The itinerary has to one presented "in connection with the purchase of a Ticket". The lawyers here may tell me otherwise, but I would assume this means, strictly speaking, that one can only rely on an itinerary presented by an accredited retailer if one has bought the corresponding ticket. I don't know if one can rely on the itinerary Trainsplit shows for a ticket one hasn't bought.
So if you buy a ticket with an itinerary, then the itineraries are changed because of engineering works / easements, the ticket you bought is no longer valid (though the same one bought later is)? I don’t think they would stand up to scrutiny.
Depends how you read it.
The way the various clauses of that muddled sentence in the NRCoT relate to each other is up for debate. If it means anything at all, it has to apply to itineraries presented by an accredited retailer (the only alternative interpretation being that it applies both to itineraries presented by NRE and to those presented by an accredited retailer, but we can rule that out because you can't purchase a ticket from NRE).
We can all agree on this.
I think the strict position would be that it's valid for any routes you could generate from NRE at the time when you bought it, but not for any routes that only subsequently became available, but in practice, you could use it for those too.
I've been advised against this because smart card usage data is more easily analysed by ToCs and they might decide to attempt to prosecute you for a valid loophole fare, or simply close your loophole. Of course if a paper ticket doesn't work the barriers it may be worthwhile anyway.
How do you parse 13.1.2 in its entirety? It surely must be either:
Which sort of makes sense, if you ignore that itineraries themselves never show ticket restrictions, albeit a good retailer will present that information somewhere prior to and at the point of purchase.
Which doesn't make grammatical or logical sense.
No. Perhaps it's a very cack-handed attempt to advise that restriction text printed on the ticket - "Not valid via Reading" etc - overrides itineraries....? So if you're offered an itinerary via London but the ticket says not valid via London, you mustn't use the ticket in accordance with the itinerary. I have no idea what "and/or" is supposed to convey in this context.
If it means to say that, it fails to say it. And if they did write that in the NRCoT then it would surely be unenforceable.
But by putting an and/or immediately after a condition that would otherwise impose a condition on the right to travel in accordance with an itinerary, the condition (from a licensed retailer in connection with the purchase of a ticket) ceases to be absolute, because you can now comply with the clause as a whole if the itinerary meets whatever condition comes after the and/or.
Not to my mind, no. The journey planner takes into account restrictions applying to tickets before offering a ticket in connection with an itinerary. It doesn't do so only when the user purchases a ticket.
The TOCs would struggle to use smartcard data to prosecute.
That’s not the only way of reading it though. And I’d disagree with that interpretation because of the lack of commas: there should be a comma after the URL if it was intended to be separate items in a list. The “connection with the purchase of a ticket” therefore, in my interpretation, also applies to itineraries generated by NRE. Even though NRE don’t sell tickets.
I don't think there's evidence it was only written by one person.
