Hypothetical question re. shorting Advance journey

[trainophile]

Well maybe not quite so hypothetical but let's see how the answers go.

If someone has an Advance ticket from A to B, but decides instead that they want to go from A to C, which includes part of the A to B route, can they leave the train (but not the station) at a point on that journey between A and B, and get on a different train to C, having purchased a ticket from the changeover station to C?

All parts of the journey would be covered by a valid ticket, but they would theoretically be shorting the original Advance ticket finishing point. As they would not need to leave the station, and would be able to show tickets for inspection on all trains used, would they "get away with it"?

 

[Old Timer]

....would they "get away with it"?

What you mean is can you pay for the longer journey A to B because it is cheaper than A to C and then terminate short ?

If this is outside of the original ticket's condition of issue then simply NO.

 

[trainophile]

I know it sounds like that, but the instance in question is because due to various reasons (weather, reduced local services, acquisition of a cat :roll, I have actually just bought a jolly expensive additional ticket to make my journey the day before! This leaves me with an unwanted ticket, and I know of a young person who might be able to use it to get home from spending Christmas with family, but they don't want to go to "my" destination, as they live in a different part of the Midlands.

I know all that waffle doesn't change anything, but thought I'd explain that I'm not just trying to be a cheapskate!

 

[hairyhandedfool]

If I understand correctly what you mean is something like:

If I held an advance ticket from Newcastle to London on an EC service and a ticket from Peterborough to Leicester, could I use the advance as far as Peterborough and then use the other ticket to get to Leicester?

Officially, no, but I doubt anyone would notice unless there was cause to examine the advance ticket (or reason to suspect misuse) after alighting at Peterborough.

 

[trainophile]

Thanks HHF, that is indeed what I meant (different route, same scenario). I was thinking that there is little chance of being apprehended while between trains, especially mingling in a busy station, so unless someone is checking at the doors of the first train when it is alighted from, all the traveller has to do is produce the onward ticket if required to do so.

 

[MCR247]

You asked whether you are allowed. The answer is no. Whether it is possible without being caught is a different thing. Whether it should be allowed has been debated here too many times.

 

[Nick W]

I believe that you can get away with this on a technicality in the conditions.

Let's have a look at the National Rail conditions of carriage:

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

Ok, in my opinion both the advance ticket from A to B and the changeover station to C together cover the entire journey, and a little more. To deny this, one would have to argue convincingly that the advance purchase ticket from A to B doesn't cover the part of the journey to the immediate station. They would probably argue this by pointing out the following in the terms and conditions for an advance purchase ticket:

Break of journey
You may not start, break and resume, or end your journey at any intermediate station except to change to/from connecting trains as shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary.

The OP would be finishing his journey at C and not an intermediate station, and therefore this does not apply.

But even if you were to claim that C was an intermediate station, this would be allowed if the new journey could be considered an other valid travel itinerary. The only way you could claim that the itinerary wasn't valid would be to cite the same term and condition that mentions "or other valid travel itinerary". This would mean the argument was circular and therefore invalid unless you could show a way to enter the circle.

Of course, you could still claim that the advance purchase ticket doesn't cover the journey, because of that same condition, but the argument would still be circular.

Of course, whoever checks the tickets might not agree with this logic. Therefore, I'd suggest not showing both tickets together, and getting off the first train as discretely as possible, not because I believe this is fare evasion but because I believe that the person checking a ticket might not concede the logic.

Disclaimer: If you did get caught, this could go to court. Many of us would support you, and many of us believe that the judge would rule in favour of the customer due to the ambiguity, but it may not. We know that senior people at ATOC read this, and we suspect that this and other ambiguities are deliberately left in. On this basis, I'd assume at no ToC would wish to take such a matter to court for fear of losing.

 

[trainophile]

Have to say Thank You to Nick W just for taking the time and the mental effort to work all that lot out!

 

[MikeWh]

@Nick W: The "other travel itinery" relates to an itinery for using the advance ticket, not for using an additional ticket not in any way connected to the advance ticket.

