When a poster makes an excellent point but not in the way they think they are.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Concerning announcement on LNER regarding tickets
- Thread starter yorkie
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Indeed. The general advice would be to travel as far as you can by train and then have taxis sorted for the rest of the way. On the 18.57 she could have got as far as Shrewsbury, which is only 50 miles from Hereford.
redreni
Established Member
Anyone can join this forum and post, so just being a member carries no special duty to know anything. Some members of the forum hold themselves out as fares experts and/or work in the rail industry, so probably are under a bit more of a duty to know what they're talking about, but I think they're generally pretty clear about the fact some of what they say is likely to be contradicted by customer-facing staff.
It is, of course, people who are employed by the TOCs who really ought to know what they're talking about. If they can't understand fares, ticketing and passengers' entitlements when things go wrong, what chance have most passengers got? Some do have seriously impressive knowledge and the ability to recognise when they're unsure and look up information, so they generally reach sound decisions. Some don't know things they really ought to be expected to know, through no real fault of their own, due to inadequate training, but nonetheless refrain from making life unnecessarily difficult for passengers.
And then there's the most dangerous of all: the unconscious incompetents who get things wrong with overwhelming confidence.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,770
Like the poster you're replying to.
redreni
Established Member
Quite.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,770
Ziggiesden
On Moderation
You said it yourself - "tickets". 28.2 refers to ticket. So, a combination of tickets is not protected as a through ticket is. People still think the journey is protected as a whole. It is not but does give some rights elsewhere e.g. The Advance regulations where it allows you to get on the next train, for that TOC, in the case of a missed connection. Now, the next train may be another day.
Look at the Law in Europe now:
"
| (24) | Passengers should be clearly informed whether tickets sold by a railway undertaking in a single commercial transaction constitute a through-ticket. Where passengers are not correctly informed, the railway undertaking should be liable as if those tickets were a through-ticket." |
It should be noted there is no such definition as an "expert" in this field - just some with more experience than others. Also, what you think you know changes, sometimes daily, so it can catch you out if you do not check - then check again.
As to different contractual terms - look at refunds or change of travel plans - compare Trainline to National Rail Regulations. Better still think of NRCoT 14 where the Passengers has bought a combination of tickets via Westerhailes but is on an Express via Falkirk High to Glasgow from Edinburgh.
Passengers simply do not understand these nuances.
Ziggiesden
On Moderation
Not the site - just some of the people on it. I'm blaming RDG for not issuing an instruction to warn Passengers who buy online of the dangers when using a Combination of Tickets as is Law in Europe, but not here, as yet. Once again, you are only protected under NRCoT 28.2 if you have a through ticket as one contract ends and another begins if you are using a Combination of Tickets. It does not use the word tickets - it only says ticket. Note especially, "Where disruption prevents you from completing the journey for which your Ticket is valid and is being used". You've used one "contract" which has ended and are now using another.
I don't see how this is relevant, given said law doesn't exist here, and is unlikely to.
Even if we stuck to the strictest definition of ticket instead of tickets (which isn't how contract law works in any case), a combination of tickets would still leave you protected. If you hold two tickets for a journey, first one being ticket A, second being ticket B, if you are delayed on your journey, you are protected for the subsequent tickets by definition. So let's say you can't complete a journey on ticket A, this means you also can't complete your journey on ticket B because of the same disruption. If you are able to complete your ticket A portion, but not your ticket B portion, then disruption has prevented you on that ticket.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
The two conditions are, once again:
you can use a combination of tickets to make a journey; and
where disruption prevents you completing your journey, the TOC will assist.
So, once again, please may you point to the condition which states that "split tickets are not protected" (whatever that means).
I am also entirely unsure why you keep quoting European legislation, given that the UK has not been part of the EU for five years?
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
That is simply not true.
The conditions really are clear: you can use multiple tickets to complete a journey, and the disruption assistance requirements apply to the journey not the ticket.
