Conditions question: Passenger rights when combining ('splitting') tickets

[yorkie]

My opinion is that there isn't doubt that two or more tickets can count as one journey. I believe your opinion is that there is doubt?

Given the actions of the TOCs, and given what ATOC have said, I do not believe they would ever take it to court.

But if they did, and if a court thought there was doubt, then what I've been told is that the law I quoted will apply, and that clearly states that "If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail ". Are you saying this law does not apply, or are you saying there is no doubt that you cannot use more than one ticket for one journey?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . then what I've been told is that the law I quoted will apply, . . .

but, you don't know that.

Sadly, there is no amount of reading, reasoning and applying common sense that can reliably anticipate a Judgement in law.
UK Law relies on the canonical texts of legislation AND ON CASE LAW.
Judgements often come as a surprise to the parties involved. If they were more predictable, then I doubt the Courts would have such full diaries! Courts thrive on people and companies hoping that a Court will disregard the canon and listen instead to their personal story and apply reason and compassion. Courts just don't do that.
Never have, and never will.

Ferret is quite correct to caution us against giving confident advice on here in an area of Law where it is a simple matter of fact that there is no Judgement to read down.

 

[yorkie]

So a court can just discard/ignore that law?

I still maintain that I believe there is no 'doubt' you can combine more than one ticket for one journey, ATOC are not interested in denying that right to customers or in test cases, and have stated that they believe TOCs will get passengers home in such circumstances, it's just a small minority of rail staff who don't accept that and cause problems.

If ATOC made a clear, concise, instruction then those minority of rail staff who don't accept this position would then not be wasting their time, and customers would be re-assured.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

So a court can just discard/ignore that law?

In the UK, our Higher Courts ARE the Law.

. . and yes, they do often surprise us with their Judgements,
Conversely, law-makers in government Departments frequently leave grey areas such as this "for the Courts to decide", and say so quite clearly in their guidance to Acts of Parliament.
Until a Court has ruled (and even then it might be tightly constrained to the specific case in front of them), then we really must not anticipate that ruling when giving advice on here.

 

[Dewedin]

In any case, half of £7.80 to excess to Any Permitted will not break the bank and I could easily cost Virgin a lot more than that in customer service if they decide they want to do things that way.

I also need to acquire a zero-fare over-distance excess to Brighouse for my return journey now which will satisfy my inner ticketing geek while in Edinburgh.

 

[yorkie]

But that's if it goes to a higher court?

I think I can confidently say not going to end up in any court unless there is a drastic change of opinion at ATOC, given that ATOC expect there to be no such problems with passengers on split ticketing.

I wish it would go to a court, as I could see us winning, but I do not believe ATOC would let that happen. ATOC probably still remember the cases that passengers won, such as the Rover combination at Retford that a GNER guard deemed invalid and the guards who made passengers get off one train and onto another.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In any case, half of £7.80 to excess to Any Permitted will not break the bank and I could easily cost Virgin a lot more than that in customer service if they decide they want to do things that way.

I also need to acquire a zero-fare over-distance excess to Brighouse for my return journey now which will satisfy my inner ticketing geek while in Edinburgh.

Virgin do have a tendency to wish to avoid bad press and apologise so you probably have nothing to worry about, however on occasion they may deem the case to be so complex that newspapers won't touch the story (we had a lot of difficulty in getting newspapers to cover Simplification 2 years ago!), and on occasion feel that they can get away with providing shoddy customer service, for example this person took 7 months to get anywhere ... http://www.virgintrains.org.uk/ despite having the support of:

• [FONT=&quot]Public Affairs Manager, Transport for London[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Deputy Chair of Greater London Assembly Transport Committee[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Several members of Greater London Assembly[/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) [/FONT]
• [FONT=&quot]London Travelwatch[/FONT]

 

[Ferret]

My opinion is that there isn't doubt that two or more tickets can count as one journey. I believe your opinion is that there is doubt?

My opinion doesn't matter! What I'm trying to get across to you is that a Court's opinion could be somewhat different to yours and they could take the view that two tickets equals two contracts. This then creates a problem in the very first instance - who would you sue, especially if your two contracts were with different companies? The TOC who delayed you or the TOC whose train you missed. TOC A have a simple line of argument - we got you to the destination on your ticket. TOC B have an even simpler line of argument - you weren't there!

Given the actions of the TOCs, and given what ATOC have said, I do not believe they would ever take it to court.

But if they did, and if a court thought there was doubt, then what I've been told is that the law I quoted will apply, and that clearly states that "If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail ". Are you saying this law does not apply, or are you saying there is no doubt that you cannot use more than one ticket for one journey?

