Forthcoming changes to National Rail Conditions of Travel

[Tester]

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?

That is an exception, as of course it has to be.

There are plenty of problems with the revised conditions, but that is not one of them.

 

[AlterEgo]

We don't actually know the finer detail of what the Conditions will even say, so everything is conjecture - although the heads up from the OP is very useful.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As an aside, I wonder why it's being done in two steps rather than at once, and which Conditions will be changed at each step? Is it because one of the steps requires Byelaw changes which have due legal process and one of them doesn't? It seems odd because you've got all the costs of publishing it twice in close succession rather than just waiting and doing it in one go.

 

[furlong]

The real costs arise from failing to publish the drafts and inviting public comments before finalising them!

There should be an open review process.

Remember the Timetable of the Day nonsense which was never implemented in accordance with what was written and later had to be abandoned?
Some of the suggestions here are just as unworkable and will hopefully be blocked by a legal review.
Ticket routeing is complicated enough as it stands but the system has reached some sort of balance and managed to make it largely work. Mess around with its underpinnings at your peril! You might end up with even more tickets that can't be retailed and unenforceable routeing while inadvertently explicitly extending validity based on the worst computer implementations that other sites would in practice find themselves having to copy (or else lose business - i.e. creating another perverse incentive).

They should take the bull by the horns and address the root causes of the problems directly, rather than again implementing sticking plasters that primarily penalise and inconvenience honest travellers.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Some of the suggestions here are just as unworkable and will hopefully be blocked by a legal review.

I doubt any of them are illegal nor unreasonable terms in a legal sense, but some of them are certainly unsavoury and anti-customer. Which is something that in a monopoly state-operated setting really needs checks and balances.

Ticket routeing is complicated enough as it stands but the system has reached some sort of balance and managed to make it largely work. Mess around with its underpinnings at your peril! You might end up with even more tickets that can't be retailed and unenforceable routeing while inadvertently explicitly extending validity based on the worst computer implementations that other sites would in practice find themselves having to copy (or else lose business - i.e. creating another perverse incentive).

I'm not so sure about that one. In any meaningful sense it's already "what journey planners give you" that defines what's valid. Only enthusiasts go pouring through the actual Routeing Guide to look for useful anomalies. We shouldn't design a railway for enthusiasts.

The one I have a big problem with in that list is the refund policy. I do get that there is a huge amount of refund fraud, but there are things that can be done about that without making people lose the huge value of an Anytime or Off Peak long distance ticket because their plans changed on the day of travel. The whole point of these tickets is that they're flexible, but the fake compulsory reservations approach (and high seat reservation level on the likes of LNER) as well as the risk of being stranded in disruption if there's no contract in place means that people are pushed to buy them in advance. I understand why Advances are restrictive (though don't agree with all of the restrictions), but an Anytime ticket really should be fully refundable if unused even on or after the day of travel, or at the very least changeable to another day.

They should take the bull by the horns and address the root causes of the problems directly, rather than again implementing sticking plasters that primarily penalise and inconvenience honest travellers.

Such as, in the refunds issue, making sure tickets get scanned. Which requires doing stuff like applying appropriate incentives and enforcement on the likes of Bletchley guards so they get out of the cab and do some scanning, particularly on the Marston Vale which really might as well be free at the moment as long as you get on/off at Fenny or Bedford St John's, as plenty do to avoid paying. And sorting out the lack of a proper gateline at Euston, it really is bizarre that it only has partial revenue enforcement despite being the UK's most important intercity station and one of the busiest.

 

[johntea]

I read about one of these refund scams in the paper today (can't provide the full article as it is behind a paywall) but the summary seemed to be buy train tickets, claim delay repay for said train tickets (having done extensive research on the most commonly delayed services, they were computer science students so I asssume they used their skills to automate a lot of this), then refund them, also using 16 accounts and some sort of 20 SIM card adapter to spread out their claims

"Chinese students Li Liu and Wanqing Yu, who lived together in university accommodation “exploited a loophole” by seeking refunds on train tickets. But before the money was paid back, they would then seek compensation through the delay-repayment scheme"

Somehow they made around £140,000 from this scheme before getting caught which must have been a mind blowing amount of delay repay claims!

Source: https://www.yorkshireeveningpost.co...aud-train-firms-of-more-than-ps140000-5367269

 

[Haywain]

Somehow they made around £140,000 from this scheme before getting caught which must have been a mind blowing amount of delay repay claims!

Well, I doubt they were doing it using low value tickets.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I read about one of these refund scams in the paper today (can't provide the full article as it is behind a paywall) but the summary seemed to be buy train tickets, claim delay repay for said train tickets (having done extensive research on the most commonly delayed services, they were computer science students so I asssume they used their skills to automate a lot of this), then refund them, also using 16 accounts and some sort of 20 SIM card adapter to spread out their claims

"Chinese students Li Liu and Wanqing Yu, who lived together in university accommodation “exploited a loophole” by seeking refunds on train tickets. But before the money was paid back, they would then seek compensation through the delay-repayment scheme"

Somehow they made around £140,000 from this scheme before getting caught which must have been a mind blowing amount of delay repay claims!