There are many confusing things in railway rules, but this is not one of them. It couldn't be any clearer.
ETA: you really can't interpret this any other way. If each ticket is a separate journey then there wouldn't be a condition stating that you can use multiple tickets for one journey, because it would be logically impossible to do so.
Last edited:
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,770
Indeed. I refer you, again, to your mirror.
It's bad enough being wrong without doubling down to emphasise how wrong you can be. If someone uses a website and requests a journey from Aberdeen to Hereford, they clearly have a single contract to be provided with transport between those points regardless of how many tickets that journey uses, as long as the first one starts at Aberdeen and the last ends at Hereford. And, in any event, the National Rail Conditions of Travel are very clear that it is legitimate to use more than one ticket for a journey, and does not state that there is any requirement to purchase all of those tickets in the same transaction.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
It's even simpler than that.
The NRCoT (i.e. the contract) draws a distinction between "ticket" and "journey".
It specifically states that you can use multiple tickets to complete one journey.
It specifically states that the TOC has to assist (if possible, etc) if you are disrupted on your journey.
If the contract were intended to define each ticket as a separate journey, then there wouldn't be a condition stating that you can use multiple tickets. Because, logically, it would be completely impossible to use a combination of tickets when each ticket held was a separate journey.
Therefore we take the dictionary definition of journey- to travel from one place to another- and understand that you can hold multiple tickets in order to complete that journey.
It is rather alarming that someone who says they're in a public-facing role is incapable of understanding words which are, with all due respect, fairly basic words to understand. But we are where we are.
28.2 is qualified in saying, "Where disruption prevents you from completing the journey for which your Ticket is valid and is being used" though, which is @Ziggiesden's point. My point is that ignoring that ticket would be interpreted as tickets in this context anyway, if you're delayed on ticket 1 due to disruption, and you can't then complete the ticket 2 leg, disruption has prevented you from completing your journey for both tickets, because it doesn't say the disruption has to only affect the services used for one particular ticket. For @Ziggiesden's argument to be true (assuming I'm reading their post right), the wording would need to be something like, "Where disruption between the start and destination points on a valid Ticket you are using prevents you from completing the journey for which said Ticket is valid and is being used". Even then, for it to be enforceable it would need tightening, but I think that's effectively what @Ziggiesden is trying to suggest is the current position (which it isn't).
Passengers are protected by the National Rail Conditions of Travel in terms of using multiple tickets to complete a journey.
If you are sitting behind your window telling delayed passengers that they're stuck and will not be subject to assistance from the train operators because they have split tickets so they'd best shell out a load of money or accept being stranded then your conduct isn't acceptable.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
The qualification doesn't mean what @Ziggiesden appears to think it means. It means you have to have a valid ticket for the journey for the disruption assistance requirements to kick in. It's why it's usually a good idea to buy all split tickets at the same time or, at the very least, before commencing your journey at the origin.
The NRCoT is very clear in drawing a distinction between a ticket and a journey. If it was intended for the journey and the ticket to be the same thing (i.e. three split tickets means three journeys) then it would say so. And, logically, if each split ticket is a separate journey then you can't use a combination of tickets to make a journey- every time you split, you would get two smaller journeys.
Other rail operators, most notably Iarnrod Eireann, specifically prohibit the use of split tickets. If RDG wanted to do this, they would do so.
I completely agree. I was just trying to emphasise that the delay and cancellation rights do in qualification refers to tickets or indeed 'a valid ticket' (singular), not just journeys, and I think that's what @Ziggiesden is basing their (imo, incorrect) stance on.
redreni
Established Member
Perhaps @Ziggiesden will confirm, but I took him to mean "your destination" in this context (that is, the destination to which any TOC will, where it reasonably can, provide you with alternative means of travel) must, for some reason, be the destination on the ticket that you're using at the time (i.e. the next split point if you're on split tickets)? Or, at least, a destination to which that ticket is valid for travel (e.g. if you're breaking or finishing short).