Now, who told you this? A High Court Judge? An eminent Law Lord? An expert lawyer in the field? Or a bloke down the Kings Head? We're far better to stick with what we know than try and pretend that we know what the outcome of any legal case would be. As things stand, we can be reasonably confident that there is no will among the TOCs for a Court battle. That could change, especially in tough financial times when train companies are left with huge taxi bills. But still, as it stands, we can certainly advise the OP from past experience, the train companies will assist you in getting to your destination. We're not sure whether they are legally obliged to in the circumstances described but for customer service reasons it's highly unlikely they'll refuse.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....Wrong!! The NCoC does address the issue of "a group of tickets strung together"

....
19. Using a combination of tickets
You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey and one of the following applies:
(a) they are both Zonal Tickets (unless special conditions prohibit their use);
(b) the train you are in calls at a station where you change from one
ticket to another; or
(c) one of the tickets is a Season Ticket (which for this purpose does not include
Season Tickets or travel passes issued on behalf of a passenger transport
executive or local authority) or a leisure travel pass, and the other ticket(s) is/are not....

When will you realise that:

"....You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey and one of the following applies:...."

does not imply or mean:

"....Two tickets are considered one ticket provided that they cover the entire journey and:...."

There is NO EVIDENCE that that is the case. If it was the case, ScotRail could easily be responsible for connections on a Brighton to Bogner Regis ticket if the passenger held a connecting Inverness to Brighton ticket and a ScotRail service to Edinburgh was delayed.

The NCoC states that TOCs are only responsible for the services they have agreed to provide to get you to your destination as printed on your ticket, that is quite clearly written, it cannot be denied.

Virgin (or who ever runs the service to Carlisle) is NOT responsible for getting the passenger to Leeds because they have only agreed to get you to Carlisle. Northern are NOT responsible for anything before you get to Carlisle because your agreement with them is for travel from Carlisle to Leeds. FACT.

....There is strong evidence that the customer does have the right to "complete their journey", and I am yet to hear of any case where the passenger has been denied that right, other than where the customer has failed to allow sufficient interchange time. Several people I know, and myself, have had split ticket combinations accepted for taxis/alternative routes/later trains, etc. and if anyone tried to deny that right they would face a robust argument and have their name taken, and a strong letter sent to Customer Services, and if that didn't produce results, to Passenger Focus, and if necessary MPs and the media. However so far I am unaware of any case that has got to even the complaints to customer services stage, and all cases that I am aware of have been dealt with appropriately and correctly by rail staff!....

Just because it happens, doesn't mean it is right, or correct, otherwise we could argue that a poor excuse for a member of staff is always right even when he isn't, because it happens.

....Firstly, the "contract" you agree on an AP ticket says if you are delayed you can complete the journey, and that you can combine more than one journey, so the fact it's "two contracts" is irrelevant....

So if you are using an 'advance' fare followed by an 'anytime' ticket you can use the conditions of the advance fare to demand a taxi for a missed connection on the anytime ticket? Given that this is a condition specific to the 'advance' fare, does that mean they share the same conditions? if so, could you break your journey or stop short of your destination on the 'anytime' fare?

....Secondly, the idea that a TOC doesn't have to help you is flawed:-

43. Help from Train Companies if you are stranded

If disruption caused by circumstances within the control of a Train Company or a Rail Service Company leaves you stranded before you have reached your destination and the Train Company whose trains you are entitled to use is unable to get you to that destination by other means, any Train Company which is in a position to help will, if it reasonably can, either arrange to get you to that destination, or provide overnight accommodation for you."

So a TOC can't simply deny responsibility and therefore say they won't help you....

It says "before you have reached your destination" no mention of journeys, so where is your destination? The NCoC mentions it in the introduction as being 'as printed on your ticket' and never once mentions it as being 'of your journey', therefore we can safely say it is as printed on your ticket, therefore, TOC A has got you as far as they are responsible for getting you, therefore you have not been stranded on route to your 'destination'.

 

[paul1609]

if it helps I think that Ive been provided with a taxi four times and an air ticket and taxi on one occassion due to rail failures. I cant recall that the rail staff that have arranged the travel have ever asked to see my travel ticket. Its always been on the basis of Im travelling from X to Y and this train failed and Im stranded. In all but one case the further transport has been arranged proactively by the TOC, in one case by Scotrail at Glasgow Queen Street contacting the Duty Southern Manager in Brighton after the Conductor came through the train enquiring as to peoples final destinations.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Oh I think it is fair to say it does happen, but the whole point is that some here are claiming it is set in stone, that you can expect it to happen, that you have a right to it, but I am far from convinced that there is anything written that says that it should happen.

