West Midlands Day Ranger

[oliverj8]

Hi all,

A few weeks back I went on a West Midlands Day Ranger, and went from Crewe to Milton Keynes on a VT Super Voyager, I asked if I could use the ticket on that train and I was given the all clear. I spent some time at MK but when I asked the Train Manager on the VT Pendolino to Birmingham if I could use the ticket on his train he said no use London Midland.

Does anyone know why I couldn't use the ticket on that service to Birmingham?

Thanks in advance

Ollie

 

[Mojo]

A West Midlands Day Ranger isn't valid at Milton Keynes, regardless of the TOC.

 

[glynn80]

A few weeks back I went on a West Midlands Day Ranger, and went from Crewe to Milton Keynes on a VT Super Voyager, I asked if I could use the ticket on that train and I was given the all clear. I spent some time at MK but when I asked the Train Manager on the VT Pendolino to Birmingham if I could use the ticket on his train he said no use London Midland.

Does anyone know why I couldn't use the ticket on that service to Birmingham?

The West Midlands Day Ranger officially is not valid on Virgin Trains however some VT guards are quite lenient with regards to its use on their services and thus if you ask them nicely they will often let you onboard with the ticket.

The ticket also isn't valid as far south as Milton Keynes, was the train non-stop from Crewe?

 

[oliverj8]

A West Midlands Day Ranger isn't valid at Milton Keynes, regardless of the TOC.

Woops but I was aloud down.

 

[Mojo]

The West Midlands Day Ranger officially is not valid on Virgin Trains...

National Rail and London Midland websites would appear to disagree, although I know the FRPP doesn't say it's valid on Virgin.

 

[oliverj8]

The West Midlands Day Ranger officially is not valid on Virgin Trains however some VT guards are quite lenient with regards to its use on their services and thus if you ask them nicely they will often let you onboard with the ticket.

The ticket also isn't valid as far south as Milton Keynes, was the train non-stop from Crewe?

Yes It was the XX:56 to EUS from Chester calling at Crewe and MK.

 

[glynn80]

National Rail and London Midland websites would appear to disagree.

Either it is a mistake on the National Rail website or it is a mistake within the FRPP:

Validity

Valid only on services of the following Operators:

· Arriva Trains Wales

· Chiltern Railways

· CrossCountry

· East Midlands Trains

· First Great Western

· London Midland

· Northern

 

[Mojo]

Surely it's irrelevant what the FRPP says as the only published material available to the traveller is on the National Rail (or London Midland) website which clearly states that it is valid?

 

[oliverj8]

There is something else I have noticed as well after seeing the map on the LM site, I am Pretty sure that I have been on EMT from Leicester to Nottingham/Derby and down to Cheltenham and back to 'bash' XC HSTs on an WMDR. Ah well

 

[glynn80]

Surely it's irrelevant what the FRPP says as the only published material available to the traveller is on the National Rail (or London Midland) website which clearly states that it is valid?

I wouldn't state it is irrelevant considering it is most likely that when checking the validity of the WMDR, it is most likely that either the guard will check the FRPP (if he has a handheld PDA) or he will telephone Retail Control who will also likely check the FRPP.

Whether the customer is able to explain what you have stated above and convince the guard that he should not be charged for a new ticket is another question entirely.

 

[matt]

It did not use to list Virgin Trains on national rail as a valid TOC so as it now lists Virgin maybe it is now valid on Virgin?

 

[alex57601]

Previously the WMDR wasn't valid on Virgin Trains, and reading this thread I thought this to still be the case. However, if it's on the National Rail and London Midland websites, then it seems to me that they have changed this and Virgin are now accepting them. Might be advisable to print off what it says on these two websites ready to produce when challenged.

oliverj8. The WMDR ticket is not valid south of Northampton, so my advice would be to not try going to Milton Keynes again on the ticket (or anywhere else beyond the defined area) and be careful on where you broadcast such boasts.

 

[yorkie]

Woops but I was aloud down.

You mean allowed? Or did you make a lot of noise? and technically MKC is "up" not "down" the WCML but I'll let you off for that

If a TM allows you to do something at their discretion that does not mean you are always allowed to do that. I would also not recommend ever trying to get someone into trouble by saying "but so and so let me last time".

For example I was told I was allowed to use a Virgin only ticket the other day on XC, but I wouldn't go quoting that member of staff and using it another day or for another journey!

When using a WMDR on Virgin it's always best to say to the guard "I'm going to <placename> is that alright?" DO NOT ask "is it valid?" or "so and so let me, so you must let me" or anything like that! Simply ask if it's okay. If they say yes, enjoy the trip. If they say no, wait for another train. If you do that, the chances are you'll rarely be refused and you'll have no problems whatsoever.

