Anti-customer behaviour by Avanti

[yorkie]

If Ryanair cancels a flight I think the rule is to put you on the next suitable flight with them or, if not available, then one with another company (eg BA). So if I'm right then he would expect BA or another airline to take him. Can anyone confirm?

A train company apologist would still counteract this by saying you wouldn't be allowed to simply board the BA flight. But the ticket office at Crewe wasn't open, so the analogy falls down (for the analogy to work, Ryanair and BA would both need to allow the full range of tickets on board their planes if the check-in desk was unstaffed).

I suggest that the fantasy of the analogies with other modes ends now, as it's not helpful.

 

[XAM2175]

What if the passenger wishes to continue, but the TOC cannot provide the means to do so? The view of many commentators appears to be that offering a refund and refusing further assistance (even where it is impossible to provide) is not an option.

That hinges on the nature of the TOC's inability to provide the continuation. The Article 16 right to continuation or re-routing under comparable transport conditions allows the passenger to choose for that to occur either "at the earliest opportunity" or "at a later date at the passenger's convenience", and there is no limit to how far in the future either of those options can be taken: thus a passenger might elect to travel days or even months later at their own convenience, but similarly if they elect to wait for the "earliest opportunity" it may well be many hours away. The TOC's responsibility is to 1) offer the choice, and 2) if the earliest opportunity is chosen then they must provide at the earliest opportunity.

Article 16 does provides that the passenger may request in lieu of continuation a full refund of the fare - but attaches directly to that option a requirement that the passenger be offered transport back to their first point of depart at the at the earliest opportunity.

Thus yes, your "many commentators" are correct in their assertion. The PRO does not allow a TOC to unilaterally elect to abandon their contract with a passenger and abrogate their responsibilities therein simply by offering to return the original consideration. The passenger's rights to Article 16 reimbursement or re-routing, Article 17 compensation, and Article 18 assistance endure until they are 1) fulfilled, or 2) no longer applicable, or 3) renounced by the passenger.

If Ryanair cancels a flight I think the rule is to put you on the next suitable flight with them or, if not available, then one with another company (eg BA). So if I'm right then he would expect BA or another airline to take him. Can anyone confirm?

The exact entitlement depends on the route of the flight and the nationality of the airline for which you hold your ticket. However, even if there were to be a requirement that the passenger be transported by another airline, it would be up to the original airline to arrange this. If you as the passenger in this example took your Ryanair boarding pass to the BA flight's gate the staff there would be correct to refuse boarding.

A train company apologist would still counteract this by saying you wouldn't be allowed to simply board the BA flight. But the ticket office at Crewe wasn't open, so the analogy falls down (for the analogy to work, Ryanair and BA would both need to allow the full range of tickets on board their planes if the check-in desk was unstaffed).

I suggest that the fantasy of the analogies with other modes ends now, as it's not helpful.

With respect to your obvious passion, I think it is extremely important to draw a distinction between people "apologising" for TOCs on the one hand, and on the other people simply giving neutral advice about the current state of affairs. Comparisons with practices in other walks of life remain helpful in advancing understanding, so long as they are genuinely applicable and the caveats such as those already discussed are clearly addressed.

 

[Starmill]

Comparisons with practices in other walks of life remain helpful in advancing understanding, so long as they are genuinely applicable

The comparison was being challenged precisely because it was not at all applicable.

At an airport, staff would, potentially after a considerable delay, organise rerouting. It may be that it is a more or less desirable rerouting but it would still be done in the end. Staff at railway stations are likely to refuse to provide such assistance, as their employer will often never make any provision for them to actually fulfil the needs of the customer, or alternatively there may simply be no way to speak to staff at all.

Furthermore, an airline making a last-minute change to their schedule, as West Midlands Trains decided to here, overwhelmingly will try proactively to get it sorted in advance. They won't just let people turn up at the airport and only then inform them that their service no longer exists, and have to deal with it reactively.

 

[XAM2175]

The comparison was being challenged precisely because it was not at all applicable. At an airport, staff would, potentially after a considerable delay, organise rerouting. ... Staff at railway stations are likely to refuse to provide such assistance, as their employer will often never make any provision for them to actually fulfil the needs of the customer, or alternatively there may simply be no way to speak to staff at all.