Myself, and I believe others, have read the conditions to say precisely the opposite is true, and I believe that that is the correct way to read it, as it doesn't rely on the how I interpret one line in the NCoC and it doesn't ignore things that are written for all to see and doesn't agree with it.

 

[Mintona]

A couple of months back I was working a train which was delayed by about an hour. It was an off peak train and I had a lot of passengers with advance tickets who were going to miss connections from Kings Cross, Euston and Paddington. I called all three companies to advise them they would have passengers arriving late, and they told me that customers with tickets from (eg.) Broadstairs - Edinburgh would be fine to use a later train, but passengers with off peak tickets from Broadstairs - London and advance from London - Edinburgh would need to purchase new tickets.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . I called all three companies to advise them they would have passengers arriving late, and they told me that customers with tickets from (eg.) Broadstairs - Edinburgh would be fine to use a later train, but passengers with off peak tickets from Broadstairs - London and advance from London - Edinburgh would need to purchase new tickets.

Very interesting.
It must just have been the way you tell them!

But seriously . . . it would be very helpful to be quite clear about this . . .

Can you clarify (if you can remember), did you have pax on that service holding Advance tix for all 3 of those TOCs, and did all 3 TOCs, quite independently, decline to carry those pax onwards on the Advance tickets they held?

Do you happen to recall if any of those (unfortunate) pax had purchased their Advance tix in the same transaction as their off-peak to London?

And can you explain a little more about the delay to 'your' service, please? Was it, for example, a problem entirely within the TOC's control or NR's or another TOC's service on the lines? Or was the delay completely outside the control of 'the railways' and/or your TOC? (Or maybe more to the point, what did you say to the other TOCs that led them to decline to carry late-arriving Advance ticket holders?).

[I hope you can see the distinctions I'm trying to understand better. It could help a lot of us on here to understand this correctly.]
Thanks.

 

[yorkie]

My opinion doesn't matter! What I'm trying to get across to you is that a Court's opinion could be somewhat different to yours

My understanding is that a lower court would look at consumer law, I have quoted the relevant part. However I think where the confusion is you are talking about a higher court making a ruling?

and they could take the view that two tickets equals two contracts.

As I said above, apart from the fact that I am not necessarily accepting that it is "two contracts", if we take it that there are two contracts, what does that actually mean? my answer about the building work example has gone unanswered.

This then creates a problem in the very first instance - who would you sue, especially if your two contracts were with different companies?

Firstly, if you take the "especially..." part out of it, you could actually be comining 2 tickets for use with one TOC, so there is no issue about "who" you are dealing with. On the other hand, a passenger can hold one ticket and then have 2 (or more) TOCs to deal with, such as the Hull to Cottingham example, and you can then have the "who do you sue?" debate even when on a single ticket. I feel that the NCoC compels any TOC who is in a position to help, to do so. I would advise passengers to seek help at the earliest opportunity, and if help can be sought when on the original delaying TOC then that is likely to minimise problems (e.g. Hull Trains would have accepted responsibility if the TM had been spoken to, which a member of staff was supposed to arrange but the TM was clearly then too busy).

The TOC who delayed you or the TOC whose train you missed. TOC A have a simple line of argument - we got you to the destination on your ticket. TOC B have an even simpler line of argument - you weren't there!

So you only have an effective argument when combining tickets on multiple TOCs! Interesting. We've had this debate many times before and the people who argue on your side, always go for the TOC vs TOC argument, because it suits. How does your argument stack up for these potential combinations?

Leeds-Newcastle TPE & Connections
Leeds-York TPE
York - Newcastle EC

Newcastle - Glasgow EC & Connections
Newcastle - Edinburgh EC
Edinburgh - Glasgow FSR

With the tickets being for 3 trains overall, the first and second tickets being for the same train from York to Edinburgh.

The scenario would be the TPE train was delayed and the connection at York was missed.

Can EC use the excuses you list? Can they refuse the passenger onward travel at York, or Newcastle? Can FSR have a pop?

I'd be very interested to hear the views of yourself and hairyhandedfool....
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

When will you realise that:

"....You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey and one of the following applies:...."

does not imply or mean:

"....Two tickets are considered one ticket provided that they cover the entire journey and:...."

There is NO EVIDENCE that that is the case.

The number of tickets is not relevant. What matters is that we know that a passenger needs to be covered for a "journey". The question is, can two or more tickets be counted as one journey?

The number of tickets or contracts is, I believe, not relevant.

If it was the case, ScotRail could easily be responsible for connections on a Brighton to Bogner Regis ticket if the passenger held a connecting Inverness to Brighton ticket and a ScotRail service to Edinburgh was delayed.

