Forthcoming changes to National Rail Conditions of Travel

[Egg Centric]

I'm looking forward to the first attempt to enforce the costs bit of 9.3 when they have a civil claim with most of the journeys being under the previous conditions of travel.

 

[Watershed]

I'm looking forward to the first attempt to enforce the costs bit of 9.3 when they have a civil claim with most of the journeys being under the previous conditions of travel.

Indeed. Are TOCs going to try and claim that even a single purchase under the new NRCoT would legitimises them recovering costs for investigating past purchases made under the old NRCoT?

I suspect the answer is yes, because the primary aim of the changes is clearly to legitimise existing bad practice, but it remains highly questionable nonetheless.

 

[Wolfie]

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?

Methinks that the ORR/rail industry is getting ever closer to action from a body such as Which? with legal super complainant status.

 

[redreni]

To be fair if we move nationally to single fare pricing (even if the option of returns remains at twice the single) there is far less need for excesses provided you can refund a walk-up fare on the day and buy another via the desired route...ooops!

I haven't seen the wording of the provision I'm told will remove the right to on-the-day refunds. Removing the contractual entitlement is one thing, but equally important will be what retailers will be permitted to do. Will it be like the £5 admin fee, which is permitted to be charged under the NRCoT but which retailers can waive in individual cases, or generally, if they wish?

If I were a retailer I would be saying look, if my customer has bought a route-restricted ticket from A to B, I should be allowed to give them an on-the-day refund on that ticket provided they purchase another ticket from A to B, for the same date, with a different route restriction. Because that's not really a refund, it's a change of route excess.

It could be applied with the proviso that if the new ticket is cheaper than the original, you don't get the money back, You'd say the on-the-day refund is subject to the purchase of a new ticket and capped at the price of the new ticket. So very similar, in fact, to the way many retailers currently handle date and time changes to Advances.

 

[Wolfie]

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

Supposedly Northern had no automatic checks in place to ensure that delay repay wasn't claimed on tickets which has already been actioned for refund. Woeful procedural failure!

 

[Bletchleyite]

If I were a retailer I would be saying look, if my customer has bought a route-restricted ticket from A to B, I should be allowed to give them an on-the-day refund on that ticket provided they purchase another ticket from A to B, for the same date, with a different route restriction. Because that's not really a refund, it's a change of route excess.

Indeed. It should also in my view be possible to change the date of the ticket so you can decide to travel tomorrow if you wish.

 

[Wolfie]

As regards the Lizzie Line break of journey, I don't understand why they are writing this into the NCoT. Why not just give the relevant tickets a restriction code that prohibits BoJ? Many (most?) tickets for travel along the N.Wales Coast, for example, have a 2A restriction banning BoJ, why not just do something similar for tickets via the Lizzie Line?

That might result in problems for at least some TfL-issued tickets - can LU or DLR ticket machines even issue such tickets? You can certainly buy tickets to Lizzy line stations from them.

 

[AdamWW]

Regarding "The Train Company shall be entitled to recover its costs of this follow up (including claim or prosecution costs) from you whenever such costs are incurred. The sum claimed will not exceed the actual costs of such follow up steps taken."

I appreciate that it says they can't claim more than they spent, but wouldn't it be usual in a contract to specify something like "reasonable costs"?

Particularly when it's a contract that is effectively presented as take it or leave it and applies to what is often a neccessity - it's not like choosing a phone company or streaming service.

I suppose it's largely academic because normally when these costs are claimed it's part of the sum offered to buy them off instead of prosecuting, so they can say what they like anyway.

 

[MrJeeves]

If you mean "where you have a geographical route on a ticket you can use routes to it and then routes from it", that's implemented into planners.

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.

Unless I'm misunderstanding what is being discussed, journey planners should support this. It's one of the spec requirements, and TrainSplit, OTRL and NRE all support it for example.

My go-to test is normally Shrewsbury - Clapham Junction via Salisbury, where Warminster-Salisbury is not a mapped route, but it is allowed via the split routeing rule.