Yes, this is fair enough, and is the form of what you might call a 'reaction' analogy that I agree is exceptionally difficult to appropriately devise for the railways in GB.

However at the very basic level, I don't view it as unhelpful to say that operator-restricted railway tickets can be thought of as being similar in concept to the average lower-price airline ticket.

 

[100andthirty]

Maybe not relevant but on a previous strike day we returned from a cruise into Soton
and the ship was late docking (5 Hours) Luckily it was a strike day???. The staff on the
station said your in luck, next rain to Waterloo is in 10 minutes.
Next up Avanti on Euston station Us- we have tickets to Preston Avanti- Thats ok mate
last train went an hour ago you can get any train that gets you home or near to.
We got the last train to Manchester.
Manchester : Headed for a train to Preston Northern were not not bothered about tickets
- just get on a train. On the platform the dispatcher? asks a general question where are you all going.
Only us seem to answer Preston! . He says well our train is going to be packed and asks
guard? on a TransPennine train if we can go with them. Of course they can - we do advise
that we have no tickets at all at this point and he just waves us on board.
So Cheers all round for all four rail companies and their staff on that particular day.

This post is how we would all like ticket acceptance to work. A strike day is an extreme example, but hearing delayed customers and helping minimise their woes is the attitude I'd like to see from rail staff. This is especially true now where the money from all but open access only tickets goes into the government pot.

 

[87015]

Furthermore, an airline making a last-minute change to their schedule, as West Midlands Trains decided to here, overwhelmingly will try proactively to get it sorted in advance. They won't just let people turn up at the airport and only then inform them that their service no longer exists, and have to deal with it reactively.

It wasn't last minute, published at Informed Traveller.

 

[AlterEgo]

So if turn up at the airport and Ryanair has cancelled your flight, you’d expect BA to take you even though you hadn’t bought a BA ticket?! Good luck with that.

Airlines routinely rebook passengers, even onto competitor airlines, because there are consumer protections in place which ensure this should happen.

 

[Watershed]

It wasn't last minute, published at Informed Traveller.

It clearly wasn't published at Informed Traveller if the OP was able to buy their ticket on a direct WMT service just 3 days before travel!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2022 ==

Airlines routinely rebook passengers, even onto competitor airlines, because there are consumer protections in place which ensure this should happen.

Indeed and very similar consumer protections exist - on paper - on the railways. The difference is simply that they are largely ignored because the ORR doesn't bother forcing the TOCs to comply - whereas the CAA, for all their flaws, does take enforcement action against recalcitrant airlines.

 

[87015]

It clearly wasn't published at Informed Traveller if the OP was able to buy their ticket on a direct WMT service just 3 days before travel!

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2022 ==


Indeed and very similar consumer protections exist - on paper - on the railways. The difference is simply that they are largely ignored because the ORR doesn't bother forcing the TOCs to comply - whereas the CAA, for all their flaws, does take enforcement action against recalcitrant airlines.

The schedules for them running Rugby-Euston were published on 19/08, so what journey planner was used?

 

[Starmill]

It wasn't last minute, published at Informed Traveller.

I notice that both you and @The Planner have made this claim with some force, but I'm afraid that you're mistaken as the train service and no bus services were still in the data within eight weeks. It's not like anyone else can control what West Midlands Trains have uploaded...

 

[87015]

Bus created 20/08 shown here https://live.rail-record.co.uk/train.php/?c=S94620&d=2022-10-16
Train starting Rugby same publication date https://live.rail-record.co.uk/train.php/?c=P99092&d=2022-10-16

 

[Watershed]

Bus created 20/08 shown here https://live.rail-record.co.uk/train.php/?c=S94620&d=2022-10-16
Train starting Rugby same publication date https://live.rail-record.co.uk/train.php/?c=P99092&d=2022-10-16

Evidently there has been an issue with the publication, and/or the import of that train on the retailer's side. Either way, it is not the customer's fault.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

This is an irrelevant buzz-phrase.

Can you answer my questions above?

What offence do you think they have committed and what do you think the chance of a prosecution is?

Which post was edited; what exactly do you mean by this?

Are you talking theoretically or practically?