I tend to agree, the journey for which your Ticket is valid and is being used could be to a station beyond the validity of the particular ticket you are using at the time, as long as you hold a combination of tickets that is valid to go there and that is the journey you are making. There's nothing in 28.2 that precludes that being your destination.
Again, if passengers with valid split tickets are upset because they're told they don't have the right to expect assistance to reach their destination or have overnight accommodation sorted out, they are right to be. They still shouldn't be abusive or violent, but the problem is not that they've had their expectations raised unreasonably by this forum.
Or indeed any retailer which sells split tickets, who typically answer questions like this in their FAQs/etc
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Fair point about the singular. It's probably (as is so often the case) just a sloppy bit of drafting. It should really say ticket(s).
My interpretation is very much that it's basically saying you have to have a ticket to benefit from the protection.
mike57
Established Member
The whole disruption thing is another issue which puts people off train travel.
In the event of cancellation or missed connections because of delays it should be made clear that you are allowed to proceed to your destination by the next available service. 'Ticket acceptance' as something that has to be arranged should be binned and that includes where OA operators are involved. If you are disrupted you carry on using whatever services are available including alternative routes if they are the only ones available, and its made clear to everyone including over enthusiastic staff. If individual ToCs wish to charge other ToC then they instruct the guards to collect ticket details of those using the service legitimately, but unless an open access operator is involved I see no point as all fare box revenue apart from OA finds its way back to the treasury anyway.
I know the HT dispute seems bitter and has been dragging on for a while now. Were the 'over enthusiastic' announcements designed to further discourage people from using Hull Trains, maybe unofficial support to those in dispute.
People are not going to be happy shelling out LNER walk up fares to complete a journey which they have already paid for, and then have the extra work and time spent in reclaiming the money, plus there will be those who do not have the available funds to pay for the ticket. Its a Hull Trains problem, they need to 'own' it and deal with it, not expect their customers to be disadvantaged.
In the event of cancellation or missed connections because of delays it should be made clear that you are allowed to proceed to your destination by the next available service. 'Ticket acceptance' as something that has to be arranged should be binned and that includes where OA operators are involved. If you are disrupted you carry on using whatever services are available including alternative routes if they are the only ones available, and its made clear to everyone including over enthusiastic staff. If individual ToCs wish to charge other ToC then they instruct the guards to collect ticket details of those using the service legitimately, but unless an open access operator is involved I see no point as all fare box revenue apart from OA finds its way back to the treasury anyway.
I know the HT dispute seems bitter and has been dragging on for a while now. Were the 'over enthusiastic' announcements designed to further discourage people from using Hull Trains, maybe unofficial support to those in dispute.
People are not going to be happy shelling out LNER walk up fares to complete a journey which they have already paid for, and then have the extra work and time spent in reclaiming the money, plus there will be those who do not have the available funds to pay for the ticket. Its a Hull Trains problem, they need to 'own' it and deal with it, not expect their customers to be disadvantaged.
Not having the funds would've been a significant barrier to me only a few years ago. When I was a student, and even for a few years after graduating, I wouldn't have had £70 to pay a walk-up fare from London to Hull, or indeed the cost of an on-the-day central London hotel. Well maybe I would but then that would be my food shopping money gone for a fortnight while I wait for a train company to sort out a refund. If passengers have to go into an overdraft to do this, then they're entitled to the overdraft charges back, but good luck arguing that with a first line customer support at a train operator.
