Forthcoming changes to National Rail Conditions of Travel

[redreni]

That's not how I read the new wording - it is specific about a cancellation after YOUR purchase - and the sentence is active and specific "we will advise you". It doesn't say "you may check some website repeatedly to make sure your train is still running and you won't need to set off earlier if you still want to arrive on time". The wording is triggered at the time of the cancellation and puts the onus on the railway to get the information to the passenger rather than placing any obligation upon the passenger to actively go and check repeatedly that a rare and unlikely event hasn't occurred!

It's not rocket science. We know that some retailers have already implemented early versions of this and industry systems are available so it seems reasonable to believe that this has been added to the NRCOT to push industry laggards into rolling this out universally.

What the customer may reasonably expect in the way of notification is context-specific, surely?

I would expect notification if I had bought my ticket online because they have my contact details. If I have bought my ticket without identifying myself or providing contact details, then the notification will inevitably have to be by way of a general, widely publicised notice.

I posted the other week about a ticket office clerk who refused to sell me a flexible ticket unless I told him exactly when I would be travelling, wouldn't accept "I haven't decided yet" as an answer and insisted on issuing itineraries for the outward and return journeys. Every ticket office clerk would presumably have to do that, as well as collecting contact details, if they were going to notify every passenger or group individually about cancellations.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

What the customer may reasonably expect in the way of notification is context-specific, surely?

I would expect notification if I had bought my ticket online because they have my contact details. If I have bought my ticket without identifying myself or providing contact details, then the notification will inevitably have to be by way of a general, widely publicised notice.

I posted the other week about a ticket office clerk who refused to sell me a flexible ticket unless I told him exactly when I would be travelling, wouldn't accept "I haven't decided yet" as an answer and insisted on issuing itineraries for the outward and return journeys. Every ticket office clerk would presumably have to do that, as well as collecting contact details, if they were going to notify every passenger or group individually about cancellations.

There clearly are people who wish to end the 'walk-up' railway, perhaps only for long distance journeys though.

 

[jfollows]

I have bought tickets online, provided contact information, and not been notified of changes and cancellations. If the retailer is going to commit to notifying me, maybe it’s not a bad thing, but currently it just feels like no advantage to me to do so.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I have bought tickets online, provided contact information, and not been notified of changes and cancellations. If the retailer is going to commit to notifying me, maybe it’s not a bad thing, but currently it just feels like no advantage to me to do so.

I have had the same, never received notification of problems, nor automatic Delay Repay. With very rare exceptions I now only buy flexible tickets though, with a forced 'itinerary' simply to complete the transaction.

 

[ainsworth74]

This is something where there really needs to be some guidance issued.

The right to a change of route excess has been removed from condition 9.5 which means if you don't obtain the excess before commencing your journey then the train company is entitled to deal with you as though you do not hold a ticket at all (i.e. sell a new undiscounted ticket, Penalty Fare or prosecute as per condition 9)

On the other hand, condition 6 says that if there were no facilities for the issue of the Ticket you require then you must buy an appropriate Ticket to complete your journey as soon as you are reasonably able to do so. This suggests to me that you may board the train and purchase the excess at the first available opportunity.

However, there must be a reason why the entitlement to a change of route excess has been removed from condition 9.5 (especially as the entitlement to an excess if you travel with an off peak ticket at an invalid time has been retained). We also know that obtaining excess fares at ticket offices is nototiously difficult so there is much opportunity for misunderstanding and confusion.

Yes there really does need some guidance. Surely the intention cannot be in my scenario above that if an RPI comes across me they would report for prosecution or issue a UFN (if it was on LNER for instance). That seems barmy and anti-passenger even by railway standards. But at this moment in time appears to be what would occur...

I think the existing wording was far too vague. The phrase "are using a route for which your Ticket is not valid" could extend well beyond not following the geographic route on the ticket. I would bet that, instead of thinking of some way to reword this to be more restrictive, they simply removed it entirely.

Someone could probably argue that their London Terminals to Reading ticket, used via Coventry, was simply them using a route for which their ticket wasn't valid.

You know I reckon you're onto something there. It would certainly be on brand to fix one thing by breaking another.

 

[MrJeeves]

If there is to be a widespread rollout of such notification it needs to be an 'opt-in' service and not an 'opt-out' hidden at the bottom of a page (or off-screen as per Trainsplit).

There is no opt-out for service notifications such as these. Not from TrainSplit, and not from any other online retailer.