That that was possible is clear incompetence. Either requesting a refund or Delay Repay should clearly count as a "scan" at the point of submission, thus preventing the other one taking place. Unless it was paper tickets, in which case barcodes on those are the fix.

 

[Benjwri]

Of course this NRCOT change wouldn’t stop gods anyways as they could just claim the train was disrupted as the refund reason, which it will have been to be able to claim delay repay.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course this NRCOT change wouldn’t stop gods anyways as they could just claim the train was disrupted as the refund reason, which it will have been to be able to claim delay repay.

Indeed.

My suspicion is that the majority of refund fraud is people claiming it on Trainline for relatively low value tickets, and Trainline's sliding scale of admin fee is probably at fault for that. Some of it might not even be fraud, rather just claiming a refund instead of Delay Repay by mistake because people are often confused between the two.

 

[AdamWW]

I doubt any of them are illegal nor unreasonable terms in a legal sense, but some of them are certainly unsavoury and anti-customer. Which is something that in a monopoly state-operated setting really needs checks and balances.

It seems to me that the railway is in quite a privileged position in that it can effectively re-write the law without even going through the process of delegated legislation, just by changing a contract.

Suddenly being on the wrong route becomes a criminal offence.

Will the next change be to do the same with off peak fares?

 

[Belperpete]

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.

You may not be able to buy the ticket you want, but you should surely be able to buy an e-ticket of some sort to enable you to travel.

I have had a similar issue when trying to buy a ticket from a TfW guard on-board. I wanted a ticket to a station that involved cross-London travel. TfW guards are not able to sell such tickets, so the guard insisted that I had to buy a ticket to London terminals. I can see the same argument used with e-tickets.

 

[joncombe]

Remember the Timetable of the Day nonsense which was never implemented in accordance with what was written and later had to be abandoned?

Was it? I thought it was still present in the conditions and that they went further and removed the statement about the timetable having to be published by 10pm even?

I still can't believe this is legal at least for those that bought tickets before any published timetable change? Surely if a train is delayed or cancelled after you buy a ticket the right to claim for any consequent delay should still exist? It shouldn't matter when the train was cancelled as to if you claim, as long as it was not known when the ticket was bought.

 

[Mark J]

1. 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...

That is utterly ridiculous.

I do not know why the EL is deemed to be of any difference to the rest of TFL Rail and NR.

It is obviously a ploy to get more people to buy a more expensive 1-6 Travelcard that they won't need!

 

[Belperpete]

On the change of route excess thing, perhaps it's my ignorance, but I don't know what the process is for doing this online? If it has to be done before boarding, what happens if the ticket office is closed?

I hope/assume that the usual exceptions for no ticketing facilities available would apply. However, as the majority of stations don't have any facilities for selling excess fares, only TVMs that can sell ordinary tickets, this would open a lorry-sized loophole in the regulation. As others have said, it will be instructive to see what the new conditions actually say.

 

[david1212]

.......

[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.

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!

The ticket office at my local station does not open on Sunday.

Therefore a few days before I go and buy walk-up ticket(s) dated at least outbound for travel if not return too on Sunday.
For whatever reason I do not travel.
Given the ticket office is closed the earliest I can refund is Monday but circumstances prevent this. Currently no problem but if this change goes through without exceptions I loose the total purchase cost.

There is a TVM but I don't want the hassle on the day of travel of arriving 15 mins early to buy tickets presuming the TVM actually is working and can sell the ticket(s) I require e.g. a chain of 3 split tickets.

[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.

While I can see how this would help eliminating doughnutting and short faring as stated several times it unfair for extending a journey when tickets for the full journey with the extension ticket purchased either by internet or from on-train staff before departure from the start of the extension can be produced.

 

[sheff1]

You may not be able to buy the ticket you want, but you should surely be able to buy an e-ticket of some sort to enable you to travel.

Buying 'some sort of ticket' and then making a different journey seems a surefire way of later appearing in the Disputes section where some posters would no doubt accuse you of fraud. Unless you mean buying one or more tickets which cost more than the one you actually want .... which maybe is what the TOCs want.

 

[redreni]

I hope/assume that the usual exceptions for no ticketing facilities available would apply. However, as the majority of stations don't have any facilities for selling excess fares, only TVMs that can sell ordinary tickets, this would open a lorry-sized loophole in the regulation. As others have said, it will be instructive to see what the new conditions actually say.

This thread is timely:

Off-peak to Anytime excess requirements

I am sure a great many excess fares that are owed go unpaid. Probably the overwhelming majority. That is not passengers' fault, it is train operating companies' fault entirely.