If you are talking about a theoretical position then quite frankly you can think what you want and you are entitled to that; I am not interested (sorry to be blunt but that's the truth). If we are talking practicalities then it very much does come into it.

What strict liability offence do you think was committed?

Given the ticket office wasn't even open, I think you'd struggle with that one.

You substantially edited post 41 stating no offence had been committed, hence my comment about btp/avanti this was part you removed from your original post. When people edit posts like this I tend not to answer their questions as they will probably edit out their responses again when they realise they made another error

Op has boarded train without a valid ticket

He has passed opportunity to pay, he stated he may have used the tvm to change the ticket if that was possible but didn't as the tvm didn't have that functionality, as an excess isn't allowed on a operator restricted ticket, he would have had to buy a new one, he was willing to use the tvm but didn't because of his misconception not because of lack of a card

Just because you feel the railway should do more and your entitled to that opinion and I do agree to an extent, that doesn't change what the law actually says, you may not be interested but the law is what's written down not what you feel it should be.

The op has travelled without a valid ticket and that's an offence, regardless of how likely it is to be prosecuted

 

[All Line Rover]

There are also nunerous posters completely skipping / ignoring the bit about there being no LNR platform or ticket office staff at Crewe - ever - who could sort out an alternative*, such that comparisons with airlines are poor other than to provide evidence that airlines treat their passengers better than train operators.

*Posters who go on to assert that when a passenger arrives at a station a few minutes before their booked train was due to depart and discover that the train no longer exists, they are not supposed to catch the most appropriate alternative train (in this case, where a guard is available and explicitly willing to sell upgrades or replacement tickets as necessary), but instead miss that, visit the ticket machines and somehow work out by themselves what the hell is going on and which ticket they are now "supposed" to buy (to get them to their destination over an hour later than anticipated...).

 

[43066]

Airlines routinely rebook passengers, even onto competitor airlines, because there are consumer protections in place which ensure this should happen.

But as I understand it they duty isn’t absolute to the point of impossibility. If another airline’s flights are full, they are not going to be physically able to carry both their own passengers and the other operator’s.

What seems to be being alleged in this thread is that there’s an absolute contractual obligation on all train operators to take passengers from other TOCs during disruption, even where this is impractical, and that they cannot refuse.

Indeed and very similar consumer protections exist - on paper - on the railways. The difference is simply that they are largely ignored because the ORR doesn't bother forcing the TOCs to comply - whereas the CAA, for all their flaws, does take enforcement action against recalcitrant airlines.

I disagree. I don’t think it’s at all clear that any absolute duty to accept other operators’ passengers exists because (as is made expressly clear in the NRCoT) the contract entered into is only with the TOC upon which tickets are valid. Your assertion that there’s a contractual obligation on all TOCs to assist (and that this duty is absolute) is a very tortured reading and in my view directly contracted by both the wording and by common sense.

The intention is clearly that that other TOCs will assist during disruption where they can but I’ve seen nothing to suggest they are not perfectly entitled to refuse.

Evidently that is also the TOC’s reading of their obligations, and it matches up to my experience of what happens in real life.

Are you seriously suggesting that when the WCML or ECML are closed and my TOC refuses ticket acceptance (to protect its own passengers and staff from dangerous levels of overcrowding) that it is acting in reach of the NRCoT? That would be a ludicrous position.

You substantially edited post 41 stating no offence had been committed, hence my comment about btp/avanti this was part you removed from your original post. When people edit posts like this I tend not to answer their questions as they will probably edit out their responses again when they realise they made another error

Op has boarded train without a valid ticket

He has passed opportunity to pay, he stated he may have used the tvm to change the ticket if that was possible but didn't as the tvm didn't have that functionality, as an excess isn't allowed on a operator restricted ticket, he would have had to buy a new one, he was willing to use the tvm but didn't because of his misconception not because of lack of a card

Just because you feel the railway should do more and your entitled to that opinion and I do agree to an extent, that doesn't change what the law actually says, you may not be interested but the law is what's written down not what you feel it should be.