 

[AlterEgo]

What the customer may reasonably expect in the way of notification is context-specific, surely?

I would expect notification if I had bought my ticket online because they have my contact details. If I have bought my ticket without identifying myself or providing contact details, then the notification will inevitably have to be by way of a general, widely publicised notice.

Of course, but the NRCoT are so poorly drafted - as they are every time they are revised - that ambiguity is always the key feature of the document!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I think the existing wording was far too vague. The phrase "are using a route for which your Ticket is not valid" could extend well beyond not following the geographic route on the ticket. I would bet that, instead of thinking of some way to reword this to be more restrictive, they simply removed it entirely.

Someone could probably argue that their London Terminals to Reading ticket, used via Coventry, was simply them using a route for which their ticket wasn't valid.

This is a very good point I hadn't thought of - it would indeed seem to encompass all cases where you weren't on a route for which your ticket was valid, including, for instance, going from Milton Keynes Central to Bletchley via Inverness (which you could do without doubling back I think). I had struggled to understand why that right would cause problems, but this is indeed such a case where it might.

It's difficult to come up with a wording that does cover the reasonable situations, because there isn't a ticket valid via every single route that might be reasonable to want to use, and if you allow excessing to multiple tickets then it's hard to write a rule that would allow that where the route was actually reasonable but not allow it where the passenger was obviously taking the Mickey. Plus I suppose you would have got arguments regarding the inability to excess TOC specific tickets which might I suppose have led to assaults.

I guess with the move towards single fare pricing the need for route excesses reduces anyway, though it's made harder by the forthcoming reduction in refund rights.

 

[Kite159]

Ah service update emails. When you get flooded with texts/emails when your booked train changes from running 5 minutes late to 6 minutes late and back to only 5 minutes late etc.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I think the existing wording was far too vague. The phrase "are using a route for which your Ticket is not valid" could extend well beyond not following the geographic route on the ticket. I would bet that, instead of thinking of some way to reword this to be more restrictive, they simply removed it entirely.

Someone could probably argue that their London Terminals to Reading ticket, used via Coventry, was simply them using a route for which their ticket wasn't valid.

That is genuinely something I hadn't thought of, and you are very probably right. I suppose we're all so used to constructing routeings and dealing with excesses that we assumed it applied to that, and not something much more simple.

"I haven't short fared, I'm just using a route for which my ticket isn't valid", says the chap or chapess who's just used a Cross Gates to Leeds single for a journey from Manchester.

 

[ABB125]

That is genuinely something I hadn't thought of, and you are very probably right. I suppose we're all so used to constructing routeings and dealing with excesses that we assumed it applied to that, and not something much more simple.

"I haven't short fared, I'm just using a route for which my ticket isn't valid", says the chap or chapess who's just used a Cross Gates to Leeds single for a journey from Manchester.

I wonder if it's a direct result of my (completely legitimate due to Trainline incompetence!) New Street to University via Aberdeen trip back in January 2022?

 

[_toommm_]

I wonder if it's a direct result of my (completely legitimate due to Trainline incompetence!) New Street to University via Aberdeen trip back in January 2022?

A good one I saw was Manchester Piccadilly to Manchester Airport via Penzance in 2020ish

 

[KirkstallOne]

Apologies if this has been covered, but where does this leave tickets sold by a guard on board? From my reading of the new conditions they are invalid unless one of 6.1 applies, so in effect we will have guards selling invalid tickets.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I wonder if it's a direct result of my (completely legitimate due to Trainline incompetence!) New Street to University via Aberdeen trip back in January 2022?

Ironically that would now be unequivocally valid under the new rules, which defines a valid route as one for which you have obtained an itinerary.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Nov 2025 ==

From my reading of the new conditions they are invalid unless one of 6.1 applies, so in effect we will have guards selling invalid tickets.

It’s yet more sloppy wording.

I’d agree with your interpretation. If you boarded without buying your ticket first then they will treat you as having no ticket. A guard can regularise that by selling you a ticket. But then it says the ticket you’ve just bought on board (or at your destination station) will be invalid. So they can treat you as having an invalid ticket.

So yes, you could be in the ridiculous position where you’ve bought your ticket from the guard and, if an RPI takes exception at the destination, they could still Penalty Fare you or write you up for prosecution.

And I’d have very little faith that some of the TOCs wouldn’t gladly take this opportunity for double dipping.