What you are proposing is not allowed, but as HHF said, you would probably get away with it.

 

[Nick W]

@Nick W: The "other travel itinery" relates to an itinery for using the advance ticket, not for using an additional ticket not in any way connected to the advance ticket.

What you are proposing is not allowed, but as HHF said, you would probably get away with it.

What's your source for this, and how can it be legally binding if it isn't available to the customer?

Even if I concede that that is the case, how do you justify the proposition not being allowed?

 

[Old Timer]

I believe that you can get away with this on a technicality in the conditions......

We are here YET AGAIN some 12 months ? since the last time to debate the same thing. :roll::roll:

Certain tickets are issued with specific conditions attached to them. Compliance with these Conditions makes the tickets valid for travel, non-complaince invalidates them, full stop.

As usual your logic and reasoning leave something to be desired.

...Ok, in my opinion both the advance ticket from A to B and the changeover station to C together cover the entire journey, and a little more. To deny this, one would have to argue convincingly that the advance purchase ticket from A to B doesn't cover the part of the journey to the immediate station. They would probably argue this by pointing out the following in the terms and conditions for an advance purchase ticket:

The OP would be finishing his journey at C and not an intermediate station, and therefore this does not apply.

But even if you were to claim that C was an intermediate station, this would be allowed if the new journey could be considered an other valid travel itinerary. The only way you could claim that the itinerary wasn't valid would be to cite the same term and condition that mentions "or other valid travel itinerary". This would mean the argument was circular and therefore invalid unless you could show a way to enter the circle..

You have spent an inordinate amount of time developing a nonesensical argument, and in doing so have tried to redefine the Dictionary definition of "intermediate" to help your case.

The definition of "Intermediate" is agreed to be..."...lying between two extremes..." quite HOW you would argue that one is an interesting proposition.

........Of course, you could still claim that the advance purchase ticket doesn't cover the journey, because of that same condition, but the argument would still be circular...

Not at all there is NO dubiety whatsoever where a ticket is issued with restrictions or Conditions attached. If it states it is only valid between the two points, i.e. originating station and destination station, then THAT constitutes a legally binding Condition, where that Condition is broken the the ticket becomes invalid,....simples.

Of course, whoever checks the tickets might not agree with this logic..

You have not demonstrated any logic that would stand up to the simplest scrutiny. There is nothing to agree with. If it is outside of the ticket validity then the ticket can become invalid where this is a Condition of issue.

....Disclaimer: If you did get caught, this could go to court. ......

It would go to a Civil claim, not the big day in Court that you would like. Unless of course the person was DELIBERATELY buying and terminating short, in which case that IS a Criminal offence as it is avoiding paying the correct fare for the journey being undertaken by intent.

..... Many of us would support you, and many of us believe that the judge would rule in favour of the customer due to the ambiguity. .

What ambiguity is there in a statement that a passenger may not terminate their journey short, or that they may NOT break their journey at an intermediate point. Exactly what part of that would you argue is unclear ???

We know that senior people at ATOC read this, and we suspect that this and other ambiguities are deliberately left in. On this basis, I'd assume at no ToC would wish to take such a matter to court for fear of losing.

I wish they did, and I wish that they would either (a) get rid of these whole ridiculously priced tickets, and (b) apply the Conditions properly OR go back to the old BR mileage based system and bring back the whole simplistic system used then.


Just as a point of interest to the many people who argued against me, and the likelihood of being caught terminating short on a ticket for which that was prohibited, and action being taken. May I refer you to the recent case at Eastleigh discussed at length on here I see earlier.

You will see that the sanction that I argued was applied, and on that basis then I shall be pleased to receive your acknowledgement I was correct by way of alcoholic beverage

 

[trainophile]

As I'm a newbie I realise this will have been done to death, but what is the logic behind selling tickets that effectively allow someone to travel (on an Advance ticket) twice the distance for half the price?