The op has travelled without a valid ticket and that's an offence, regardless of how likely it is to be prosecuted

I agree. Unfortunately it’s a futile discussion because it’s clear that anyone arguing counter to certain posters’ views will be dismissed as an “apologist”.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2022 ==

There are also nunerous posters completely skipping / ignoring the bit about there being no LNR platform or ticket office staff at Crewe - ever - who could sort out an alternative*, such that comparisons with airlines are poor other than to provide evidence that airlines treat their passengers better than train operators.

*Posters who go on to assert that when a passenger arrives at a station a few minutes before their booked train was due to depart and discover that the train no longer exists, they are not supposed to catch the most appropriate alternative train (in this case, where a guard is available and explicitly willing to sell upgrades or replacement tickets as necessary), but instead miss that, visit the ticket machines and somehow work out by themselves what the hell is going on and which ticket they are now "supposed" to buy (to get them to their destination over an hour later than anticipated...).

So my understanding is that your options were:

- travel indirectly via Birmingham with LNR;
- book an Avanti ticket from a TVM;
- ask permission from an Avanti TM to board with your LNR ticket (note they could have refused).

By boarding an Avanti train without a valid ticket you at least technically committed one or more ticketing offences (I accept it’s unlikely you would have been prosecuted in this circumstance, but it’s not an advisable course of action).

In any case surely your quarrel really should be with LNR, so why were you were previously suggesting that Avanti were committing fraud?

 

[cactustwirly]

So if turn up at the airport and Ryanair has cancelled your flight, you’d expect BA to take you even though you hadn’t bought a BA ticket?! Good luck with that.

That is exactly what should happen under the EC206 regulations.
If the flight is cancelled the airline has an obligation to rebook them onto alternative flights.

 

[43066]

That is exactly what should happen under the EC206 regulations.
If the flight is cancelled the airline has an obligation to rebook them onto alternative flights.

And if there are no available alternative flights due to other operators refusing to take the passengers, what then?

 

[All Line Rover]

And if there are no available alternative flights due to other operators refusing to take the passengers, what then?

If that is because these flights were full, you have to wait for the next available alternative. Which is irrelevant to this thread as the Avanti train in question was about 2/3 occupied.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2022 ==

What seems to be being alleged in this thread is that there’s an absolute contractual obligation on all train operators to take passengers from other TOCs during disruption, even where this is impractical, and that they cannot refuse.

For clarity, I'm not suggesting that myself. I don't know what the correct answer is!

 

[43066]

You have to wait for the next available alternative. Which is irrelevant to this thread as the Avanti train in question was about 2/3 occupied.

It isn’t irrelevant if they’re not accepting other operators’ tickets, as they’re perfectly entitled to do. Using Avanti wasn’t an alternative open to you in this case.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2022 ==

For clarity, I'm not suggesting that myself. I don't know what the correct answer is!

We can probably agree that the position should be a lot clearer!

 

[cactustwirly]

And if there are no available alternative flights due to other operators refusing to take the passengers, what then?

The airline rebooks the tickets, pays for food and accommodation if necessary or arranges other flights through a wet lease (Aka Titan Airways etc)

It is in the interest of the airline to minimize the delay as much as possible

 

[All Line Rover]

So my understanding is that your options were:

- travel indirectly via Birmingham with LNR;
- book an Avanti ticket from a TVM;
- ask permission from an Avanti TM to board with your LNR ticket (note they could have refused).

By boarding an Avanti train without a valid ticket you at least technically committed one or more ticketing offences (I accept it’s unlikely you would have been prosecuted in this circumstance, but it’s not an advisable course of action).

In any case surely your quarrel really should be with LNR, so why were you were previously suggesting that Avanti were committing fraud?

I was not aware that any LNR alternative was available until the Avanti guard pointed this out. I have never travelled via Birmingham with LNR to reach London; I could not have worked out that this was a possible option in the few minutes between arriving at Crewe station and the Avanti service departing.

My preferred option would have been to ask the Avanti guard before boarding (even if that meant agreeing to pay more), but when Avanti's 11 coach pendolino services arrive and depart Crewe in the space of two minutes on a platform full of passengers, locating the guard is impossible. Once I had boarded the train, the guard, during his regular "if you hold a LNR-only ticket, please note you will need to purchase a new ticket" announcements, never added "if you have any queries, please come and find me in coach X".