Criminalising failure to do the impossible before travelling is obviously unjust.

Without seeing the draft text it's impossible to know how this will interact with the rules on ticketless travel. It would appear there is a desire to treat situations where an excess is due but hasn't been paid before boarding as if they were the same as situations where no ticket is purchased before boarding. To me, that shows a quite stunning lack of thought and/or a want of understanding by the people involved. The situations are nothing alike.

Most of the time, most tickets you might want can be obtained either online or from a TVM before boarding. Excesses usually can't be.

Maybe the intention is simply to make it impossible, in most situations, to avail of the right to excess a ticket, thereby forcing people to buy an entirely new ticket. And at the same time preventing them getting a refund on the ticket they already held. So double-charging, in other words.

Looking at it like that, I'm not only wondering if Lord Hendy will be signing these changes off: I'm wondering if he may actually have banged them out in one of his furious emails to his officials?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Buying 'some sort of ticket' and then making a different journey seems a surefire way of later appearing in the Disputes section where some posters would no doubt accuse you of fraud. Unless you mean buying one or more tickets which cost more than the one you actually want .... which maybe is what the TOCs want.

It is possible at least in theory to overdistance excess to the full ticket needed when you get to a booking office. Though if you did it on arrival in London it'd probably be argued your ticket had ended so wasn't excessable.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Oct 2025 ==

Looking at it like that, I'm not only wondering if Lord Hendy will be signing these changes off: I'm wondering if he may actually have banged them out in one of his furious emails to his officials?

I certainly think he is unfit for his role and have said that before over past incidents. He is harmful to the railway and needs quietly ushering aside.

 

[sheff1]

It is possible at least in theory to overdistance excess to the full ticket needed when you get to a booking office.

The non e-ticketable through fare for the journey I made earlier this month is £84.35. The cheapest through fare which can be fulfilled by e-ticket is £138.05.

Buying an e- ticket for less than £84.35 to make part of the journey is clearly possible but I wouldn't fancy anyone's chances of easily getting such a ticket excessed at many (if not most) booking offices.

The fares from other unstaffed (and busier) stations with no TVMs would give an even geater differential.

 

[geoffk]

I think the experience of most posters here is that these changes are rarely made in passengers' interest.

 

[nilvaj395]

I think the experience of most posters here is that these changes are rarely made in passengers' interest.

Quite

 

[dasfvzcx]

The Elizabeth Line change is of interest for my travels. How will I, or anyone for that matter, be kept abreast of if and when this/a new NRCoT comes into effect?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The Elizabeth Line change is of interest for my travels. How will I, or anyone for that matter, be kept abreast of if and when this/a new NRCoT comes into effect?

I'd imagine when you get to a Lizzie gateline and are told you can't pass through it.

 

[Tester]

I'd imagine when you get to a Lizzie gateline and are told you can't pass through it.

The problem of course is that that happens now regardless of conditions!

I wonder if, when it really does come into force, they will be issued with ceremonial copies of the new conditions to wave at the hapless punters

 

[Bletchleyite]

The problem of course is that that happens now regardless of conditions!

I suspect this one is out of frustration, i.e. they have tried to get TfL to accept break of journey and they have flat refused. TfL effectively want to treat it as a Tube transfer rather than National Rail, it seems.

 

[Tester]

I suspect this one is out of frustration, i.e. they have tried to get TfL to accept break of journey and they have flat refused. TfL effectively want to treat it as a Tube transfer rather than National Rail, it seems.

This is very clear, but your original suggestion was.....

I'd imagine when you get to a Lizzie gateline and are told you can't pass through it.

.....which of course happens now

 

[AlterEgo]

I'd imagine when you get to a Lizzie gateline and are told you can't pass through it.

Already the case to be fair. The NRCoT is, in this case, currently catching up with the staff's own incompetence and ignorance and rewriting the rules to match it.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Already the case to be fair. The NRCoT is, in this case, currently catching up with the staff's own incompetence and ignorance and rewriting the rules to match it.

I suppose the issue is that you can't win them all. If TfL have flat refused, then changing the NRCoT which will affect a very small number of people (most people making a cross London journey won't want to randomly break it at a Lizzie station*) is probably less costly than pursuing TfL via a court case that they may not win to force them to honour it.

* There is a probably a reasonable chance you would get away with it at Farringdon, though, if you go to the Thameslink gateline to exit and re-enter.

 

[Tester]

I suppose the issue is that you can't win them all. If TfL have flat refused, then changing the NRCoT which will affect a very small number of people (most people making a cross London journey won't want to randomly break it at a Lizzie station*) is probably less costly than pursuing TfL via a court case that they may not win to force them to honour it.

* There is a probably a reasonable chance you would get away with it at Farringdon, though, if you go to the Thameslink gateline to exit and re-enter.

I admire your pragmatic nature - to me it's wrong and should be sorted!