Also I have found that not all routes offer Advance tickets, so what criteria is used to determine which routes do? It seems totally random to me.

 

[swt_passenger]

What's your source for this, and how can it be legally binding if it isn't available to the customer?

AFAICS it is based on what the sentence means in plain English. The subject of the sentence is the journey, and both 'the tickets' and 'other valid travel itinerary' apply to one and the same journey.

I'm sure it is your own interpretation that is illogical.

 

[trainophile]

We are here YET AGAIN some 12 months ? since the last time to debate the same thing. :roll::roll:

I wasn't here 12 months ago, didn't even know this forum existed. Sorry if I've offended the forum etiquette by asking about something that has already been discussed.

 

[Old Timer]

I wasn't here 12 months ago, didn't even know this forum existed. Sorry if I've offended the forum etiquette by asking about something that has already been discussed.

You have not offended any etiquette whatsoever.

My response was targetted at NickW.

This subject WAS debated at some considerable and very painful length about 12 months ago, and it seems a shame if we have to go through it all again.

With regards to your question about logic, it is all to do with selective market pricing whereby a TOC will offer very much reduced tickets to generate flows of traffic from a station which does not generate such a flow normally.

The problem then becomes when people see such a cheap ticket and go to buy it with the intent of doing a different journey, i.e. a journey that does NOT encompass the start and destination points on the ticket.

In most cases this will make the ticket invalid meaning that they technically must pay the correct fare for a new ticket. In most cases this will be the full fare.

Unfortunately there are two camps on here, one who see no issue with the wording and subsequent action, and those who will argue differently from all sorts of different perspectives.

If you compare the strategy to the airline industry there is little difference apart from the fact of course that airlines are one point of call. I could highlight all sorts of anomalies where it is cheaper to travel to a Country by going to a little used airport, but the cost of travelling via there to the main airport from there exceeds the price of a ticket from the UK. Now Many on here would argue that this was wrong but at the end of the day a TOC is now a business not a public service and are free to operate in the manner that they see fit, within reason.

 

[Nick W]

We are here YET AGAIN some 12 months ? since the last time to debate the same thing. :roll::roll:

Apologies, the only reference I have seen to this was someone claiming this was the reason for the exception.

Certain tickets are issued with specific conditions attached to them. Compliance with these Conditions makes the tickets valid for travel, non-complaince invalidates them, full stop.

I fully agree, which is why I argued based on the conditions. I fully accept that this is a technicality. You must fully accept that they could patch up this ambiguity but have chosen not to.

As usual your logic and reasoning leave something to be desired.

Fair enough, I will deal with the specific points you have mentioned.

You have spent an inordinate amount of time developing a nonesensical argument, and in doing so have tried to redefine the Dictionary definition of "intermediate" to help your case.

The definition of "Intermediate" is agreed to be..."...lying between two extremes..." quite HOW you would argue that one is an interesting proposition.

I'm willing to accept this, and since the hypothetical C station doesn't lie between A and B but on an another line, we can agree that it isn't an "intermediate station". Thus, this strengthens my case.

Not at all there is NO dubiety whatsoever where a ticket is issued with restrictions or Conditions attached. If it states it is only valid between the two points, i.e. originating station and destination station, then THAT constitutes a legally binding Condition, where that Condition is broken the the ticket becomes invalid,....simples.

I disagree. It says, "Tickets are valid ONLY on the date and train service(s) shown on the ticket(s)." and "You may not start, break and resume, or end your journey at any intermediate station except to change to/from connecting trains as shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary."

You have not demonstrated any logic that would stand up to the simplest scrutiny.

I presume that my logic stands until the point at which someone pokes holes in them. I have demonstrated why what you have just said doesn't knock down my case.

There is nothing to agree with. If it is outside of the ticket validity then the ticket can become invalid where this is a Condition of issue.

I agree.

It would go to a Civil claim, not the big day in Court that you would like. Unless of course the person was DELIBERATELY buying and terminating short, in which case that IS a Criminal offence as it is avoiding paying the correct fare for the journey being undertaken by intent.

