Hypothetical: If a delay occurs, what are the rules regarding onward connections that would otherwise be invalid?

[Fawkes Cat]

Moderator note: Split from

Scarborough to Beaconsfield Super Off-Peak ticket

Hello everybody. Yesterday I traveled down from Scarborough to Beaconsfield on a Super Off-Peak single. My planned itinerary was as follows 11:48 Scarborough 12:38 York (TPE) 12:58 York 14:48 King's Cross (LNER) 15:40 Marylebone 16:03 Beaconsfield (Chiltern) The LNER leg was delayed by...

www.railforums.co.uk

As the original ticket was valid on any train from Marylebone, this thread has been split from the original, to handle a hypothetical situation, regarding a ticket that is restricted during the evening peak, and where a delay to the service into London caused the last valid train from London to be missed.

even if the ticket was so restricted if it was sold with an itinerary it is valid because of contract law.

But from the OP:

The LNER leg was delayed by about 15 mins leaving York and got to King's Cross about 25 minutes late, so due to that I narrowly missed my connecting train at Marylebone.

The next train was the 16:19 but Chiltern staff refused to let me board it as they claimed that Super Off-Peak tickets are not valid on departures between 16:00 and 19:00 from Marylebone.

Does the valid itinerary (for a 1540 departure that the OP missed through no fault of theirs) carry through to the first available departure i.e. the 1619?

 

[Bletchleyite]

But from the OP:

Does the valid itinerary (for a 1540 departure that the OP missed through no fault of theirs) carry through to the first available departure i.e. the 1619?

Not contractually no.

 

[furlong]

Does the valid itinerary (for a 1540 departure that the OP missed through no fault of theirs) carry through to the first available departure i.e. the 1619?

There is no time restriction on the leg departing from London. And with disruption, yes, they could take the next train even if without disruption it would have been restricted, and there's no need to do anything with the ticket - endorsements can be useful to save time but are not required.

 

[AdamWW]

Not contractually no.

So if someone misses the last off peak train due to a missed connection they're supposed to pay for a more expensive ticket? Or have I misunderstood you?

I admit that I don't think I've seen it written anywhere that an off peak ticket should be accepted in such circumstances, but it seems unfair for the railway to demand more money because they have caused a delay.

 

[Bletchleyite]

So if someone misses the last off peak train due to a missed connection they're supposed to pay for a more expensive ticket? Or have I misunderstood you?

You have a contractual right to travel on the itinerary you booked even if that itinerary should not have been sold.

Once other trains come into it, that right is not quite the same.

I admit that I don't think I've seen it written anywhere that an off peak ticket should be accepted in such circumstances, but it seems unfair for the railway to demand more money because they have caused a delay.

I agree it's unfair, but I also agree there's no contractual requirement to it - or at least I've never seen it written anywhere in a consumer facing contract either. Of course if you did have to wait 3 hours for the peak to be over that's a full Delay Repay refund

 

[AlterEgo]

You have a contractual right to travel on the itinerary you booked even if that itinerary should not have been sold.

Once other trains come into it, that right is not quite the same.

I don't agree.

Even if the OP was delayed, and did by some chance find themselves at a time when the Super Off Peak was not valid, they do not need to excess the ticket to travel on the next available train. A customer cannot be penalised for rail disruption. 28.2 refers, in the NRCOT:

28.2 Where disruption prevents you from completing the journey for which your Ticket is valid and is being used, any Train Company will, where it reasonably can, provide you with alternative means of travel to your destination, or if necessary, provide overnight accommodation for you

Importantly, 28.2 is universal and does not prevent people with "dodgy" tickets sold wrongly but against an itinerary from completing their journey.

 

[island]

I don't agree.

Even if the OP was delayed, and did by some chance find themselves at a time when the Super Off Peak was not valid, they do not need to excess the ticket to travel on the next available train. A customer cannot be penalised for rail disruption. 28.2 refers, in the NRCOT:



Importantly, 28.2 is universal and does not prevent people with "dodgy" tickets sold wrongly but against an itinerary from completing their journey.

I don't agree that 28.2 grants this right; the OP was not prevented from completing their journey, just made to wait.

As the OP was entitled to use any train under their ticket, we don't need to go this far Anyway.

 

[Watershed]

So if someone misses the last off peak train due to a missed connection they're supposed to pay for a more expensive ticket? Or have I misunderstood you?

I admit that I don't think I've seen it written anywhere that an off peak ticket should be accepted in such circumstances, but it seems unfair for the railway to demand more money because they have caused a delay.