I created this thread because of previous experiences, on strike days, where Avanti was (according to Watershed's interpretation of the rules) obliged to carry me as a passenger; something which senior Avanti management have repeatedly refused to acknowledge (short of me taking Avanti to court), insisting that I must pay for a new ticket. I believe that this behaviour is, at the least, dishonest. I queried whether the same applied on this most recent occasion - a change to the timetable, rather than a strike resulting in the withdrawal of all of one operator's services - and I received the answer that Avanti is not on this occasion at "fault" because the responsibility ultimately rests with LNR.

For rail employees on this forum to suggest that a passenger, holding a ticket and acting at all times in good faith, could in these circumstances be committing a strict liability offence (which I don't accept; I don't believe all of the relevant factors to me made out), let alone fraud, comes across as a distraction technique. The rail industry can't be criticised, because the passenger is doing something wrong and it is this we must focus on.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2022 ==

It isn’t irrelevant if they’re not accepting other operators’ tickets, as they’re perfectly entitled to do. Using Avanti wasn’t an alternative open to you in this case.

That isn't the question you originally posed. I feel that if I keep engaging with you on this airline comparison, we will be going around in circles.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions o who is or is not a rail employee...

You also don't seem to grasp what strict liability means, the offence is complete regardless of your intentions, you did not know prior to boarding that the guard would accept your invalid ticket that in its simplicity is the offence

Boarding a train without a valid ticket is an offence after passing an opportunity to pay , you did that, had you said you wanted to pay cash then you wouldn't have but you haven't in fact said you would have used the tvm if it had functionality

Now saying you would have checked with guard before boarding, again that's your responsibility, just because you couldn't find him doesn't suddenly make what you did any more legal,

Again I fully believe the railway has let the public down and the attitudes of companies and certain staff leave a whole lot to be desired, but passengers also need to be aware that poorvservice doesn't allow them to break the law

 

[Watershed]

But as I understand it they duty isn’t absolute to the point of impossibility. If another airline’s flights are full, they are not going to be physically able to carry both their own passengers and the other operator’s.

What seems to be being alleged in this thread is that there’s an absolute contractual obligation on all train operators to take passengers from other TOCs during disruption, even where this is impractical, and that they cannot refuse.

The duty on other TOCs under NRCoT 28.2 isn't absolute - it's to assist where they reasonably can. However, "reasonably can" doesn't mean "if it suits us" or "if it wouldn't inconvenience our passengers".

I disagree. I don’t think it’s at all clear that any absolute duty to accept other operators’ passengers exists because (as is made expressly clear in the NRCoT) the contract entered into is only with the TOC upon which tickets are valid. Your assertion that there’s a contractual obligation on all TOCs to assist (and that this duty is absolute) is a very tortured reading and in my view directly contracted by both the wording and by common sense.

Fair enough. As explained above, I don't see any other way in which there can be an enforceable duty to assist, but there we go.

The intention is clearly that that other TOCs will assist during disruption where they can but I’ve seen nothing to suggest they are not perfectly entitled to refuse.

They can only refuse if they can't reasonably assist. Which as above, is a higher threshold than seems to be applied in practice.

Evidently that is also the TOC’s reading of their obligations, and it matches up to my experience of what happens in real life.

Given the lack of training and enforcement over passenger rights, I wouldn't take 'what actually happens' as a guide to 'what's legal'. Just the same as for years, GTR has been charging people excess/Penalty Fares for using GX branded services with "Thameslink/Southern only" tickets, but they are now facing a class action lawsuit for that conduct.

Are you seriously suggesting that when the WCML or ECML are closed and my TOC refuses ticket acceptance (to protect its own passengers and staff from dangerous levels of overcrowding) that it is acting in reach of the NRCoT? That would be a ludicrous position.

If EMR are able to accommodate passengers, then yes, they have no basis to refuse assistance under 28.2. That doesn't mean they necessarily have to accept everyone, as clearly there won't be space for every ECML/WCML passenger to be accommodated. But using a queuing system would be a perfectly reasonable way of managing that demand - rather than outright refusing.

 

[43066]

I was not aware that any LNR alternative was available until the Avanti guard pointed this out. I have never travelled via Birmingham with LNR to reach London; I could not have worked out that this was a possible option in the few minutes between arriving at Crewe station and the Avanti service departing.

