Forthcoming changes to National Rail Conditions of Travel

[Bletchleyite]

I think it's probably a case of them trying to enforce the condition to purchase your tickets before boarding, nothing more than that.

Clearly these changes are about eliminating the most common sources of fraud, most notably refund fraud which is pretty big stuff. I do support the railway in doing this, but not where it causes significant loss of utility to passengers - there must surely be a better way, such as allowing refunds of uncollected paper tickets at all times because you couldn't have used them if you didn't collect them.

That does assume that's the only consideration, of course. If in reality it's about hoping to get a bit of extra income from people who wake up feeling ill and don't make a prepurchased journey they could at present refund, then that's immoral. (If it were an Advance of course the option remains open to change it to another date in those circumstances).

 

[Tetchytyke]

Clearly these changes are about eliminating the most common sources of fraud, most notably refund fraud which is pretty big stuff. I do support the railway in doing this

The key to preventing refund fraud is to make sure that most people get their ticket scanned most of the time, either by a person or by a barrier. You can't (or shouldn't be able to!) refund an e-ticket which has been scanned.

Making tickets bought in advance effectively non-refundable isn't the way to go about it. But extra ticket staff cost money whereas making tickets non-refundable will make them money, so of course the railway will choose the anti-passenger option.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Making tickets bought in advance effectively non-refundable isn't the way to go about it. But extra ticket staff cost money whereas making tickets non-refundable will make them money, so of course the railway will choose the anti-passenger option.

A compromise would be to allow a date change but not a refund, or a refund to a voucher rather than the bank which I think would be a big dissuader for some, particularly as it would create a nice audit trail of obvious fraud for prosecution purposes as the voucher was used and refunded repeatedly over an extended period. But the mechanisms aren't in place to do either of those so would cost them money.

It would be interesting to see what sort of fare levels most refund fraud is for. I'd expect it is probably typically lower fares, hence the admin fee as a dissuader. I can't imagine all that many people making intercity journeys then refunding them, because it's much more likely they'd encounter a gateline. But I might be wrong. It is quite possibly the case that Trainline's sliding scale refund fee (so you always get something back even on low value tickets) is a big part of the issue!

 

[redreni]

I think it's probably a case of them trying to enforce the condition to purchase your tickets before boarding, nothing more than that.

By the time you see the RPIs coming it is too late to retrospectively buy a ticket. They can see when you bought it and, if it wasn't bought before the time your train left the origin, you're in breach.

Well, no, if it wasn't bought before you boarded the train, you're in breach. RPIs may think the two things are the same, but it is where you boarded that matters, not the origin on the ticket.

The key to preventing refund fraud is to make sure that most people get their ticket scanned most of the time, either by a person or by a barrier. You can't (or shouldn't be able to!) refund an e-ticket which has been scanned.

Making tickets bought in advance effectively non-refundable isn't the way to go about it. But extra ticket staff cost money whereas making tickets non-refundable will make them money, so of course the railway will choose the anti-passenger option.

You would think an exception for uncollected ToD should be possible without interfering too much with the refund fraud prevention objective? Maybe they're worried people would switch from e-tickets to ToD if that were the case (which they would), but I don't think that would constitute a rational basis for restricting refunds for people because of a refund fraud risk that doesn't really exist in their particular circumstances.

Even if they don't put that exception in the NRCoT, you'd hope retailers would still be allowed to offer refunds on uncollected ToD tickets on or after the day of travel, even if the NRCoT no longer gave passengers an entitlement to such? Similar to how some retailers give fee-free refunds in circumstances where the NRCoT doesn't give an entitlement to this? Whether they'd want to is another matter, given the fees retailers have to pay for ToD.

 

[skyhigh]

There is a new condition which will explicitly clarify that buying a ticket after boarding (including online) will be considered an invalid ticket and therefore the rules for travelling without a valid ticket would apply.