I agree, except that this is not about terminating short. This is about changing trains short and travelling to a new destination with a new ticket.

What ambiguity is there in a statement that a passenger may not terminate their journey short, or that they may NOT break their journey at an intermediate point. Exactly what part of that would you argue is unclear ???

Their journey is not being broken nor is it being terminated - their journey ends at station C which is not an intermediate point.

I wish they did, and I wish that they would either (a) get rid of these whole ridiculously priced tickets, and (b) apply the Conditions properly OR go back to the old BR mileage based system and bring back the whole simplistic system used then.

I wish they just simply allowed passengers to terminate short. I find it hard to believe that people would buy AP tickets more often and walk-on fares less often if this was the case. Hence the railway would not lose out and passengers would benefit. In fact, this would result in less negative publicity and more customer satisfaction for the railways and probably increase their revenue.

Just as a point of interest to the many people who argued against me, and the likelihood of being caught terminating short on a ticket for which that was prohibited, and action being taken. May I refer you to the recent case at Eastleigh discussed at length on here I see earlier.

They got caught because they attempted to leave at a barriered station. The OP in this hypothetical case would not be doing this. In additional, the couple ended their journey at an intermediate station. This is not the case in the OP's hypothetical case which is why I've pointed out it's a technicality.

You will see that the sanction that I argued was applied, and on that basis then I shall be pleased to receive your acknowledgement I was correct by way of alcoholic beverage

I think we've been arguing two different things and are both right.

 

[Old Timer]

NickW
The simple fact is THIS.

The passenger has bought a ticket from one station to another, which from the limited amount of information we have and on the basis of his post, we consider to be restricted in validity to origin and destination.

If the Conditions set out that he may not terminate short then that is a Condition, full stop no argument.

I disagree. It says, "Tickets are valid ONLY on the date and train service(s) shown on the ticket(s)." and "You may not start, break and resume, or end your journey at any intermediate station except to change to/from connecting trains as shown on the ticket(s) or other valid travel itinerary."

How on earth can you disagree this means other than it does ?

For clarification it means this....If your journey requires you to change trains then you may do so BUT ONLY to join the specified trains provided in the travel itinerary. This does NOT confer any right to change at another station or indeed alight from the train to change to a station on a different line..

Too many people try to complicate the interpretation a simple point where it is neither necessary nor correct to do so.

I fully agree, which is why I argued based on the conditions. I fully accept that this is a technicality. You must fully accept that they could patch up this ambiguity but have chosen not to.

There is absolutely NO technicality. Ye Gods !

The ticket would be sold with Conditions attached. These do not become a "Technicality" they become binding conditions upon which the ticket is sold. Purchase of the ticket is implicit agreement by the passenger that they accept those terms and conditions.

I simply cannot be bothered to rtespond to some of the other points you raise simply because no right thinking person would consider them to be valid.

I am sorry but your logic is completely askew on this one. Defending it only makes you look silly - with respect.

 

[Nick W]

As I'm a newbie I realise this will have been done to death, but what is the logic behind selling tickets that effectively allow someone to travel (on an Advance ticket) twice the distance for half the price?

Quite - some people will argue that the train company is doing this to maximise revenue. I've seen no evidence to justify this. More than likely it's based on which ToC is allowed to set the fare (eg Leicester - London vs Bedford - London), whether its worth the bureaucracy of entering it into the system (eg Chelmsford - London where a single journey could be cheaper AP but a return wouldn't) or historic boundaries. Either way - I can't see any rationale behind the restriction against terminating short.

In additional, I was told directly by the MD of Cross Country trains that they would have more AP routes if the system allowed it but that it didn't.

Also I have found that not all routes offer Advance tickets, so what criteria is used to determine which routes do? It seems totally random to me.