 

[Haywain]

I haven't seen the wording of the provision I'm told will remove the right to on-the-day refunds. Removing the contractual entitlement is one thing, but equally important will be what retailers will be permitted to do. Will it be like the £5 admin fee, which is permitted to be charged under the NRCoT but which retailers can waive in individual cases, or generally, if they wish?

From what I have heard, it is perhaps not going to be a blanket ban on refunds on and after the date of travel but a tightening of how and why they can be given. So, no automated approval of refunds, stricter control over the reasons for which they are granted and better monitoring of who is claiming and when or how often. Also possibly coupled with tighter time limits for claiming. It is suggested that most train operators (and retailers?) are against this as it dramatically increases workload with manual approval of most refund requests, and that their TIS cannot be ready for this in anything like the required timescales.

I think it worth emphasising again where the change is being driven from, and noting that it is not RDG or its members. I'm drafting a letter to my MP about this over the weekend and I would strongly encourage others to do the same (copying in Transport Focus and/or London Travelwatch).

 

[dodecahedron67]

Not sure if it has been mentioned yet or not, but a staff brief confirming these changes has come out today from RDG. I won’t post the whole thing, but paraphrased these are the ‘key changes’

• Minor revisions to Parts A and B to reinforce that terms and conditions include those for both the ticket held and any Railcard being used in conjunction with that ticket.


• New paragraph to make it clear to customers that a breach to the Conditions may result in enforcement action.


• Changes to parts of Conditions 4, 5, 6 and 8 to strengthen the ‘Buy Before You Board’ policy where ticket issuing facilities are available, and to reinforce that any Railcard held must be valid.


• Changes to Conditions 9 and 10 to clarify the remedies available to Train Companies if a valid ticket is not held.


• Deletion of Conditions 9.5.2 and 13.2, to remove the exception of ‘wrong route’ from the full range of potential penalties that may be applied.


• Amendment to 10.1.1 to remove any reference to Permit to Travel machines. Please ensure that any PERTIS machines are covered up and switched off pending removal.


• Change to the Introduction of Part D to make it clear that where a Railcard is used, the terms and conditions for the ticket held apply as well as those for the Railcard.


• Changes to Conditions 12, 13 and 16 to clarify how customers can check for valid routes by using an accredited National Rail journey planner.


• Amendment to Condition 16.5 (previously 16.4) to clarify limitations to Break of Journey when crossing London on TfL Underground or Elizabeth line services.


• New Condition 28.3 to reflect current policy on the use of alternative trains when there is a cancellation to a booked service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Interesting that this marks the end of PERTIS - there are a few left still (e.g. Beaulieu Road). Presumably these will generally have been replaced by TVMs. I wonder will Promise to Pay roll out nationally as a result or remain a Northern thing only? WMT TVMs on the WCML are card only but they just say to board without a ticket if paying cash, there's no PtP feature.

I wonder why they're so insistent on removing the "wrong route" exception - is it perhaps to do with the fact that you can only excess geographical routes and not TOC ones, and so on board arguments are resulting? I can't really see why it would cause that much trouble, and there's now no need to worry about revenue apportionment as it all goes to the Treasury (bar open access, but they aren't really relevant to geographic routes).

 

[ainsworth74]

A copy of the upcoming new version of the NRCoT is attached along with the comparison table. This is due to take effect from 23 November 2025. I believe that has now been distributed internally to all within the industry so can't exactly be considered secret anymore! I also think it's safe to say that no changes are likely to be made at this point but there's probably no reason not to at least try lobby MPs.

 

[AdamWW]

Interesting that this marks the end of PERTIS - there are a few left still (e.g. Beaulieu Road). Presumably these will generally have been replaced by TVMs. I wonder will Promise to Pay roll out nationally as a result or remain a Northern thing only?

Also a TfW thing though not publicised particularly well.

 

[blimmo]

There is a new "INFO" box between sections 12.1 and 12.2 which includes the wording

Restrictions may apply to require
you to use a specific timed service or services; to
use only the services of one or more specified Train
Companies; or to restrict you to train services
indicated by a particular brand name or identity.