Will be interesting to see the exact wording, as theoretically this would make any tickets sold by guards onboard invalid too...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Well, no, if it wasn't bought before you boarded the train, you're in breach. RPIs may think the two things are the same, but it is where you boarded that matters, not the origin on the ticket.

Therefore you think there is intention to prevent extending journeys by purchasing an e-ticket on board but before reaching the end of the ticket you already hold? That is bad and unnecessary, and surely a quick selfie standing on the platform would nullify it?

As I mentioned earlier, BR was prevented legally from having a "you can't rebook to continue on the same train" rule. Irish Rail, under a different legal system, does have that stipulation.

You would think an exception for uncollected ToD should be possible without interfering too much with the refund fraud prevention objective? Maybe they're worried people would switch from e-tickets to ToD if that were the case (which they would), but I don't think that would constitute a rational basis for restricting refunds for people because of a refund fraud risk that doesn't really exist in their particular circumstances.

You would think so.

Ironically, there are cases where this might make me switch to Advances for the added flexibility of being able to change it up to the departure time, thus paying less than I would for the walk up ticket

I wouldn't always switch to paper of course, only where I thought I might want to change the day of travel on a single ticket on the original day. It's something I've done but it's not something that applies to all my journeys.

 

[Tetchytyke]

You would think an exception for uncollected ToD should be possible without interfering too much with the refund fraud prevention objective?

It would be a start, but I don’t think we should go down the route of the refund entitlement being dependant on the medium the ticket is held on.

 

[fandroid]

Will be interesting to see the exact wording, as theoretically this would make any tickets sold by guards onboard invalid too...

There would have to be exceptions for stations with no ticket purchasing facilities at all. (I have just returned from Aberdovey)

 

[Tetchytyke]

Therefore you think there is intention to prevent extending journeys by purchasing an e-ticket on board but before reaching the end of the ticket you already hold? That is bad and unnecessary, and surely a quick selfie standing on the platform would nullify it?

I think they are pointing out that you can buy a ticket from one origin but start short/late on it. Which is true- you can. And would still be purchasing before boarding, even if the train had left the origin.

My point wasn’t to do with that issue, though, my point was much more simple: you can’t backdate when you bought a ticket. By the time you see the RPI coming down the train it is too late. So banning the purchase of extension tickets onboard would have no effect on this type of fraud.

 

[Cantab26]

Irrationality by failure to consult passengers would be an obvious point to raise. Even if it's not the minister, it's still likely to be a decision of a public authority. If anyone with relevant legal expertise wants to comment, I'd be interested!

If a judicial review was brought on this basis it would almost certainly fail.

Wouldn't the problem of the route change excess of zero be covered if the coded route restrictions always specifically allowed travel on those parallel routes that had cheaper fares (as in your London to Exeter via Taunton example)?

The current routeing guide already allows for this without the need to obtain an excess.

As I mentioned earlier, BR was prevented legally from having a "you can't rebook to continue on the same train" rule.

You have mentioned this more than once. Please cite an authority for this proposition.

 

[Benjwri]

The current routeing guide already allows for this without the need to obtain an excess.

the issue being the routeing guide is also becoming an information panel in this change.

 

[redreni]

Therefore you think there is intention to prevent extending journeys by purchasing an e-ticket on board but before reaching the end of the ticket you already hold? That is bad and unnecessary, and surely a quick selfie standing on the platform would nullify it?

I would assume they'd accept that if you could have disembarked and re-boarded, it is better for everybody if we just take it as read that you did, without actually making you do it. Otherwise, you've got a stupid requirement that would, as a matter of common sense and law, have to be waived for people with certain disabilities as it would invite disability discrimination claims.

As I mentioned earlier, BR was prevented legally from having a "you can't rebook to continue on the same train" rule. Irish Rail, under a different legal system, does have that stipulation.