If you posted routes with and without, I'm sure someone could provide a convincing selection. On my line, from Ipswich - Norwich, it's based on whether the service was intercity or not back in the days prior to privatisation. As such, you can buy AP from Colchester - London on trains running from Norwich, but not Clacton to London via Colchester. With the new Peterborough and Lowestoft to London services, someone sensibly decided to provide AP fares. They sadly didn't reconsider other routes via Colchester.

With regards to your question about logic, it is all to do with selective market pricing whereby a TOC will offer very much reduced tickets to generate flows of traffic from a station which does not generate such a flow normally.

So why does Colchester have AP fares to London but not Clacton? Colchester has many more users than Clacton on the Clacton trains alone.

 

[MikeWh]

The bit about break of journey being allowed to change trains is there for when the Advance ticket requires it. For example, a journey I make quite often is Crayford to Peterborough. This requires changes in London for which a break is allowed as they can't physically provide the journey otherwise. Where an advance ticket is for a journey made by one train alone there is no break of journey allowed whatsoever.

 

[Nick W]

NickW
The simple fact is THIS.

The passenger has bought a ticket from one station to another, which from the limited amount of information we have and on the basis of his post, we consider to be restricted in validity to origin and destination.

What you consider is irrelevant as the customer can only go on the T&C.

If the Conditions set out that he may not terminate short then that is a Condition, full stop no argument.

I agree but this isn't what the OP's hypothetical journey entails.

For clarification it means this....If your journey requires you to change trains then you may do so BUT ONLY to join the specified trains provided in the travel itinerary. This does NOT confer any right to change at another station or indeed alight from the train to change to a station on a different line..

I'm sure that's what the person who wrote it meant it to say. The fact is, it doesn't say that and though ATOC read this website, they haven't clarified it.

Too many people try to complicate the interpretation a simple point where it is neither necessary nor correct to do so.

Which is why ATOC must have vested interest in the ambiguity.

The ticket would be sold with Conditions attached. These do not become a "Technicality" they become binding conditions upon which the ticket is sold. Purchase of the ticket is implicit agreement by the passenger that they accept those terms and conditions.

I agree, the technicality is within them.

I simply cannot be bothered to rtespond to some of the other points you raise simply because no right thinking person would consider them to be valid.

People are let off crimes and paying tax, amongst other things, on a daily basis. Even if the technicality is against common sense, the law is based on rigid interpretation of what is written, not what the person meant.

I am sorry but your logic is completely askew on this one. Defending it only makes you look silly - with respect.

Why do I looks silly - I've pointed out that there is a gaping loophole in the terms and conditions that allow the OP to do what he wants to do. I agree that if ATOC didn't have vested interest in ambiguity they would add a T&C that said, "You may only begin or end your journey, or change onto another ticket in accordance with condition 19 at the stations stated on the ticket."

The bit about break of journey being allowed to change trains is there for when the Advance ticket requires it. For example, a journey I make quite often is Crayford to Peterborough. This requires changes in London for which a break is allowed as they can't physically provide the journey otherwise. Where an advance ticket is for a journey made by one train alone there is no break of journey allowed whatsoever.

That would make sense. What doesn't make sense is that we know ATOC read this website because they have emailed at least one person as a result of a forum post, and yet they don't clarify their terms or fix the contradiction we pointed out some time ago.

 

[trainophile]

I'm now wondering what condition I will be in breach of by not embarking on the booked journey at all!

For info, the ticket will now be wasted as the young person already has a return coach ticket, so I needn't have (re)-opened this can of worms in the first place.

For further info, the journey concerned involves two changes, and only the final leg is on a booked (i.e. timed) train. I often take earlier trains from my starting station, to allow extra time for turnaround - loo breaks being one consideration as there are no loos on the first two trains. I trust this is allowed - no-one has ever challenged me anyway.

 

[Old Timer]

NickW
I am sorry but I really am going to draw stumps on this one, it is getting rather pointless as far as I am concerned.

Tickets are issued with Conditions attached to them. If a passenger uses the ticket outside of the conditions, then where it so states, the ticket will lose its validity. If you have a doubt go and speak with someone independent such as the plain english society.