The whole clause is idiotic. I know what they’re trying to achieve, but all they’ve done is create a situation where someone buys a ticket on their phone after boarding will be financially penalised more than someone who doesn’t and tries to hide or blag it. I’m not sure that’s an incentive they want to create.

 

[redreni]

I think the existing wording was far too vague. The phrase "are using a route for which your Ticket is not valid" could extend well beyond not following the geographic route on the ticket. I would bet that, instead of thinking of some way to reword this to be more restrictive, they simply removed it entirely.

Someone could probably argue that their London Terminals to Reading ticket, used via Coventry, was simply them using a route for which their ticket wasn't valid.

if that is the problem they were trying to solve, it's an absolute sledgehammer to crack a nut. Just re-word it so it says if you are travelling on a route for which your ticket is not valid, then provided a ticket between the same origin and destination is available that allows the route you are taking, you will be charged the difference in fare (etc).

 

[Mainline421]

Ironically that would now be unequivocally valid under the new rules, which defines a valid route as one for which you have obtained an itinerary.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 26 Nov 2025 ==


It’s yet more sloppy wording.

I’d agree with your interpretation. If you boarded without buying your ticket first then they will treat you as having no ticket. A guard can regularise that by selling you a ticket. But then it says the ticket you’ve just bought on board (or at your destination station) will be invalid. So they can treat you as having an invalid ticket.

So yes, you could be in the ridiculous position where you’ve bought your ticket from the guard and, if an RPI takes exception at the destination, they could still Penalty Fare you or write you up for prosecution.

And I’d have very little faith that some of the TOCs wouldn’t gladly take this opportunity for double dipping.

The whole clause is idiotic. I know what they’re trying to achieve, but all they’ve done is create a situation where someone buys a ticket on their phone after boarding will be financially penalised more than someone who doesn’t and tries to hide or blag it. I’m not sure that’s an incentive they want to create.

I'm not sure that would hold up in court, a ticket is authority to travel and the guard is the company making an offer. Whereas buying one yourself on your phone is clearly not something that was mutually agreed upon, although even then it's likely to create issues for passengers legitimately starting short. There are serious questions to be asked about the proofreading of the new version though

 

[Watershed]

All of these changes highlight how utterly incompetent the industry is with drafting the NRCoT. So much ambiguity, so many obvious situations that haven't been considered... It's as if they have never been passed by a legal team at all!

The frustrating part is that those in the industry who have raised these kinds of concerns have been told to get lost (in as many words) - "it's already been authorised by the DfT", "it's an edge case", "it will be addressed on a case by case basis".

Those reading this thread could do with thinking - "is it me they're talking about?"

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'm not sure that would hold up in court, a ticket is authority to travel and the guard is the company making an offer.

The traditional parts of making a contract- invitation to treat, offer, acceptance, and consideration- aren't really relevant to that the NRCOT now says. An authorised online retailer is just the same as an authorised offline retailer (i.e. the guard) in contract law. And when you buy a ticket you agree to the contractual terms, which are set out in the NRCOT.

The specific conditions ion NRCOT now say this:
6.2 In any circumstances other than those set out at 6.1 above, in the event that you purchase a Ticket after you board a train (either onboard the train using an internet service or upon arrival at your destination station) the Train Company is entitled to treat any such Ticket as an invalid Ticket and take action in accordance with Condition 9 accordingly.

9.2 If you are unable to present a valid Ticket (including supporting documentation as outlined at Condition 9.1) when asked to do so and the conditions set out in Condition 6 do not apply, we are permitted in law to take one or more of the following measures:
9.2.1 To charge the full undiscounted single fare to a station directly served by the train that you are on. You will not be entitled to any discounts or special terms, or to buy a Ticket to a station other than one served by the train that you are on; or
9.2.2 To charge you a Penalty Fare when indicated by notices at stations served by trains with a Penalty Fare scheme in place (see Condition 10); or
9.2.3 To report you for prosecution for a criminal offence under the Railway Byelaws or other applicable legislation. Prosecution may be brought in addition to or in parallel with civil enforcement or recovery may follow initial steps for civil enforcement or recovery.

The conditions state that they can do "one or more" of the sanctions, so, yes, a guard could sell you a ticket on board or an excess fares window could sell you a ticket, and an RPI could then issue you a Penalty Fare for the same matter. The conditions don't distinguish between buying on board from an app/website or from a person, likewise they don't distinguish between buying at the destination from an app/website or from an excess fares window.