I'd like to understand that in greater detail. I did find it outrageous that, during a week-long stay in Lisburn when I had a weekly 'go anywhere' ticket for the greater Belfast area, when I wanted to go to Derry I was expressly told by staff I couldn't buy a ticket from the boundary station to Derry, or even the last stop we were going to call at that was covered by my pass, and if I did I'd be treated as a fare dodger. If I alighted at the boundary station and stepped back a train presumably that would be fine, however the journey takes plenty long enough as it is! And that's Translink, which operates under UK law as far as I'm aware, but still follows the Irish rather than the GB model when it comes to split ticketing, break of journey, extension tickets etc.

If a judicial review was brought on this basis it would almost certainly fail.

Please don't take this the wrong way - do you have any relevant legal expertise? Or have you had the benefit of legal advice, or are aware of a legal precedent, on this point?[Edit: somebody has kindly answered this point, so I don't need to ask this awkward question.] I really don't mean to appear prickly by asking that, nor to suggest that you can't have an informed opinion unless you're a lawyer. I've expressed a view myself and I'm not a lawyer.

I was under the impression, however, that one of the tests of reasonableness in public law decision-making is that you need to consult anybody you have a statutory duty to consult, anybody with a legitimate expectation that they will be consulted (normally because they've consistently been consulted before), or anybody who it would be conspicuously unfair not to consult, (i.e. any identifiable group upon whom your proposals will have a significant adverse impact). I would think the more anti-passenger a proposed set of changes is, the more likely a court would find that failure to consult passengers was conspicuously unfair. Some of this stuff - if it turns out to be accurate - seems to me very anti-passenger and potentially quite significant in its impact. The Elizabeth Line break of journey change alone makes a return to zone 1 from my local station very significantly more expensive, for instance.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Please don't take this the wrong way - do you have any relevant legal expertise? Or have you had the benefit of legal advice, or are aware of a legal precedent, on this point? I really don't mean to appear prickly by asking that, nor to suggest that you can't have an informed opinion unless you're a lawyer. I've expressed a view myself and I'm not a lawyer.

I believe that poster is indeed a lawyer of some kind.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Oct 2025 ==

I'd like to understand that in greater detail.

I've looked for a case reference for it but I can't find one, regrettably, so it will have to remain hearsay. But prior to posting it here I definitely did read it somewhere. Might be from the uk.railway days!

It does strike me though, even without this case reference, that if the railway could it would want to ban split ticketing. Certainly LNER would to avoid it getting in the way of their fare increase trial!

 

[ainsworth74]

I was under the impression, however, that one of the tests of reasonableness in public law decision-making is that you need to consult anybody you have a statutory duty to consult, anybody with a legitimate expectation that they will be consulted (normally because they've consistently been consulted before), or anybody who it would be conspicuously unfair not to consult, (i.e. any identifiable group upon whom your proposals will have a significant adverse impact). I would think the more anti-passenger a proposed set of changes is, the more likely a court would find that failure to consult passengers was conspicuously unfair. Some of this stuff - if it turns out to be accurate - seems to me very anti-passenger and potentially quite significant in its impact. The Elizabeth Line break of journey change alone makes a return to zone 1 from my local station very significantly more expensive, for instance.

I wonder if Transport Focus have been consulted? They are usually the stand-in (to my understanding) for passengers more widely. If they've been consulted then it may well be that a sufficient consultation has been undertaken.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wonder if Transport Focus have been consulted? They are usually the stand-in (to my understanding) for passengers more widely. If they've been consulted then it may well be that a sufficient consultation has been undertaken.

The majority of it probably isn't of that much consequence and we're talking largely about technicalities - for instance, the lay user doesn't care about the Routeing Guide (which this version might allow them to stop maintaining, as that does come with a cost, though I suppose you could just FoI the data if you really wanted it). Restricting refunds on expensive Anytime tickets* is a pretty big thing, though, probably an even bigger thing than even LNER's fare increase trial in some ways. It's one that might be worth raising with an MP once it becomes public knowledge and the actual wording becomes available to check.

Route excesses not being allowed on board is a bit of a pain but it won't affect many people. The refunds one I think is likely to affect "lay" users.

* I'm aware that Anytime Singles are valid two days, but they did try to take that away once before and they did used to be valid longer than that. But some Off Peaks are pretty premium in price now too...