Well that’s at least an example of an Avanti guard trying to be helpful. If he’s been told not to accept tickets you can’t blame him for not following the instructions of those who pay his wages

My preferred option would have been to ask the Avanti guard before boarding (even if that meant agreeing to pay more), but when Avanti's 11 coach pendolino services arrive and depart Crewe in the space of two minutes on a platform full of passengers, locating the guard is impossible. Once I had boarded the train, the guard, during his regular "if you hold a LNR-only ticket, please note you will need to purchase a new ticket" announcements, never added "if you have any queries, please come and find me in coach X".

Yes, this is always going to be the best approach where possible.

I created this thread because of previous experiences, on strike days, where Avanti was (according to Watershed's interpretation of the rules) obliged to carry me as a passenger; something which senior Avanti management have repeatedly refused to acknowledge (short of me taking Avanti to court), insisting that I must pay for a new ticket. I believe that this behaviour is, at the least, dishonest. I queried whether the same applied on this most recent occasion - a change to the timetable, rather than a strike resulting in the withdrawal of all of one operator's services - and I received the answer that Avanti is not on this occasion at "fault" because the responsibility ultimately rests with LNR.

With respect @Watershed ’s interpretation of the rules does not hold water in my view, based on my reading, and indeed I note my interpretation appears to be in line with that of the TOCs and the industry in general.

The common sense position and the position under the rules is that Avanti were under no obligation to assist you.

For rail employees on this forum to suggest that a passenger, holding a ticket and acting at all times in good faith, could in these circumstances be committing a strict liability offence (which I don't accept; I don't believe all of the relevant factors to me made out), let alone fraud, comes across as a distraction technique. The rail industry can't be criticised, because the passenger is doing something wrong and it is this we must focus on.

I’m not sure why someone’s’ job title matters? Railway employees do not have some great loyalty to TOCs I can assure you! People are just explaining that the system in fact does not work in the way posters on here think it should.

Unfortunately a problem on these threads is that certain posters seem unable to comprehend that their interpretation of something, however sincerely held, isn’t necessarily correct.

With respect to the offence, you are boarding a train without a valid ticket, having walked past a means to purchase tickets (a TVM), so you are likely to have made out the elements of an offence. The risk of being prosecuted in circumstances is low, but low risk isn’t the same as no risk, hence why I would always advise speaking to the guard in advance where possible.

You seem to be making a lot of assumptions o who is or is not a rail employee...

You also don't seem to grasp what strict liability means, the offence is complete regardless of your intentions, you did not know prior to boarding that the guard would accept your invalid ticket that in its simplicity is the offence

Boarding a train without a valid ticket is an offence after passing an opportunity to pay , you did that, had you said you wanted to pay cash then you wouldn't have but you haven't in fact said you would have used the tvm if it had functionality

Now saying you would have checked with guard before boarding, again that's your responsibility, just because you couldn't find him doesn't suddenly make what you did any more legal,

Again I fully believe the railway has let the public down and the attitudes of companies and certain staff leave a whole lot to be desired, but passengers also need to be aware that poorvservice doesn't allow them to break the law

A very sensible post.

If EMR are able to accommodate passengers, then yes, they have no basis to refuse assistance under 28.2. That doesn't mean they necessarily have to accept everyone, as clearly there won't be space for every ECML/WCML passenger to be accommodated. But using a queuing system would be a perfectly reasonable way of managing that demand - rather than outright refusing.

A key point is who determines what is “reasonable” for these purposes? It isn’t made clear, but I’d suggest this can only reasonably be determined by the TOC. A passenger saying “the train isn’t full therefore I am allowed to board” is absolutely going to be in the wrong.

The duty on other TOCs under NRCoT 28.2 isn't absolute - it's to assist where they reasonably can. However, "reasonably can" doesn't mean "if it suits us" or "if it wouldn't inconvenience our passengers".

TOCs appear to disagree with you!

Fair enough. As explained above, I don't see any other way in which there can be an enforceable duty to assist, but there we go.

I’m not sure they there is such a duty. That appears to me to be something you are reading into the rules that doesn’t appear to be there.