If you are saying a customer travelling from Inverness to Bognor Regis was delayed on their way to Glasgow, causing them to miss the last connection to Bognor Regis, FSR are liable to pay for that? I believe they are. However my understanding is it would be Southern who would be organising the the onward travel at Brighton. I would, however, seek the FSR guard and ask them to endorse the delay however this isn't really necessary as Brighton station can check the delay on TRUST. But I would want to get those arrangements sorted as soon as possible.

The NCoC states that TOCs are only responsible for the services they have agreed to provide to get you to your destination as printed on your ticket, that is quite clearly written, it cannot be denied.

b) If delays occur while
travelling, they will be
allowed to take the next
available train(s) to complete
their journey.

43. Help from Train Companies if you are stranded
If disruption caused by circumstances within the control of a Train Company or a Rail Service Company leaves you stranded before you have reached your destination and the Train Company whose trains you are entitled to use is unable to get you to that destination by other means, any Train Company which is in a position to help will, if it reasonably can,
either arrange to get you to that destination, or provide overnight accommodation for you.

Virgin (or who ever runs the service to Carlisle) is NOT responsible for getting the passenger to Leeds because they have only agreed to get you to Carlisle. Northern are NOT responsible for anything before you get to Carlisle because your agreement with them is for travel from Carlisle to Leeds. FACT.

If a passenger is travelling from Glasgow to Leeds, changing at Carlisle, if the Virgin train is delayed and misses the Northern train, if there are later trains via alternative routes, then the customer must be allowed to use them, even if on a Route Appleby ticket. This would mean Virgin allowing the customer to continue to Preston, for Northern to Leeds, or maybe to Warrington for TPE to Leeds, or similar. A TOC such as TPE cannot refuse to help, under the NCoC "any Train Company which is in a position to help will, if it reasonably can, either arrange to get you to that destination or provide overnight accommodation for you." If there are no further trains, then a taxi would need to be provided, perhaps from Penrith or somewhere more suitable than Carlisle.

Just because it happens, doesn't mean it is right, or correct, otherwise we could argue that a poor excuse for a member of staff is always right even when he isn't, because it happens.

Sometimes staff do act incorrectly, and make interpretations that are contrary to what ATOC expect, such as what you are doing now. However they are in the minority and it is a risk that member of staff takes because if a customer knows their rights and takes the matter further, it can be costly for a company.

So if you are using an 'advance' fare followed by an 'anytime' ticket you can use the conditions of the advance fare to demand a taxi for a missed connection on the anytime ticket? Given that this is a condition specific to the 'advance' fare, does that mean they share the same conditions? if so, could you break your journey or stop short of your destination on the 'anytime' fare?


It says "before you have reached your destination" no mention of journeys, so where is your destination? The NCoC mentions it in the introduction as being 'as printed on your ticket' and never once mentions it as being 'of your journey', therefore we can safely say it is as printed on your ticket, therefore, TOC A has got you as far as they are responsible for getting you, therefore you have not been stranded on route to your 'destination'.

What matters is that you can combine two or more tickets for one journey. Your destination is where you finish your journey.

You can hardly argue that a "destination" is an intermediate point before the completion of a journey. If a customer holds more than one ticket, those tickets can constitute more than one journey. If that upsets some staff, so be it, but that's what the NCoC states.

19. Using a combination of tickets
You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire journey and one of the following applies:....

 

[DaveNewcastle]

My understanding is that a lower court would look at consumer law, I have quoted the relevant part. However I think where the confusion is you are talking about a higher court making a ruling?

I think we can clear this up straight away. Any UK Court, from the local lay Magistrates to The House of Lords or Supreme Court will look at whatever legislation and/or Case Law they are asked to look at, by either party.
And when they do, then whichever party wants to quote from an Act, or a prior case, or some other document, then they should have advised the Court and the other party(ies) in advance, of those details they intended quoting from. If either party wants to quote 'on the cuff' without giving notice, then they's better have done their homework and made sure its relevant, otherwise their opponent will be the first to challenge them as aducing new evidence.

But don't expect the Court or their Judges to go looking up Acts and Cases. Thats what Counsel and their teams of expensive lawyers and back-oofice staff are there to do. (Slight exception for the Clerk to lay Magistrates who actually does have to get some legal facts correct to advise the Worships)

 

[Terrafire]

I think we can clear this up straight away. Any UK Court, from the local lay Magistrates to The House of Lords or Supreme Court will look at whatever legislation and/or Case Law they are asked to look at, by either party.
And when they do, then whichever party wants to quote from an Act, or a prior case, or some other document, then they should have advised the Court and the other party(ies) in advance, of those details they intended quoting from. If either party wants to quote 'on the cuff' without giving notice, then they's better have done their homework and made sure its relevant, otherwise their opponent will be the first to challenge them as aducing new evidence.