 

[redreni]

The majority of it probably isn't of that much consequence and we're talking largely about technicalities - for instance, the lay user doesn't care about the Routeing Guide (which this version might allow them to stop maintaining, as that does come with a cost, though I suppose you could just FoI the data if you really wanted it). Restricting refunds on expensive Anytime tickets is a pretty big thing, though, probably an even bigger thing than even LNER's fare increase trial in some ways. It's one that might be worth raising with an MP once it becomes public knowledge and the actual wording becomes available to check.

Whether people understand and care, and whether they are impacted adversely, are two different things.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Whether people understand and care, and whether they are impacted adversely, are two different things.

This is true. One of the issues with defending against the LNER "trial" has been getting people to understand why it's bad - it took some time to even convince people like Simon Calder and "The Man in Seat 61"!

They might be a good two to get on side against this as a start.

 

[Peter Mugridge]

Will be interesting to see the exact wording, as theoretically this would make any tickets sold by guards onboard invalid too...

...which would effectively cost all commercial guards their commission income, so this might trigger some kind of adverse reaction from the unions?

 

[Bletchleyite]

...which would effectively cost all commercial guards their commission income, so this might trigger some kind of adverse reaction from the unions?

While the move is very much away from on-board purchase (Northern for instance have TVMs at most of their stations including some very rural ones) I can't imagine it not containing the standard rider of "if no opportunity to purchase existed at your origin", though it does seem that the definition of "opportunity to purchase" may be being tightened in terms of cash acceptance if one has a card on their person, and it'll be interesting to see if the wording causes a mobile phone to become an opportunity to purchase and under what circumstances.

 

[Kite159]

I would imagine point 1 is to combat those who will only buy a ticket if they see someone checking tickets when they are traveling between two unbarriered stations. The pay only when challenged

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would imagine point 1 is to combat those who will only buy a ticket if they see someone checking tickets when they are traveling between two unbarriered stations. The pay only when challenged

It fits with what is already being enforced in terms of buying on your phone, which is how most of this fraud is happening. I'm not sure a Swiss style absolute buy before you board (i.e. if the TVM is broken you can't travel unless you buy on your phone) would really work here, at least not yet.

 

[trainophile]

Was at New Street a few years ago and a whole succession of Hereford trains had been cancelled, can't remember what the reason was but I think it was during the major WMR train crew shortages at weekends. I was just about to descend to the platform for the only one still shown as running, having waited nearly three hours already, when that too popped up as Cancelled on the board opposite the toilets on the B concourse. I swiftly worked out that I only had one option to get home that night, which was to jump on the imminent XC Cardiff train to Worcestershire Parkway and get the last inbound GWR to Hereford from there (looks like that one now only goes to Foregate Street but at the time it went to HFD).

It would have taken me at least 10 minutes to go to the ticket office, and a few minutes to buy an e-ticket, and the Cardiff train was due out in less than five minutes, so I dashed down and jumped on it, then hastily bought the relevant two tickets to complete my journey. Being underground my payment wouldn't go through until we'd come out of the tunnel, but it did eventually. However this would presumably have made me liable to prosecution if it had been scanned. Given the choice of being stranded overnight or doing the same thing again I'd do it again. Only an idiot or a monster would expect me to remain stranded when I was perfectly happy to pay for my tickets but just didn't have the time before the train departed, through no fault of my own.

 

[JonathanH]

...which would effectively cost all commercial guards their commission income, so this might trigger some kind of adverse reaction from the unions?

They would still get their scanning payments where they apply.

 

[redreni]

I wonder if Transport Focus have been consulted? They are usually the stand-in (to my understanding) for passengers more widely. If they've been consulted then it may well be that a sufficient consultation has been undertaken.

I don't think so. One of the first thing it says if you go on your website is "we publish everything we do" but they haven't published their responses to any consultations.