They seem to be trying to enforce GTR's brand restrictions but they have put it in a non-contractual INFO section.
Why they didn't just make this an actual condition and instead just hint that it's not allowed is completely baffling.

Oops that was already there apparently they've just moved it slightly further up for some reason...

 

[swt_passenger]

I wonder if, (based on discussions in previous threads), section 8.2 should be made more explicit in explaining that some railcards introduce significant time restrictions. Eg the argument that’s been raised here that although a Network Card is in use the ‘ticket’ bought with it doesn’t obviously state the valid time?

 

[styles]

Bit of an aside but, if you bought your ticket for say December, before the changes to the NRCoT come in on 23/11, presumably a passenger and an operator would be bound by the terms as they stood when they purchased the ticket rather than on the date of travel?

If I were to buy a ticket on the forum website today for example, it says:

By clicking checkout, I accept the limitations of split ticketing, along with Raileasy's terms and conditions and the National Rail Conditions of Travel.

And in the NRCoT it says:

The terms and conditions of these National Rail Conditions of Travel are set out below in Part
C to Part H (the “Conditions”). They comprise the binding contract that comes into effect
between you and the Train Companies1
that provide scheduled rail services on the National
Rail Network, when you purchase a Ticket.

 

[MrJeeves]

Bit of an aside but, if you bought your ticket for say December, before the changes to the NRCoT come in on 23/11, presumably a passenger and an operator would be bound by the terms as they stood when they purchased the ticket rather than on the date of travel?

Yes, the version of the NRCoT which is in force at the time of purchase applies.

My understanding is that RDG do not publish the new version in advance, so it will only be published officially from the date the new conditions take effect,

 

[gabrielhj07]

The effective removal of the Routeing Guide as a means to ascertain valid routes will surely have the effect of time limiting otherwise unrestricted tickets? I.e. "Your ticket is valid as long as you follow one of these itineraries." A very passenger-unfriendly move purely to create Advances in all but name.


The change surrounding excess fares is particularly worrying. Earlier this week I was declined the opportunity to purchase an excess fare on 3 separate occasions for the same journey. If that had been a change of route excess I would have been liable for a PF unless I bought a new ticket, although, somewhat ironically, I would not have been able to refund the unused portion as its period of validity had already started!

 

[AdamWW]

Yes, the version of the NRCoT which is in force at the time of purchase applies.

My understanding is that RDG do not publish the new version in advance, so it will only be published officially from the date the new conditions take effect,

On previous occasions I don't recall seeing any handy summary of changes as is often provided when banks and the like change the T&Cs.

Have I missed them, or are passengers expected to read through the whole thing trying to spot changes?

 

[Bletchleyite]

The effective removal of the Routeing Guide as a means to ascertain valid routes will surely have the effect of time limiting otherwise unrestricted tickets? I.e. "Your ticket is valid as long as you follow one of these itineraries." A very passenger-unfriendly move purely to create Advances in all but name.

How would it do that in the general case particularly an Anytime?

What is a concern is that time restrictions implemented in the planners become the ones that matter, though - which would be an issue with WMT's (Super) Off Peaks. But the section does say Routes, not Times.

The change surrounding excess fares is particularly worrying. Earlier this week I was declined the opportunity to purchase an excess fare on 3 separate occasions for the same journey. If that had been a change of route excess I would have been liable for a PF unless I bought a new ticket, although, somewhat ironically, I would not have been able to refund the unused portion as its period of validity had already started!

Yes, I have an issue with this given how hard it is to get excesses, particularly zero-fare ones.

 

[sot]

There is a new "INFO" box between sections 12.1 and 12.2 which includes the wording

They seem to be trying to enforce GTR's brand restrictions but they have put it in a non-contractual INFO section.
Why they didn't just make this an actual condition and instead just hint that it's not allowed is completely baffling.

Oops that was already there apparently they've just moved it slightly further up for some reason...

I believe this was in a previous version again in the information box.

Unless something majorly changes though, the legislation formed during privatisation still holds and only allows the restriction by TOC or geographic route?