But don't expect the Court or their Judges to go looking up Acts and Cases. Thats what Counsel and their teams of expensive lawyers and back-oofice staff are there to do. (Slight exception for the Clerk to lay Magistrates who actually does have to get some legal facts correct to advise the Worships)

Well, to a point. Once you get to the High Court and above, if there's a chance the issue is going to set a noteworthy precedent you'll get judges with their eyes on the law reports ('I have found the case Bloggs v Scruggins, which was not cited to the court, very instructive'), because they don't want to be known to generations of practitioners as 'the idiot who wrote that atrocity of a decision'. Certainly they won't leave a glaringly obvious stone unturned because counsel didn't argue it - cases are sometimes scheduled for additional court time because of an issue which wasn't argued to begin with but occurred later on.

 

[455driver]

Originally Posted by NCoC
19. Using a combination of tickets
You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as together they cover the entire
journey and one of the following applies:
(a) they are both Zonal Tickets (unless special conditions prohibit their use);
(b) the train you are in calls at a station where you change from one
ticket to another; or
(c) one of the tickets is a Season Ticket (which for this purpose does not include
Season Tickets or travel passes issued on behalf of a passenger transport
executive or local authority) or a leisure travel pass, and the other ticket(s) is/are not.

I have highlighted the important bits, so if the tickets are both "day" tickets then condition 19 doesnt help so it is 2 seperate contracts but until we get a definitive answer from ATOC we will just go round and round in circles.
Yorkie does like to quote the beginning of con 19 but never quotes from the "and one of the following applies" for some reason!

 

[yorkie]

I have highlighted the important bits, so if the tickets are both "day" tickets then condition 19 doesnt help so it is 2 seperate contracts

I believe there is no significance in whether or not there are separate "contracts", what matters is whether it counts as "one journey" or not.

but until we get a definitive answer from ATOC

ATOC were asked if they would expect split tickets to be honoured in the event of a delay they said yes. You know what ATOC are like. It is hard to get that out of them, let alone more than that. ATOC do not like telling TOCs what to do, in fact they refuse, saying they can only "advise" members.

we will just go round and round in circles.

I will do if necessary!

Yorkie does like to quote the beginning of con 19 but never quotes from the "and one of the following applies" for some reason!

As I said before, if you are on a train that stops at a station and you then get on another train, I believe it is obvious that the train "calls". Now it is obvious you can use more than one ticket for a journey, in the same way that it is obvious I can pay with 2 x £10 notes if I need to pay £20, however some guards were instructing passengers to physically get off the train and sometimes denying them the right to get back on. A memo was sent out in 2003 instructing guards not to do this. Unfortunately some people misinterpret what is meant by "the train you are in calls" and take it to mean that if a change of train is required, that does not count as "the train calls". I have, therefore, come up with an itinerary above that people who make such interpretations can have no issue with. I would be grateful if you could say if that itinerary is valid or not, and if it isn't, why it isn't
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I'll re-post the example again.

Is this valid for onward travel or not?

Leeds-Newcastle TPE & Connections
Leeds-York TPE
York - Newcastle EC

Newcastle - Glasgow EC & Connections
Newcastle - Edinburgh EC
Edinburgh - Glasgow FSR

With the tickets being for 3 trains overall, the first and second tickets being for the same train from York to Edinburgh.

The scenario would be the TPE train was delayed and the connection at York was missed.

Can EC use the excuses you list? Can they refuse the passenger onward travel at York, or Newcastle? Can FSR have a pop?

If you believe it is not valid, please give reasons why.

I would be very grateful if 455Driver, Ferret and Hairyhandedfool could all answer this

 

[455driver]

How does your argument stack up for these potential combinations?

Leeds-Newcastle TPE & Connections
Leeds-York TPE
York - Newcastle EC

Newcastle - Glasgow EC & Connections
Newcastle - Edinburgh EC
Edinburgh - Glasgow FSR

With the tickets being for 3 trains overall, the first and second tickets being for the same train from York to Edinburgh.

The scenario would be the TPE train was delayed and the connection at York was missed.

Can EC use the excuses you list? Can they refuse the passenger onward travel at York, or Newcastle? Can FSR have a pop?