If you do board a VT service without permission they may try to charge you. The legality of this is highly debatable but if you don't want to be a test case (although you'd have a strong case IMO) then don't do it. If you are happy to fight your case then we'll be able to help but you cannot say we, or anyone else, said that you are guaranteed to win such a case.

 

[323235]

The last London Midland leaflet I looked at prior to December clearly stated that only Heart Of England Rovers were valid on VT and not WMDR. It was the same for the National rail website.

So either somethings changed or there's been a cock up?

also Coventry-Leamington has disappeared from LM WMDR maps in the last year or so
anyone know whether this is correct or not?

 

[yorkie]

Either it is a mistake on the National Rail website or it is a mistake within the FRPP:

Ahh, now it's on the NRES site, there is no question that it must be accepted on Virgin and if not, it would be a conflict of information and consumer laws would surely come into play and the top secret rule that customers cannot see would be overruled by the publicly available information.

I trust I won't get any rail staff replying that the railways are not subject to consumer laws and can charge people extra on the basis of top secret rules that the railways won't have access to. It is unlikely that the DfT shares that view.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I wouldn't state it is irrelevant ....

I think the question is, if a customer refused to pay, was issued a UFN, and refused to pay that, and if the TOC took it to court (all of this is unlikely but IF it happened), would a court consider the top secret FRPP relevant?

I would like to think the answer is "no" (otherwise I will lose faith in our justice system) however perhaps someone with knowledge and experience of court cases could say?

 

[Dave R]

this is the WMDR map http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/manag...6ad8690e40c16f/areaMap/WestMidlandsRanger.jpg

this is the validity http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/promotions/pr9cb0cc0a040004006ad8690e40c16f/details.html

nothing to suggest its not valid on VT services

 

[glynn80]

I think the question is, if a customer refused to pay, was issued a UFN, and refused to pay that, and if the TOC took it to court (all of this is unlikely but IF it happened), would a court consider the top secret FRPP relevant?

I'm not sure that is the question, as nobody really wants to end up going to court over such an issue. Really the question is as I stated above, if you were to illustrate to the guard that it stated on the National Rail website that the ticket was valid on their services, whether the guard would accept that fact. Logically you would think they would but as we know, logic often doesn't enter the realms of railway ticketing.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I think the question is, if a customer refused to pay, was issued a UFN, and refused to pay that, and if the TOC took it to court (all of this is unlikely but IF it happened), would a court consider the top secret FRPP relevant?

I would like to think the answer is "no" (otherwise I will lose faith in our justice system) however perhaps someone with knowledge and experience of court cases could say?

I see the crucial question here is :
What information was the contract (the ticket) based on?

And there seems to be 3 elements to this which could be argued in law :

1. Are the passenger and the TOC (whose representative sold the ticket, not the carrier) in agreement over which routes, trains, times and operators applied?
2. Were these conditions available to the passenger and was that availability adequate to inform the passenger in accepting them ?
3. Were these conditions consistent and comprehensible?

If the answer to 1 is NO then the TOC would probably be challenged to show that any reasonable passenger would have to answer YES to 2 and 3.
If the info on the NR and LM websites were inconsistent then 3 fails.
If the info used by operational staff was only available in the FRPP then 2 fails.

My understanding of the FRPP is that it is a service made available to staff to assist them in their work and is not available to passengers, consequently its statements cannot be construed as terms to a contract unless they are also made available, adequately, and consistently.

My understanding of the information on these websites is that it does not form the conditions of the contract until or unless the passenger acknowledges those conditions when buying a ticket on-line. The contract would only be with one party (in this case LM) so their T&Cs would be applied and not NR's.

 

[oliverj8]

You mean allowed? Or did you make a lot of noise? and technically MKC is "up" not "down" the WCML but I'll let you off for that

If a TM allows you to do something at their discretion that does not mean you are always allowed to do that. I would also not recommend ever trying to get someone into trouble by saying "but so and so let me last time".

For example I was told I was allowed to use a Virgin only ticket the other day on XC, but I wouldn't go quoting that member of staff and using it another day or for another journey!

When using a WMDR on Virgin it's always best to say to the guard "I'm going to <placename> is that alright?" DO NOT ask "is it valid?" or "so and so let me, so you must let me" or anything like that! Simply ask if it's okay. If they say yes, enjoy the trip. If they say no, wait for another train. If you do that, the chances are you'll rarely be refused and you'll have no problems whatsoever.

If you do board a VT service without permission they may try to charge you. The legality of this is highly debatable but if you don't want to be a test case (although you'd have a strong case IMO) then don't do it. If you are happy to fight your case then we'll be able to help but you cannot say we, or anyone else, said that you are guaranteed to win such a case.

Thanks will definitely take your advice next time.

 

[glynn80]

2. Were these conditions available to the passenger and was that availability adequate to inform the passenger in accepting them ?

My understanding of the FRPP is that it is a service made available to staff to assist them in their work and is not available to passengers, consequently its statements cannot be construed as terms to a contract unless they are also made available, adequately, and consistently.