Whether this would "stand up in court" I don't know. But the TOCs' prosecution teams do lots of things that probably wouldn't stand up in court because the threat of prosecution is so strong.

All of these changes highlight how utterly incompetent the industry is with drafting the NRCoT. So much ambiguity, so many obvious situations that haven't been considered... It's as if they have never been passed by a legal team at all!

I'm sure the NRCOT has been drafted by a lawyer. It doesn't read as though it was written by a well-meaning amateur.

Whether it is competent lawyer, I wouldn't like to say.

 

[AlterEgo]

The conditions state that they can do "one or more" of the sanctions, so, yes, a guard could sell you a ticket on board or an excess fares window could sell you a ticket, and an RPI could then issue you a Penalty Fare for the same matter.

No, they couldn't in the case of selling it on board.

As the Conditions you quote say, the ticket is not valid if you buy after boarding only in the two following scenarios:

(either onboard the train using an internet service or upon arrival at your destination station)

Those are two discrete instances.

The conditions don't distinguish between buying on board from an app/website or from a person

They do!

 

[Tetchytyke]

No, they couldn't in the case of selling it on board.

As the Conditions you quote say, the ticket is not valid if you buy after boarding only in the two following scenarios:

(either onboard the train using an internet service or upon arrival at your destination station)

Those are two discrete instances.

The use of parentheses makes it much more ambiguous, in my opinion. They act as clarification but are those merely examples and, if so, are they indicative or exhaustive examples?

I'm not so convinced that the way 6.2 is worded doesn't prevent a ticket bought from a guard or revenue collector on board the train from being considered to be invalid. It certainly doesn't prevent one being bought at an excess fares window or from a TVM on arrival from being invalid (although in practice these will usually be disabled during a revenue operation).

I obviously prefer your interpretation, it goes without saying.

 

[AlterEgo]

The use of parentheses makes it much more ambiguous, in my opinion. They act as clarification but are those merely examples and, if so, are they indicative or exhaustive examples?

I'm not so convinced that the way 6.2 is worded doesn't prevent a ticket bought from a guard or revenue collector on board the train from being considered to be invalid. It certainly doesn't prevent one being bought at an excess fares window or from a TVM on arrival from being invalid (although in practice these will usually be disabled during a revenue operation).

I obviously prefer your interpretation, it goes without saying.

My view is the parentheses clarify the circumstances although they are entirely redundant if so. It is so poorly drafted. Again.

 

[redreni]

All of these changes highlight how utterly incompetent the industry is with drafting the NRCoT. So much ambiguity, so many obvious situations that haven't been considered... It's as if they have never been passed by a legal team at all!

The frustrating part is that those in the industry who have raised these kinds of concerns have been told to get lost (in as many words) - "it's already been authorised by the DfT", "it's an edge case", "it will be addressed on a case by case basis".

Those reading this thread could do with thinking - "is it me they're talking about?"

A lawyer who knows nothing of railway ticketing or the details of what happens on the ground, in situations that may be relatively common yet outside the lawyer's own experience, is entirely reliant on the information presented to him by the client.

So, naturally, he may not know when he is imposing a requirement on the consumer that is unreasonable and likely to be practically impossible in many cases (such as to obtain a change of route excess before boarding). It's up to the client to know that, and to care, and to explain to the lawyer how stuff works.

As it is, we're surely looking at unfair contractual terms in some foreseeable situations, aren't we?

 

[Tetchytyke]

My view is the parentheses clarify the circumstances although they are entirely redundant if so. It is so poorly drafted. Again.

Absolutely. The fact @KirkstallOne and I have taken one interpretation and you the other shows just how badly drafted they are. These sorts of things are quite simple and shouldn't be ambiguous.

 

[Mainline421]

An authorised online retailer is just the same as an authorised offline retailer (i.e. the guard) in contract law. And when you buy a ticket you agree to the contractual terms, which are set out in the NRCOT.

Not really because there's nothing to suggest that the ticket sold by an online retailer is still valid on the train you're currently on board.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As it is, we're surely looking at unfair contractual terms in some foreseeable situations, aren't we?

By the wording I'm certainly seeing a problem whereby RPIs might penalise someone who bought an extension ticket while on board but before leaving the validity of the ticket they hold, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. However if they then left the train and reboarded it would become valid...