I think it would be a clear breach of the obligation to provide the service with reasonable care and skill (as implied into the contract by the Consumer Rights Act) to unnecessarily further delay a passenger who has missed the last service before afternoon Off-Peak restrictions, through no fault of their own.

Furthermore, if the resultant delay in arrival (vs the original timing) were to be 61+ minutes, you would have the right under the PRO to require the train company at fault to re-route you at the earliest opportunity, which again means that time restrictions would go out of the window.

In practice, in the event you were forced to pay extra to take the next available service, you could choose between paying this (effectively under protest) and claiming it back afterwards, or waiting until the first service your ticket was ostensibly "valid" on, and claiming what would therefore likely be an increased amount of Delay Repay.

 

[AdamWW]

Chiltern however, still insist that I wasn’t entitled to travel on the ticket. Here’s their latest email, from this morning:

They specifically refer to section 9 of the NRCoT. This includes:

9.4 Where you are using a Ticket valid on a specific train service or train services (such as an “advance” Ticket) and you miss a service because a previous connecting train service was delayed, you will be able to travel on the next train service provided by the Train Company with whom you were booked without penalty.

This should be a moot point in this case since the ticket was valid anyway, but a reasonable interpretation to me would be that an off peak ticket is valid if a delay pushes you into peak times. (I expect by "train services" they are intending to cover an advance ticket with connections, but it's a bit ambiguous).

It's not limiting itself to advances given that it says "such as an advance".

It would in any case be a ludicrous situation if someone with an advance was permitted to take the next train but someone with a more expensive flexible ticket wasn't.


I presume that going the other way, if one of Chiltern's trains is delayed causing someone to be likely to miss the last off peak train on a connection with another TOC they will cheerfully buy the passenger a new ticket as they appeared to be suggesting LNER should have.

Furthermore, if the resultant delay in arrival (vs the original timing) were to be 61+ minutes, you would have the right under the PRO to require the train company at fault to re-route you at the earliest opportunity, which again means that time restrictions would go out of the window.

Wouldn't that - in this case - be an obligation on LNER? In other words the passenger should actually (as suggested by Chiltern) have made arrangements at Kings Cross through LNER?

 

[Haywain]

It would in any case be a ludicrous situation if someone with an advance was permitted to take the next train but someone with a more expensive flexible ticket wasn't.

I don't see it as ludicrous, as the Advance ticket would not otherwise have any validity for the journey to be completed, unlike a flexible ticket. Obviously good customer service would allow both to continue on the next train.

Wouldn't that - in this case - be an obligation on LNER? In other words the passenger should actually (as suggested by Chiltern) have made arrangements at Kings Cross through LNER?

There is no obligation on LNER to do anything as the ticket is valid for the journey to be continued. This case is 100% Chiltern at fault.

 

[AdamWW]

I don't see it as ludicrous, as the Advance ticket would not otherwise have any validity for the journey to be completed, unlike a flexible ticket. Obviously good customer service would allow both to continue on the next train.

We clearly have different definitions of ludicrious.

To make a passenger who has paid for a flexible ticket wait for hours when if they'd bought a cheaper advance ticket they could travel immediately meets my definition of ludicrious.

Pay less for an advance and get more flexibility when you're delayed...how does that make any sense?

There is no obligation on LNER to do anything as the ticket is valid for the journey to be continued. This case is 100% Chiltern at fault.

But I was responding to the comment:

Furthermore, if the resultant delay in arrival (vs the original timing) were to be 61+ minutes, you would have the right under the PRO to require the train company at fault to re-route you at the earliest opportunity, which again means that time restrictions would go out of the window.

If claiming ones rights under the PRO, and those rights are against the train company at fault as stated above, in this case wouldn't that mean that Chiltern were right to say that it was up to LNER to deal with it?

That doesn't mean that one doesn't have rights beyond the PRO, which I would hope ones does though the situation seems to be sadly somewhat ambigious if - unlike this situation - off peak rules actually apply.

 

[Haywain]

wouldn't that mean that Chiltern were right to say that it was up to LNER to deal with it?

No, because the validity means that there is nothing for LNER to deal with. The train company at fault for causing further delay is, by denying travel on a valid ticket, Chiltern.

 

[Watershed]

There is no obligation on LNER to do anything as the ticket is valid for the journey to be continued. This case is 100% Chiltern at fault.

Realistically, if Chiltern's barrier and ticket office staff are convinced the ticket isn't valid, they are not going to budge. An excess would be required to take what they claim is a "peak time" service, and getting reimbursed for that is something to worry about after the journey.