Interesting scenario, I would say that the "contract" finishes at Newcastle so after that you are on your own.
BUT, I would hope that EC would allow you to travel to EDB (as you are already on their train), after that it is up to the discretion of FSR!
How is that

 

[yorkie]

Interesting scenario, I would say that the "contract" finishes at Newcastle so after that you are on your own.
BUT, I would hope that EC would allow you to travel to EDB (as you are already on their train), after that it is up to the discretion of FSR!
How is that

Interesting, but I am struggling to see how you can come to that conclusion, taking your quote from the Conditions of Carriage above, after it says "one of the following applies", there can be no doubt surely, that "(b) the train you are in calls at a station where you change from one ticket to another" does apply, as the York - Edinburgh train calls at Newcastle which is where you change from one ticket to another. When changing trains, I can see there is a debate about the interpretation of that sentence. But when remaining on the train I don't see how there can be any doubt?

If we accept the "contract" ends at Newcastle (if we accept that each ticket is a separate contract, which I don't necessarily accept but I don't believe has great significance anyway for reasons already posted) then we have to look at that "contract" and it states if delays occur you can complete your "journey". The Conditions of Carriage state that you can use two or more tickets for "one journey" if one of the criteria quoted above applies, and there can surely be no doubt in the example I gave above, that one of the criteria does, indeed, apply?

Over to you...

 

[455driver]

But the additional part of con 19, which you don't like to use, does apply-

(a) they are both Zonal Tickets (unless special conditions prohibit their use);
(b) the train you are in calls at a station where you change from one
ticket to another; or
(c) one of the tickets is a Season Ticket (which for this purpose does not include

So therefore con 19 doesn't help as neither (a and b) or (c) apply. Now (b) on its own is good but it has to be used in conjunction with (a) which doesn't so therefore is no good.

 

[yorkie]

One of the following is all that is required: a), b), or c)

b) applies, that's sufficient, it doesn't need a) to apply.

 

[455driver]

oooohhhh, didn't notice that , um, might have to agree with you now (don't tell anyone ), I was reading it that (a and b) or (c) had to apply, not (a) or (b) or (c).

PS feel a bit fick now




so in case you missed it-

I AGREE WITH YORKIE NOW.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Leeds-Newcastle TPE & Connections
Leeds-York TPE
York - Newcastle EC

Newcastle - Glasgow EC & Connections
Newcastle - Edinburgh EC
Edinburgh - Glasgow FSR

With the tickets being for 3 trains overall, the first and second tickets being for the same train from York to Edinburgh.

The scenario would be the TPE train was delayed and the connection at York was missed.

Can EC use the excuses you list? Can they refuse the passenger onward travel at York, or Newcastle? Can FSR have a pop?

I would be very grateful if 455Driver, Ferret and Hairyhandedfool could all answer this

Okay, so, you MAY USE the two tickets together under NCoC condition 19, but the tickets and condition 19 are not evidence of a single contract, they are still two seperate contracts that you are attempting to use sequencially.

TPE has a responsibility to help you get to Newcastle, because you are delayed while travelling, but no further, because they have not agreed to any provide any services beyond this point. EC should also help you get to Newcastle, because you have been delayed whilst travelling on that ticket, but their responsibility for this ticket ends there the contract has been now been completed.

Now we move on to the Newcastle-Glasgow ticket....

....Customers must be at the departure station shown on the ticket in good time to catch the train, if they miss the first train on which they are booked for any reason, they must purchase a new ticket....

By buying the Newcastle-Glasgow advance ticket you agree not only to be at Newcastle in time to catch the Newcastle-Edinburgh train, but also to be on it. If you miss it FOR ANY REASON, you are responsible for buying a new ticket to cover your journey.

If you agree that the conditions of the ticket are specific to each ticket you hold, you cannot deny that this is correct and you have lost out, the TOC does NOT have to do anything for you.

You can only disagree with this if you feel you can ignore this condition and the only way to do that is to use condition 19 and the two tickets as evidence of ONE CONTRACT. Condition 19 does not say that and the introduction of the NCoC specifically says this is not the case.

When you buy a ticket to travel on the National Rail Network you enter into an agreement with the Train Companies whose trains you have the right to use. That agreement gives you the right to make the journey or journeys between the stations or within the zones shown on the ticket you have bought. These Conditions are also part of that agreement and they apply to all domestic (non-international) journeys by scheduled passenger trains of the Train Companies on the National Rail Network....

YOU have missed the first booked train (for any reason remember), so YOU MUST buy a new ticket. There is nothing else to explain.

IF the EC train was the one that was delayed, this would not be an issue of course, because, although you were not there in good time, you have not missed the first booked train and FSR would have to allow you on a later train from Edinburgh to Glasgow.