It's Hull Trains' problem, but LNER also need to be careful. If they're running the last service north after the last Hull Trains service has been cancelled, then even with Hull Trains not putting on coaches/ticket acceptance/accommodation, LNER will be the operator in a position of helping passengers, and under the NRCoT, they're obliged to, even if they then claim costs back from Hull Trains.
mike57
Established Member
Good luck getting an LNER walk up fare from Kings Cross to Hull for £70, I think the cheapest is over £100 and some trains are over £150, I am assuming a scenario which is you arrive at Kings Cross in time to catch your train and find it cancelled, so the likelihood of getting an advance ticket at that point is low to zero.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,770
Super Off Peak Single, £75.00. Which is what would, theoretically, be needed for something around the time of the last Hull trains service.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
There are Advance fares available for trains today at reasonable prices.
I had checked and post the exact fare further up this thread. It was somewhere between £70-79.99 for a super off peak single, but would need to check brfares.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Aye that's the one. £75 if you get to the station and find your HT train is cancelled and there's no Advance fares left.
Edit: obviously this concerns the example given in the first post here. If this approach was taken by other operators on more expensive routes, then it could be more than £75. Certainly a non-hostel hotel in central London could set you back double that if rocking up on the day.
mike57
Established Member
Yes its a lottery, You would probably be out of luck tomorrow and Saturday. When travelling over distances, and possibly into Europe we always have a 'Plan B' which includes a card with enough 'headroom' to get us back from anywhere at 'full fare', but we are in the position where we can afford that, and not everyone is, and I personally think it is unreasonable to expect someone to fund a second ticket when the original ticket is valid. Wind the clock back 45 years and I would not have been in that position when travelling
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
The Hull Trains dispute has been rumbling along for ages and it is always the same trains which Hull Trains cancel.
Yet Hull Trains continue to sell tickets for those trains and, seemingly, make little or no effort to pro-actively contact those ticket holders to advise them of the situation.
I can see why LNER- both management and staff- would be rather fed up of it.
Yet Hull Trains continue to sell tickets for those trains and, seemingly, make little or no effort to pro-actively contact those ticket holders to advise them of the situation.
I can see why LNER- both management and staff- would be rather fed up of it.
Oh quite! But how is this any of the passengers' problem? LNER should take it up with Hull Trains directly, rather than the TOCs leaving passengers stranded amongst their power games.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Clearly it isn't, and it's good to see LNER's messaging be refined.
My point was rather to put a bit of balance into the thread, as LNER are getting brickbats for their messaging. Yet Hull Trains, who are really responsible for the mess and should be doing more to prevent their passengers from being stranded, are not.
Yes I see your point actually. Given there's a plan to settle passenger fares under course of normal running between TOCs, why can't a seperate, shadow, disruption settlement plan be devised?
Ziggiesden
On Moderation
It can, for ScotRail anyway, be another location not covered by your ticket. We allow you to use a different line during disruption without penalty. Not always geographically possible in some areas but it can be useful.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
See the document attached. Also, I queried RDG on the matter - sending my research in the document to them:
Hello Gary
Thanks for your email addressed to our CEO Jacqueline Starr, about split ticketing. I have been asked to respond on Jacqueline’s behalf.
Firstly, I would like to thank you for contacting the Rail Delivery Group. I was sorry to learn about the absence of a response, and I understand that the situation with split ticketing and passenger rights is not entirely satisfactory.
I would like to advise you that the Fares, Retail and Ticketing sector is undergoing a transformation with the aim of simplifying the customer experience, and this will eventually be passed on to GBR (Great British Railways) to modernise working practices, make tickets simpler and fairer, in order to deliver a better service to passengers.
At the moment, the PRO (Passenger Rights Obligations) law is just that, it is a law and if customers do not consider that a Train Operating Company or an agent has acted correctly then this can be taken up to court.
I trust this information clarifies the situation.
Thanks again for contacting us, and I hope you have a nice day.
Kind regards
Noyonika Misquitta
Customer Relations Team
info@raildeliverygroup.com
They know it is "not satisfactory" but they are limiting their liabilities and making cost savings (on paper, at least) by closing Ticket Offices. The issue is that once the money men have total control - who is left to protect the Passenger?
Last edited:
- Status