There is no way that you can argue the passenger is NOT terminating their journey short on THAT ticket, because by his own admission he is going to buy a new one to his new destination from the intermediate point (or some other location). How can you possibly say that the passenger has completed the journey he has paid for ???

For the nth time there is NO "technicality". The Conditions are in plain simple English only YOU are trying to interpret what no-one else would, even to the extent of trying to re-define what "intermediate" means.

From Collins on-line Dictionary

technicality [ˌtɛknɪˈkælɪtɪ]n pl -ties1. a petty formal point arising from a strict interpretation of rules, etc. the case was dismissed on a technicality
2. the state or quality of being technical
3. technical methods and vocabulary

A principal Condition of issue cannot be a mere technicality.

It would have helped if the OP had been more forthcoming with information, but I suspect they believe it is not right or proper themselves or the holding back of the full information would not have been necessary.

The whole basis of your argument is based upon a deliberate misconstruing of plain, simple English.

I refuse to be drawn any further as responding to it is both pointless and gives your argument undue validity where none is intended.

By the way....Happy New Year.

 

[Nick W]

I'm now wondering what condition I will be in breach of by not embarking on the booked journey at all!

For info, the ticket will now be wasted as the young person already has a return coach ticket, so I needn't have (re)-opened this can of worms in the first place.

Fortunately none - you just have to bear the fact that sadly you won't be able to use the railway, despite you as a taxpayer having contributed towards about 50% of the cost of it and then purchased a ticket, just because the railway has stupid terms and conditions. I can sympathise as I've been there before.

For further info, the journey concerned involves two changes, and only the final leg is on a booked (i.e. timed) train. I often take earlier trains from my starting station, to allow extra time for turnaround - loo breaks being one consideration as there are no loos on the first two trains. I trust this is allowed - no-one has ever challenged me anyway.

I'd consider this an "other valid itinerary", as long as you still end up travelling on the booked train. I hope everyone can agree on this point!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

NickW
There is no way that you can argue the passenger is NOT terminating their journey short on THAT ticket, because by his own admission he is going to buy a new one to his new destination from the intermediate point (or some other location). How can you possibly say that the passenger has completed the journey he has paid for ???

Terminating short would involve ending the journey at the intermediate point. Here this isn't the case.

1. a petty formal point arising from a strict interpretation of rules, etc. the case was dismissed on a technicality

I agree - my point is petty but this is how our legal system works.

For the nth time there is NO "technicality". The Conditions are in plain simple English only YOU are trying to interpret what no-one else would, even to the extent of trying to re-define what "intermediate" means.

I have pointed out that my argument still stands with your definitely of "intermediate".

I refuse to be drawn any further as responding to it is both pointless and gives your argument undue validity where none is intended.

Suits me - I point out where we agree and clarify where we disagree but you don't seem to acknowledge this.

By the way....Happy New Year.

And to you!

 

[trainophile]

Not sure what relevant information I omitted from my OP - maybe actual station names? I thought I explained the situation well enough without that level of detail. People seem to have understood it correctly anyway.

If it helps, the ticket is from Southport to Hereford, via Moorfields and Chester. The proposed plan was to exit the Chester-Hereford train at Shrewsbury and get on one going to Birmingham New Street (having bought the appropriate ticket). Anyway it's all immaterial now.

Thanks to everyone who took the time to reply. I found it interesting.

 

[Nick W]

If it helps, the ticket is from Southport to Hereford, via Moorfields and Chester. The proposed plan was to exit the Chester-Hereford train at Shrewsbury and get on one going to Birmingham New Street (having bought the appropriate ticket). Anyway it's all immaterial now.

For reference I'd have probably purchased a ticket from Hereford - Birmingham, if it was cheaper than a coach ticket.

Hope the coach journey goes smoothly!

 

[tony_mac]

Unfortunately there are two camps on here, one who see no issue with the wording and subsequent action, and those who will argue differently from all sorts of different perspectives.