It is not directly available to the public however, I have been told my members of ATOC staff that, on request, ticket offices are permitted to print off relevant pages for passengers use.

The NRCoC confirms this and specifically states that if passengers wish to find the specific conditions relevant to their ticket, they will be available to passengers when they purchase their ticket (i.e. at a ticket office in this, as this particular ticket is not available online):

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 person (including the right to travel in another person’s transport services), it is also evidence of a contract between you and that person.

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.

Details of how to get copies of the relevant Train Company’s notices and other publications relevant to your journey will be available when you buy a ticket.

Emphasis added personally

 

[yorkie]

But the notices and publications state it IS valid on Virgin Trains!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Details of how to get copies of the relevant Train Company’s notices and other publications relevant to your journey will be available when you buy a ticket.

Good point to emphasise that line. I Think that gets to the heart of the issue. The "notices and other publications . . . available when you buy" does NOT make them Terms & Conditions of the Contract. In fact the wording suggests to me that they specifically are not on 2 counts:
They're NOT called conditions although the items above which you didn't highlight are.
They're made "available when you buy" and not before (even if its immediately beforehand, before means that the passenger has a choice to buy or not to buy)

BTW The usual test is: Would you have continued with the purchase if you had known of the condition beforehand? If NO and the reason is that the information wasn't available beforehand, then it can't have been a condition.

 

[glynn80]

But the notices and publications state it IS valid on Virgin Trains!

It doesn't specifically define notices and publications, although that is a valid point you make.

 

[yorkie]

10. Tickets valid only in trains of particular Train Companies
The validity of a ticket may:
a) be restricted to; or
b) prohibit
travel in the trains of a particular Train Company or Train Companies. Any such restriction or prohibition will be shown on the ticket.

There is no prohibition shown on the ticket.

National Rail website states valid on:

Arriva Trains Wales,
Chiltern Railways,
East Midlands Trains,
First Great Western,
London Midland,
Northern Rail,
Virgin Trains,
CrossCountry

LM website says tickets are valid on:

London Midland,
Northern,
First Great Western,
Arriva Trains Wales,
Chiltern Railways,
East Midlands Trains,
CrossCountry Trains and
Virgin Trains.

This is the same list, but it isn't a copy & paste job as the TOCs are in a different order, this suggests it is not a mistake. Even if it was a mistake that would not affect validity in my opinion.

In addition to the list, WSMR have stated that they will accept WMDR tickets. If they were to refuse to accept them I believe they would have the right to do so however for it to be enforceable they'd need to state "NOT WSMR" or similar in the "Route" description to comply with NCoC. I think WSMR allow it for good publicity and to allow enthusiasts to try out the service, as I do not believe they get any revenue from as if they are not specifically listed as one of the participating operators, although I can only really speculate on that, and railway ticketing does not always follow logic.

I can only guess that Virgin are now receiving revenue for this ticket, but again we can only speculate.

One thing that can be stated as fact is that revenue does not determine validity, ie "we get no money from this ticket/combination of tickets" is not a valid excuse to refuse to accept a ticket.

 

[oliverj8]

VT could have been added to the TOC list for the WMDR as part of the fare increase yesterday (2/1/10), also the price has risen recently from £16.20 to £16.80.

 

[glynn80]

In addition to the list, WSMR have stated that they will accept WMDR tickets. If they were to refuse to accept them I believe they would have the right to do so however for it to be enforceable they'd need to state "NOT WSMR" or similar in the "Route" description to comply with NCoC. I think WSMR allow it for good publicity and to allow enthusiasts to try out the service, as I do not believe they get any revenue from as if they are not specifically listed as one of the participating operators, although I can only really speculate on that, and railway ticketing does not always follow logic.

Virgin are also well within their rights to refuse this fare also. The only fares they are "obliged" to accept the the compulsory inter-available fares of which the WSDR is not one.

 

[yorkie]

But if they chose to refuse to be part of the scheme, it would only be enforceable if they complied with the NCoC.

 

[glynn80]

But if they chose to refuse to be part of the scheme, it would only be enforceable if they complied with the NCoC.

Well it is London Midland who must comply with the NRCoC as it is their product, Virgin's responsibility is only to comply with the TSA regulations.

 

[Ferret]

VT could have been added to the TOC list for the WMDR as part of the fare increase yesterday (2/1/10), also the price has risen recently from £16.20 to £16.80.

My gut feeling is that you're right and that FRPP hasn't been updated! Maybe worth asking VT's customer relations people for their position on the matter?

 

[oliverj8]

My gut feeling is that you're right and that FRPP hasn't been updated! Maybe worth asking VT's customer relations people for their position on the matter?

I would but their customer service is rubbish when e-mailing, I have sent the same e-mail several times months ago and still haven't got a reply compared with London Midland who replied to me within a day.