I suppose after un-privatisation this can be brushed under the carpet and they will magically allow brand restricted routes.

 

[Kite159]

Maybe moving towards the industry doing away with route restrictions on tickets as being 'confusing' in the future GBR's fare restructuring (because after-all why do you need "Via Three Bridges" or "Via Barnham" (etc) on flexible tickets when all the money is flowing into one giant GBR shaped pot). No doubt the powers that be, will determine advance fares are the way forward for people wanting to save money by going via a slower route, the only flexible fares left will be "Any permitted". Similar to "TOC only" routes, will they survive post GBR or will they get replaced with yet more fixed time advance tickets?

@Bletchleyite zero-fare excesses are a pain as in some TOCs the guard has to account for every one issued with a reason, even if it's something like "customer wanted to extend ticket from X to Y" where there is no station group (i.e. Exeter) but the cost is the same.

 

[pwharley]

On previous occasions I don't recall seeing any handy summary of changes as is often provided when banks and the like change the T&Cs.

Have I missed them, or are passengers expected to read through the whole thing trying to spot changes?

You've missed them. See post #193 by ainsworth74.

 

[ainsworth74]

You've missed them. See post #193 by ainsworth74.

I'm not sure those are actually aimed at Passengers however...

 

[Starmill]

From what I have heard, it is perhaps not going to be a blanket ban on refunds on and after the date of travel but a tightening of how and why they can be given. So, no automated approval of refunds, stricter control over the reasons for which they are granted and better monitoring of who is claiming and when or how often. Also possibly coupled with tighter time limits for claiming. It is suggested that most train operators (and retailers?) are against this as it dramatically increases workload with manual approval of most refund requests, and that their TIS cannot be ready for this in anything like the required timescales.

I think it worth emphasising again where the change is being driven from, and noting that it is not RDG or its members. I'm drafting a letter to my MP about this over the weekend and I would strongly encourage others to do the same (copying in Transport Focus and/or London Travelwatch).

Indeed. The rise in fraud is essentially self-inflicted. A decision was made around 10 years ago to largely transition away from a "single token" ticket on card which can't be copied, which is easy and nearly instant to cancel with a ink and / or a clip, and which must be physically returned in order to claim a refund, to one where tickets are only as good as the barcode and database.

Despite having well over a decade to prepare for this change, most operators haven't installed new hardware and got reliable high speed scanning equipment into the hands of their onboard and revenue protection staff. A huge number of guards still check tickets with barcodes using their eyes alone. It's quite remarkable that an agreement for conductors, where present, to scan tickets wasn't reached a year or so ahead of their first mainstream use. It should have been really obvious that this would enable a rise in false claims, refund fraud, fake tickets and transferred or re-used tickets.

 

[Bikeman78]

Maybe it should be made explicit, but unless anybody knows of anyone who has been pulled up for buying a ticket to continue their journey on board, but before the train called at the split point, I do wonder if this is really a major issue?

How would this even come about? If a ticket check takes place after the split point, just show the ticket that is valid for that part of the journey. It's possible that it could be the same ticket inspector as earlier in the journey and they might recognise you but it's pretty unlikely.

 

[AdamWW]

You've missed them. See post #193 by ainsworth74.

I hadn't downloaded those.

But anyway I was talking about previous changes - was a similar table made available on the National Rail web site for the general public? I don't remember seeing anything like that.

 

[trainophile]

I do think there needs to be some leniency in times of major disruption, e.g. my example earlier of a succession of cancelled trains leaving me little option but to jump on a train and buy a ticket on board at the first opportunity. The railway does have some responsibility towards innocent, well-intended passengers who might otherwise become stranded.

How do these new restrictions fit in with the existing thing about being re-routed if your delay is going to be longer than one hour? Is that continuing or will they find a way of disallowing that too?

 

[Starmill]

I hadn't downloaded those.

But anyway I was talking about previous changes - was a similar table made available on the National Rail web site for the general public? I don't remember seeing anything like that.

I'm not aware of anything for which the general public is the intended audience ever having been made. It's unlikely to be this time.