 

[fandroid]

By the wording I'm certainly seeing a problem whereby RPIs might penalise someone who bought an extension ticket while on board but before leaving the validity of the ticket they hold, which is a perfectly reasonable thing to do. However if they then left the train and reboarded it would become valid...

This scenario was envisaged earlier in the thread. A quick hop off, wave to the guard, and hop on again. (On DOO services, should we wave to the driver?)

 

[redreni]

This scenario was envisaged earlier in the thread. A quick hop off, wave to the guard, and hop on again. (On DOO services, should we wave to the driver?)

Waving is surely optional?

 

[rb124]

I have now been given some of the specific wording that will be in the new version of the NRCoT.

It is my understanding that I've been given this information - and I am posting this here - to allow forum members the opportunity to comment, discuss and raise any concerns. The following observation is mine: if anyone thinks they may have spotted a way of interpreting any of the text quoted below that is more favourable to passengers than the authors might intend, please think carefully when posting here at this stage, as the wording could yet be tightened up.

I understand the conditions relating to refunds are not expected to take effect until April (which I assume is to give retailers time to implement new policies should they wish, or indeed if they are required to), but everything else that has been mentioned will be introduced before the end of the year. Likely at the end of November. Quotes below are taken directly from the new edition of the NRCoT, obviously it could still change between now and publication, but this is the current wording in the new NRCoT.

Regarding the changes to buying on board the wording is:



(Emphasis added)

Regarding the changes to excesses on board:




The condition which allows the recovery of costs is below:




The wording in relation to Crossrail/Elizabeth Line break of journey is:




Finally on the routeing guide:



(13.2 appears to be missing so perhaps some re-numbering of Condition 13 is going to happen between now and publication).

I note that in the now published version that "13.2" is still, very unhelpfully, missing...

 

[ainsworth74]

I believe earlier there was some discussion about whether Transport Focus had been consulted about these changes. A Freedom of Information request has now been shared with me which yielded a copy of the TF response to the RDG (dated 2 April 2025) and also a copy of the draft NRCoT as they stood when sent to TF (dated 5 March 2025). Both are attached.

I actually found the TF response to be quite heartening as they seemed to focus on very similar issues that we ourselves have on this thread noted and worried about. It's a shame that their powers are so limited that they can only suggest changes rather than force a reconsideration. The draft NRCoT are interesting as a historic document but I don't think there was anything particular exciting within.

There were also some emails which contained some interesting titbits (they have been trimmed for clarity and to remove identifying information):

We have received approval to take some proposed changes to the NRCoT to yourself and London TravelWatch for consultation. These are some urgent changes that have been identified as a result of the recent revenue protection challenges at a number of TOCs, as well as making reference to the SISJ promise where booked train services are disrupted.

This update to the NRCoT has been prepared to urgently address several issues identified in relation to the application of revenue protection policies following a legal review of the NRCoT, as well as a change to refund rules to mitigate a significant misuse risk, and bring GB rail into line with the majority of other transport operators worldwide. It also covers SISJ. It does not at this stage address the much wider need for a rewrite of the NRCoT, however we will be using this consultation period to begin gathering feedback on other areas that need updating so that we can prepare for that important piece of work.

It’s also worth noting that that the proposed wording in relation to revenue protection Conditions are intended to better clarify existing policy rather than to reflect new policy.

RDG has consulted us, as it is required to do, about changes it wants to make to the National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT), the underlying contractual framework when you buy a train ticket. We are told that DfT wants these changes made as soon as possible, to address areas of fraud and opportunities for sharp lawyers to pick at the wording and get people off when caught not paying. They’ve been asked to press ahead, even if it means a further round of changes when ORR completes its current revenue protection study. It is not intended to be a full re-write which everybody acknowledges is overdue. That will follow at some point.

Perhaps the most interesting thing here is that there's a proper redraft of the NRCoT in the works. If it's done by the same people that have done this most recent round of changes (and I can't think of a reason why it wouldn't be) that is unlikely to yield good news for passengers...

 

[Oscar M]

and also a copy of the draft NRCoT as they stood when sent to TF (dated 5 March 2025). Both are attached.

I note that the draft NRCoT changes document says that the removal of the Routeing Guide from the contract was done because it was "not available to the public in suitable form".

My assumption is that they deemed the Routeing Guide too complicated for a 'normal' passenger (i.e. not us) to use, but even so...how many 'normal' passengers actually read the NRCoT in the first place?