They can only refuse if they can't reasonably assist. Which as above, is a higher threshold than seems to be applied in practice.

If their view is that they can’t reasonably assist, who are you (or anyone else) to disagree with that?

If EMR are able to accommodate passengers, then yes, they have no basis to refuse assistance under 28.2. That doesn't mean they necessarily have to accept everyone, as clearly there won't be space for every ECML/WCML passenger to be accommodated. But using a queuing system would be a perfectly reasonable way of managing that demand - rather than outright refusing.

This is not what happens in practice on the (rare) occasions where ticket acceptance is declined. I’m not sure that complaining this is “illegal” is going to mean much in practical terms.

 

[All Line Rover]

You ... don't seem to grasp what strict liability means, the offence is complete regardless of your intentions, you did not know prior to boarding that the guard would accept your invalid ticket that in its simplicity is the offence

If the train I am booked to travel on has disappeared, I have no way of knowing prior to boarding whether my ticket is "invalid" on alternative services. If the booked service was withdrawn at the last minute, perhaps ticket acceptance was arranged at the last minute? Who knows? A ticket machine isn't going to tell me. If in these circumstances the mere fact of boarding the most logical alternative service could constitute an "offence", I think that is a far more serious problem than anything else discussed in this thread, a serious problem which needs to be urgently addressed.

Now saying you would have checked with guard before boarding, again that's your responsibility, just because you couldn't find him doesn't suddenly make what you did any more legal,

It's the passenger's responsibility to do something impossible? More good news for passengers!

[...saying you would have checked with guard before boarding, again that's your responsibility, just because you couldn't find him doesn't suddenly make what you did any more legal...] A very sensible post.

^

 

[43066]

If in these circumstances the mere fact of boarding the most logical alternative service could constitute an "offence", I think that is a far more serious problem than anything else discussed in this thread, a serious problem which needs to be urgently addressed.

Well it can do and does. You’re entitled to disagree with that, but that doesn’t change it.

 

[All Line Rover]

Well it can do and does. You’re entitled to disagree with that, but that doesn’t change it.

That would be a shocking way to treat customers who have already been let down, would you agree?

 

[43066]

That would be a shocking way to treat customers who have already been let down, would you agree?

What difference does it make whether I agree or not?!

For the record, yes I agree it sounds like this was handled very badly by LNR especially. Without being in possession of all the facts it’s difficult to know whether Avanti’s decision to refuse ticket acceptance was sensible or not, but they (in their sole discretion) were perfectly entitled to take that course of action.

That doesn’t change the above, though.

 

[Watershed]

A key point is who determines what is “reasonable” for these purposes? It isn’t made clear, but I’d suggest this can only reasonably be determined by the TOC. A passenger saying “the train isn’t full therefore I am allowed to board” is absolutely going to be in the wrong.

Ultimately, a Court would decide whether the operator's decision was reasonable or not. Obviously, on the day, the operator is the one that decides whether or not they're going to help. But if they make a decision the passenger isn't happy with, the passenger can decide whether to take the matter further.

TOCs appear to disagree with you!

Again, the fact that TOCs frequently do or don't do something isn't really determinative. As also seen with the Boundary Zone class action claim!

I’m not sure they there is such a duty. That appears to me to be something you are reading into the rules that doesn’t appear to be there.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this point.

If their view is that they can’t reasonably assist, who are you (or anyone else) to disagree with that?

See above. If the passenger can get on, or Any Permitted etc. ticket holders are allowed on, then that seems to disprove any suggestion they're unable to assist.

This is not what happens in practice on the (rare) occasions where ticket acceptance is declined. I’m not sure that complaining this is “illegal” is going to mean much in practical terms.

It means that, when the passenger is told they'll have to buy a new ticket, they may be able to recover the cost of that.

 

[Wolfie]

There is lots of citing of the airline analogy when claiming that TOCs legal obligations under heritage EU laws are impossible and hence that somehow gives them a pass. The airlines took a similar view until they faced litigation which went to the European Court of Justice and they comprehensively lost. The sooner more people sue TOCs at every conceivable opportunity and join more class actions the better.

Oh, and if NRCOT purports to offer less protection than what is now national primary legislation then any halfway competent Court will throw any TOC defence relying on it out with barely a second thought.