticket in good faith. Does anyone know of an instance where someone has actually been excessed in an instance such as this? I'd be interested to see Watchdog's take on it. I think if it happened to me I'd be contacting them and Citizens Advice Bureau.

 

[Chris-P]

Dan, has there actually been a case brought against a TOC/agent using that piece of law? If not, it may not be 100% advisable to rely on that piece of law. It all rests on what a Court would deem to be unfair...

Not really, as there are conflicting terms (the itinary and NRCoC), so the most beneficial applies, the terms do not need to be unfair, just conflicting

 

[Ferret]

All depends whether an *advised* itinerary is seen as a fully fledged term of the contract or not!!!