 

[Ferret]

My understanding is that a lower court would look at consumer law, I have quoted the relevant part. However I think where the confusion is you are talking about a higher court making a ruling?

I was talking about any court making a ruling! And, you still haven't clarified who told you what the outcome of a theoretical case would be? Was it somebody who was legally qualified or a layman?

As I said above, apart from the fact that I am not necessarily accepting that it is "two contracts", if we take it that there are two contracts, what does that actually mean? my answer about the building work example has gone unanswered.

If it was held to be two different contracts, it muddies the waters significantly, to the point of blowing your carefully constructed argument out of the water. Let's take your building work example. Bodgitt and Scarper Ltd get the first contract, and Quality Construction Ltd get the second contract. Bodgitt and Scarper fail to complete the work, leaving Quality Construction more work to do. Would you expect Quality to do more work for the same original price? Contractually, the answer is no. Quality would be well within their rights to say, ah, you want us to complete Bodgitt's work which we'll happily do but we will require what is known legally as fresh consideration or in laymen's terms, more wonga!

Now, bring this back to the trains. Bodgitt Rail get you to Carlisle but not in time for your next contract. Let's say Quality Trains run via Appleby and via Manchester. Manchester is a longer route and more expensive. They were not party to the original agreement between you and Bodgitt, and weren't even aware that them entering into a contract with you was dependent on Bodgitt completing a previous contract. They say 'now, hang on a minute - you want us to do more work for the same price. No no no, where's the fresh consideration due to me for changing the contract?' Of course, an excess fare to the any permitted route would be 'fresh consideration' or as I put it before, more wonga.

So you only have an effective argument when combining tickets on multiple TOCs! Interesting.

So I have an effective argument then?!

What matters is that you can combine two or more tickets for one journey. Your destination is where you finish your journey.

You can hardly argue that a "destination" is an intermediate point before the completion of a journey. If a customer holds more than one ticket, those tickets can constitute more than one journey. If that upsets some staff, so be it, but that's what the NCoC states.

Mate, it doesn't upset me at all! You're missing a massive point once again. The one big issue I have in all of this is that you try and claim that the law agrees with your point of view and you can prejudge the outcome of any legal case. When will you accept that you can do no such thing? Throughout this whole thread, you keep rehashing the same argument - and it carries no more weight the 5th time we read it than it did the first time. It's not that I necessarily believe that the customer is invalid myself, it's that I'm illustrating to you that there is another side of the argument which by your own admission could be an effective argument. How do you know which way a Court case will be decided therefore?! I'll answer it for you - you don't, simple as.

One final point, the NRCoC says that any TOC that is in a position to help is obliged to do so. Now, you're taking that to mean that they'll provide onward travel free of charge. What about if this smartarse lawyer persuades a judge that charging the excess fare and then directing them to the appropriate trains is 'providing help'. After all, this also follows existing case law regarding 'providing fresh consideration'.

 

[MikeWh]

A quick question to add into this fascinating debate. Surely your contract is made with whichever company you pay your money to? If you purchase all your tickets in one go from one booking company then your contact is with that booking company. They sub-contract the individual TOCs to provide the services. I'm sure that if you buy a product from a shop which goes wrong you have to return it to the shop that you purchased it from rather than the manufacturer.

 

[Ferret]

A quick question to add into this fascinating debate. Surely your contract is made with whichever company you pay your money to? If you purchase all your tickets in one go from one booking company then your contact is with that booking company. They sub-contract the individual TOCs to provide the services. I'm sure that if you buy a product from a shop which goes wrong you have to return it to the shop that you purchased it from rather than the manufacturer.

No, the booking company is acting as an agent for the TOCs, which is an entirely different thing.

 

[yorkie]

Ferret - you are ignoring my Leeds to Glasgow example, why?

As for the building example, I accept your example with completely different, unrelated, companies (which would be the case for railways if we didn't have a National set of conditions, and unified ticketing, etc... which we do!) but what about my example with 2 separate 'contracts' with the same company?

In the example I have given, there can surely be no doubt that it is valid IMO, and if you deem it invalid, I would like to know why before I say more.

I'm not saying the law agrees with my position but I have quoted a relevant law that apparently states what should happen in the event of there being "doubt" over the meaning of a term. My understanding is that there may be doubt about whether or not two or more tickets can be used for "one journey" in certain circumstances, depending on how Condition 19 is interpreted, when changing from one train to another. However I do not believe this doubt exists in the example above when it is clearly the same train you remain on, when changing from one ticket to another.

I will send a PM regarding the quote on consumer law.

 

[Ferret]

Ferret - you are ignoring my Leeds to Glasgow example, why?

I ran out of time on my PNB!!!!!