More to the point, they are sponsored by the DfT, appointed by the DfT, have their strategic and business plans set by the DfT (according to the Framework Agreement on their website), are subject to referral to the DfT's departmental board should any of their activities cause concern to the DfT (again per the Framework Agreement), their Chairman and their Director are former senior employees of TfL and Virgin Trains respectively and crucially, passengers appear to have no role in any of this. Passengers can write them emails, which they ignore. The only sensible conclusion is they are there to pay lip service to passengers' interests as ascertained in whatever way (presumably through surveys), but they ultimately represent the interests of the DfT. Passengers don't have a say in appointing them, can't get rid of them if they're useless, and most particularly can't feed in views to Transport Focus about proposed changes to the NRCoT if, weeks before the changes are meant to be implemented, nobody has officially told passengers or the public about the existence of the proposals.

In my judgement, there is more meaningful consultation with passengers happening in this thread than could ever take place through Transport Focus, if in fact anybody has bothered to consult them.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Oct 2025 ==

Was at New Street a few years ago and a whole succession of Hereford trains had been cancelled, can't remember what the reason was but I think it was during the major WMR train crew shortages at weekends. I was just about to descend to the platform for the only one still shown as running, having waited nearly three hours already, when that too popped up as Cancelled on the board opposite the toilets on the B concourse. I swiftly worked out that I only had one option to get home that night, which was to jump on the imminent XC Cardiff train to Worcestershire Parkway and get the last inbound GWR to Hereford from there (looks like that one now only goes to Foregate Street but at the time it went to HFD).

It would have taken me at least 10 minutes to go to the ticket office, and a few minutes to buy an e-ticket, and the Cardiff train was due out in less than five minutes, so I dashed down and jumped on it, then hastily bought the relevant two tickets to complete my journey. Being underground my payment wouldn't go through until we'd come out of the tunnel, but it did eventually. However this would presumably have made me liable to prosecution if it had been scanned. Given the choice of being stranded overnight or doing the same thing again I'd do it again. Only an idiot or a monster would expect me to remain stranded when I was perfectly happy to pay for my tickets but just didn't have the time before the train departed, through no fault of my own.

If it happens again I would not suggest doing the same again. I would suggest getting on the train and seeking out the guard, explaining the situation and showing him your existing ticket. As you would otherwise be stranded, any TOC should assist where it reasonably can (and these proposals wouldn't change that), which in this case includes accepting a ticket on a route and TOC on which it wouldn't ordinarily be valid if that's the only way to get you home. Buy a new ticket from the guard under protest if they insist, but don't proactively offer to buy a new ticket, and certainly don't do so after boarding as that's just asking for trouble.

 

[ainsworth74]

In my judgement, there is more meaningful consultation with passengers happening in this thread than could ever take place through Transport Focus, if in fact anybody has bothered to consult them.

Oh I agree completely but sadly a lot of this is always tick box exercises and following something akin to a process flowchart rather than attempt to have a meaningful discussion.

Has Transport Focus been consulted? If Yes - Legally required consultations with passengers have been completed. Move on.

 

[redreni]

Oh I agree completely but sadly a lot of this is always tick box exercises and following something akin to a process flowchart rather than attempt to have a meaningful discussion.

Has Transport Focus been consulted? If Yes - Legally required consultations with passengers have been completed. Move on.

That's the intention, of course: create a statutory requirement to consult an arms-length body that you have created for the purpose of pretending to consult passengers, and it will not therefore be conspicuously unfair that you haven't actually consulted passengers. That only works if people accept it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's the intention, of course: create a statutory requirement to consult an arms-length body that you have created for the purpose of pretending to consult passengers, and it will not therefore be conspicuously unfair that you haven't actually consulted passengers. That only works if people accept it.

Aside from going by car or coach instead (and the latter probably has a less friendly policy in any case) what option does the passenger have not to accept it?

 

[redreni]

Aside from going by car or coach instead (and the latter probably has a less friendly policy in any case) what option does the passenger have not to accept it?

An individual passenger? None.

