(Emphasis added)
(13.2 appears to be missing so perhaps some re-numbering of Condition 13 is going to happen between now and publication).
I can attest to this one being true as Adam has emailed me personally on this subject
The Leeds-York line via Harrogate is rather notorious for Penalty Fares being issued when an excess should be charged as many people get the cheaper advance tickets and board short. A tiny percentage get their PFs overturned by quoting chapter and verse in their appeals. Seems these changes are going to align the NRCoT with the RPIs de facto behaviour, clearly some devilish passengers have been getting away with it for far too long!
Whenever I’ve extended journeys (in either England, wales and Scotland) I’ve never had any bother about it. Just pay the price of the ticket. I’ve also been allowed off peaks, railcard discounts ect aswell when I’ve asked.
Quoting my post from earlier - I agree with @furlong here. Removing the Routeing Guide is the most problematic part of the proposed wording @redreni has shared.
Yes. It will be interesting to see what the new TfL T&R (which presumably need to be published) says about this. Currently its very explicit that 'Maltese Cross' ticket holders make end their cross-London transfer early at any Zone 1 station.
It's far worse than that. I can't see how it's possibly an enforceable term, being buried pages into a set of conditions that nobody could reasonably be expected to read.
www.railforums.co.uk
It's not a break of journey but I agree that it may be problematic. In practice most such tickets would probably work the barriers anyway. If they have a Maltese cross, Moorgate is also a recognised cross-London interchange station so the barriers should accept it. Similarly with a zonal ticket.
I understand that the person who wrote T&R left TfL (possibly retirement) so I don't think it's going to get published again unless someone else takes up the baton.
The argument would be that it's still valid on a direct train (and most people make journeys that just involve a direct train). Alternatively one can look at a journey planner such as NRE to see what itineraries comes up.
The very small number of users includes most of the ticket retailers, so there would be very little to be saved as websites still need to be told what they can sell.
The whole point of that provision is that you don't need an excess - because the more expensive fare is already valid via the cheaper route.
The underlying data feed will clearly still be maintained, but it's a question of whether they keep the public-facing text version of that in perpetuity.
Yep, which makes little sense when time-based excesses are still available and it is now less clear than before what route restrictions actually mean - since it's unclear whether you can refer to the Routeing Guide to validate the use of the "split route" principle.
Not in my experience. They first filter by overall permitted routes for the journey and then further filter out journeys that fail to comply with the required via/avoid locations encoded in the electronic data defining the route code/restriction.
True, although I suspect they will still be offered at ticket offices.
It's appallingly badly drafted. I suspect deliberately so.
Definitely. But it's been done very badly. So badly, in fact, that it doesn't actually back up the current practice. If anything, it undermines it.
The bit about payment by cash seems incompatible at best and directly contrary at worst to recent Government initiatives about ensuring customers in the most general sense can pay by cash. Methinks the media and politicians will be all over that if it goes ahead.
This is precisely what is happening. The Conditions keeping up with current malpractice by choosing to back it up rather than properly rethink and draft a solid contract.