As for the building example, I accept your example with completely different, unrelated, companies (which would be the case for railways if we didn't have a National set of conditions, and unified ticketing, etc... which we do!) but what about my example with 2 separate 'contracts' with the same company?

I'm not sure. You could argue either way - you stuffed up in the first place now you sort it, or you never said that the second contract was conditional on the first contract being completed by xxxx. But then, you can argue either way on the whole debate! I can see where you're coming from entirely, it's just that with a little knowledge of how Contract Law works, I can see how a Court could find in favour of a rail company which is why I still say that we should stick to what we know! We have your past experience to go on and what ATOC say they expect from TOCs. And I repeat, even if a TOC is not contractually obliged to do something, it doesn't mean that they won't.

In the example I have given, there can surely be no doubt that it is valid IMO, and if you deem it invalid, I would like to know why before I say more.

I'm not saying the law agrees with my position but I have quoted a relevant law that apparently states what should happen in the event of there being "doubt" over the meaning of a term. My understanding is that there may be doubt about whether or not two or more tickets can be used for "one journey" in certain circumstances, depending on how Condition 19 is interpreted, when changing from one train to another. However I do not believe this doubt exists in the example above when it is clearly the same train you remain on, when changing from one ticket to another.

OK, in your example, the only possible counter argument I can see is the term in the Advance conditions that mentions being there at the station for your booked departure time. Again, there's the same issue - is it two contracts or one? Of course, there's the condition you've referred to about providing onward travel in the event of delays. Does that apply to the destination as shown on the first ticket, or the destination shown on the second contract/ticket. If you were to ask me what I'd do as a ticket examiner on the EC train when we left Newcastle, then I'd have to say I'd allow travel - it's far more important to want the customer to travel again with my employer rather than worry about the complexities of contract law!

 

[yorkie]

OK, in your example, the only possible counter argument I can see is the term in the Advance conditions that mentions being there at the station for your booked departure time. Again, there's the same issue - is it two contracts or one?

Let's take each ticket to be a contract then, but each 'contract' has a condition that states that it can be combined with more than one 'contract' (ticket) to make "one journey"

Of course, there's the condition you've referred to about providing onward travel in the event of delays. Does that apply to the destination as shown on the first ticket, or the destination shown on the second contract/ticket.

It specifically uses the word "journey". So we have to look up whether or not a "journey" is limited to one ticket (or 'contract') or whether two or more tickets (or 'contracts') can be used for "one journey". NCoC Condition 19 determines that.

If you were to ask me what I'd do as a ticket examiner on the EC train when we left Newcastle, then I'd have to say I'd allow travel - it's far more important to want the customer to travel again with my employer rather than worry about the complexities of contract law!

I agree it is correct to allow travel.

But would you allow travel on the basis of Condition 19 allowing more than one ticket to form one journey, or on the basis of "letting the customer get away with it"?

 

[Ferret]

Let's take each ticket to be a contract then, but each 'contract' has a condition that states that it can be combined with more than one 'contract' (ticket) to make "one journey"
It specifically uses the word "journey". So we have to look up whether or not a "journey" is limited to one ticket (or 'contract') or whether two or more tickets (or 'contracts') can be used for "one journey". NCoC Condition 19 determines that.

I agree it is correct to allow travel.

But would you allow travel on the basis of Condition 19 allowing more than one ticket to form one journey, or on the basis of "letting the customer get away with it"?

If letting them get away with it constitutes good customer service then the latter. As a ticket examiner, can you go out on a limb without being 100% sure of your ground? I don't think you can.

Here's another thought that's just occured to me. Do specific conditions attached to a ticket override the CoC? I ask because we've noticed many people using a combination of a West Yorkshire all zones weekly pass (ie, issued by a PTE) and a Micklefield-York 7 day season to travel on direct trains to York. Now, read condition 19 of the CoC. If one is a season ticket and one is not then it's valid. It goes on to state that a pass issued by a PTE does not count as a season ticket. Now to me, that satisfies condition 19! However, the conditions of the West Yorkshire pass state that this combination of tickets does not apply to services operated by XC, EC, possibly TPE too - which I presume is because they don't stop at Micklefield. Now, I'm posting this from a Blackberry so I can't get hold of the exact quote, but I think SYPTE say something similar about their PTE season ticket too, but also that this condition supercedes anything in the CoC regarding combinations of tickets. So, if specific terms and conditions of a ticket/contract override the CoC, does that mean that the specific conditions that apply to advance fares override condition 19 as well, meaning that in your example, from Newcastle is arguably invalid as he wasn't at the departure station at the time listed on his ticket? Discuss!