I think you will find that is more than two camps!

Personally, I don't dispute what the conditions say - but I don't believe that they are made sufficiently clear to the customer.

If I travel an extra mile on my advance ticket, I would be liable to pay £1.00. If I travel a mile short, I may be liable to pay £122.50.

That is not what a reasonable person would expect, hence I believe to be enforceable it should be specifically pointed out the customer - not just buried in the terms and conditions. (and there is an entire other debate about whether the unfair terms in consumer contracts even apply to rail tickets).

But anyway, without a new legal judgment or opinion, I am unlikely to change my stand on this. The same applies to many other people, so the repeated debate does seem a bit pointless.
However, seeing as the other 'camp' have given their opinion, it's only reasonable to add a different one for balance

 

[Old Timer]

...Personally, I don't dispute what the conditions say - but I don't believe that they are made sufficiently clear to the customer. ....

OK so precisely HOW would you make these Conditions clear, given that both the Law and the OFT consider the Conditions of Carriage to be adequate notice ?

Similar arrangements apply to practically every item a person buys, from mobile phones to cars to houses. Why should Railways be the ONE separate organisation for which has to cater for those who do not take care to check the basis upon which they are buying a ticket ?

If I travel an extra mile on my advance ticket, I would be liable to pay £1.00. If I travel a mile short, I may be liable to pay £122.50. ...

A similar situation can apply on National Express coaches as far as tickets are concerned, indeed you CAN be charged for alighting short under the terms of issue of their tickets.

...That is not what a reasonable person would expect, hence I believe to be enforceable it should be specifically pointed out the customer - not just buried in the terms and conditions. (and there is an entire other debate about whether the unfair terms in consumer contracts even apply to rail tickets).

What a "reasonable person" would expect is not based upon your own interpretation or emotional viewpoint. The Law defines a reasonable person I believe.

The Law states that a reasonable person will familiarise themselves with all terms and conditions BEFORE entering a Contract (which a rail journey is) and the Law then EXPECTS the reasonable person to comply with and not breach the terms and conditions which they have voluntarily accepted. A person who does not agree with the terms and conditions is permitted to return their ticket for refund without penalty at the time of purchase. Far too often on here people try to develop an argument that what suit them personally is "Unfair", e.g. they only want the TOC to comply with the terms and conditions yet themselves only as and when it suits, hypocricy or what ?

For a Contract to be unfair it has to be biased aginst the "Customer" and in favour of the seller. The Conditions of Carriage have been modified and subsequently accepted at the insistance of the OFT, one can conclude therefore that having reviewed and accepted them, the OFT conclude they are fair.

 

[tony_mac]

We've done this before; see the Foxtons ruling for what a judge would consider to be reasonable in a similar type of case.

 

[Old Timer]

We've done this before; see the Foxtons ruling for what a judge would consider to be reasonable in a similar type of case.

You may have the link, I don't. Tested in Court or just Foxton's view ?

And if not tested in Court then maybe Foxton's are not so confident ?

Just quickly Googled Foxtons and the first few responses deal with Foxtons losing cases, including a case against the OFT. Not such a good start ?

http://www.google.com/search?q=foxt...s=org.mozilla:en-GB:official&client=firefox-a

 

[tony_mac]

yes, that's the one - if was the OFT against Foxtons. (I bring this up almost every time I see a similar thread along the lines of 'it is in the terms and conditions, so it's your own fault' - so assumed you had seen it before, sorry for being so vague.)

Here's a bit from the Times article.

The judge added that such important terms must be flagged prominently not just in the contract, but also in any sales literature.

He said a typical consumer would be unlikely to read standard terms with a great degree of attention and would not expect important obligations to be tucked away in the small print and not specifically brought to their attention.

We can go around in circles arguing about it's relevance, and what the OFT have approved / not approved / not read etc. But I think that the principle is, at least, relevant to the notion that just because something is written down then it is automatically going to be binding.