Passengers collectively? Demand better, of course. Insist on proper consultation with an actually independent body that isn't full of DfT and rail industry cronies, that is accountable to local passenger groups rather than the DfT, where local passenger groups can choose the national representatives and participate in meaningful consultation.

 

[sheff1]

1. There is a new condition which will explicitly clarify that buying a ticket after boarding (including online) will be considered an invalid ticket and therefore the rules for travelling without a valid ticket would apply.

As others have said we need to see what the new condition actually says, but I don't see how boarding at a station which has no ticket selling facilities and then buying from the guard could mean the ticket is invalid.

As for those suggesting you can buy online before boarding, that is of little use if the ticket you want can't be fulfilled as an eticket. Obviously no way of collecting a paper ticket if the staion is unstaffed and has no TVM.

 

[Class800]

I am reliably informed, by multiple sources, that changes are going to be made to the NRCoT over the next few months. Posting in this section as most of the changes mentioned below relate to fares, routeing and ticketing in one way or another.

This will be in two phases, one to take place before the end of the year and the next around April next year. There are quite a few changes, but I'm able to summarise a few that seemed quite key below. I believe there are quite a lot of other wording changes and similar but these were the ones that stuck out.

1. There is a new condition which will explicitly clarify that buying a ticket after boarding (including online) will be considered an invalid ticket and therefore the rules for travelling without a valid ticket would apply.
2. There is going to be a change that means instead of it being about your preferred method of payment (cash or card) now if you want to pay by cash it has to be your only method of payment (obviously how they would know this I don't know!).
3. Permit to Travel also appears to have been deleted entirely, and now it refers to Promise to Pay only. Particularly in the conditions dealing with Penalty Fares, where it now explicitly says you must get a Promise to Pay. But it also doesn't reference only where you want to pay by cash. So is the intention that now you can obtain a promise to pay and pay by card on board (as you could with a Permit to Travel)?
4. Change of Route Excesses can no longer be bought on board without penalty. The conditions have been amended to remove the reference to using a route which the ticket is not valid on as being one of the circumstances you can pay the difference in fare. Instead, it explicitly says you must excess it before you commence travel. This seems problematic as take the example of someone with London to Exeter Via Taunton ticket, if they use that via Honiton the excess payable is £0 (so staff are usually extremely reluctant to issue it) but under this that person would seem to be treated as if they had no ticket at all!
5. There is a new condition which explicitly allows TOC to recover their costs in taking action civilly or criminal up to but not exceeding their actual costs in taking such action. It will be interesting to see how they justify random round numbers as not exceeding the actual costs incurred!
6. Break of Journey is explicitly prohibited on the Elizabeth Line using Single/Return tickets between London Paddington and Stratford and between London Paddington and Abbey Wood. Though there is still no definition of what a Break of Journey is...
7. The conditions dealing with the routes you can use have also had some tweaks made to them. One thing is that any itinerary shown by NRE or a licensed retailer in connection with a buying a ticket is now considered a permitted route, which is probably a good thing overall. Though, the reference to the shortest route always being permitted has been deleted.
8. That being said the Routeing Guide itself has now been consigned to an "Information Box" which allegedly were only ever intended to provide "non-contractual" explanations so, er, the Routeing Guide is no longer a part of the contract maybe?
9. Conditions relating to refunds have also been changed and, excluding refunds due to disruption, you must request your refund before the ticket becomes valid for travel instead of the current situation where you can request a refund up to 28 days after expiry of the ticket. There is also an explicit warning that applications for a refund that are considered fraudulent will be investigated and could be subject to prosecution.

(By the by if anyone has a full copy of the changes being made, by all means DM me).

I think the changes regarding tickets bought after boarding and cost recovery are definitely of concern. I actually wonder a little bit if those are entirely compliant with unfair contract terms under the Consumer Rights Act? After all it feels like it creates quite an imbalance between the parties to the contract that the NRCoT represents!

How could you apply for refund before the ticket becomes valid for travel if the reason for refund is train cancellation or disruption meaning you no longer travel?