Collective competition claim against Govia Thameslink Railway

[JamesT]

Does it not imply they thought that they would win and that the legal wrinkle didn't exist? As you say it wouldn't have taken much to change the law?

And therefore if they did make the change, they would be admitting it existed and would be liable to pay out?

 

[Egg Centric]

I think that the argument is that the National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) and the Ticketing & Settlement Agreement (TSA) do not make any allowance for tickets to be restricted by brand but only by TOC, and GTR is one TOC and therefore in breach of UK competition rules.

It certainly seems clear cut when put this way but there is surely a reason that no one is funding it any more, which may or may not be to do with prospects for success. In simple terms what were the arguments by GTR the other way?

 

[Richardr]

And therefore if they did make the change, they would be admitting it existed and would be liable to pay out?

Good point, but maybe they could say it is precautionary just in case. Either way there has now almost been as much time since the first filing as there was between that and the issue arising [30 Sept 2015 per the claim].

 

[35B]

I think that the argument is that the National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) and the Ticketing & Settlement Agreement (TSA) do not make any allowance for tickets to be restricted by brand but only by TOC, and GTR is one TOC and therefore in breach of UK competition rules. In future, under GBR, there is no need for the TSA to exist and the NRCoT could easily be changed to allow brand specific fares.

I am not a lawyer, but the idea that maintaining competition prevents a single TOC running multiple brands, yet if all the TOCs are part of a government monopoly, competition rules don't apply, seems just a little Alice in Wonderland to me.

 

[paninaro]

In simple terms what were the arguments by GTR the other way?

This is what puzzles me. I know nothing about NRCoT, the TSA or collective cases but based on the comments here it sounded like this was clearly not allowed, so in my naive mind, I would have thought this was an easy win for a law firm; guaranteed win and legal fees. So what am I missing?

 

[JamesT]

This is what puzzles me. I know nothing about NRCoT, the TSA or collective cases but based on the comments here it sounded like this was clearly not allowed, so in my naive mind, I would have thought this was an easy win for a law firm; guaranteed win and legal fees. So what am I missing?

I think some posters on the forum tend to post their opinions with an air of authority such that there can’t be any disagreement with their interpretation.

 

[Haywain]

I think some posters on the forum tend to post their opinions with an air of authority such that there can’t be any disagreement with their interpretation.

Are you referring to me?

 

[Richardr]

This is what puzzles me. I know nothing about NRCoT, the TSA or collective cases but based on the comments here it sounded like this was clearly not allowed, so in my naive mind, I would have thought this was an easy win for a law firm; guaranteed win and legal fees. So what am I missing?

There are plenty of arguments put forward, but perhaps the major one is that competition law doesn't apply to a company that does not have commercial autonomy separate from the government:

was GTR acting autonomously, or was it acting under direction? If it was following under the direction of the Secretary of State, then it cannot be attributed with liability and under the case law of the Court of Justice, and under the case law of the tribunal in VIP v Floe, it has a complete defence

This does show how this is definitely a non-issue post nationalization, the question in this part is how much autonomy in these areas did GTR have under regulation of fares and the operating agreements they had with the DfT.

 

[Egg Centric]

There are plenty of arguments put forward, but perhaps the major one is that competition law doesn't apply to a company that does not have commercial autonomy separate from the government

Thanks. I see that that quote is from a court transcript related to this.

Seems clear to me that this is something I don't have enough understanding to actually have an opinion on who is right and wrong. I guess that's why it was going to court in the first place.

 

[Swedenorer]

I think that the argument is that the National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) and the Ticketing & Settlement Agreement (TSA) do not make any allowance for tickets to be restricted by brand but only by TOC, and GTR is one TOC and therefore in breach of UK competition rules. In future, under GBR, there is no need for the TSA to exist and the NRCoT could easily be changed to allow brand specific fares.

For me that was the nub of the issue and it always seemed to me that eventually - all things otherwise remaining the same - that GTR would have to argue that it was not one TOC but a group of the same. Now I'm not saying that this would have succeeded but in any case like this you never know but I think I can suspect the line of argument. The other route of argument would end up with some lengthy debate on the definition of 'Brand'. I wonder of some took comfort from the fact that apparently it suited GTR to back down when challenged on this by individuals but again I suspect this would alwys have been done on a gesture of goodwill basis. In a way it's disappointing that apparently we'll never now know what arguments GTR were going to run I think it would have been fascinating.

 

[island]

I think that the argument is that the National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) and the Ticketing & Settlement Agreement (TSA) do not make any allowance for tickets to be restricted by brand but only by TOC, and GTR is one TOC and therefore in breach of UK competition rules. In future, under GBR, there is no need for the TSA to exist and the NRCoT could easily be changed to allow brand specific fares.

The NRCoT define what a TOC is and if they define Gatwick Express to be a TOC, then for the purpose of that agreement it is a TOC.

The TSA and NRCoT are different agreements between different parties and are not to be read together.

 

[Haywain]

The NRCoT define what a TOC is and if they define Gatwick Express to be a TOC, then for the purpose of that agreement it is a TOC.

The TSA and NRCoT are different agreements between different parties and are not to be read together.

Indeed.

 

[Watershed]

The NRCoT define what a TOC is and if they define Gatwick Express to be a TOC, then for the purpose of that agreement it is a TOC.

They define Gatwick Express as one of the trading names of GTR.