Advanced Tickets

[DaveNewcastle]

If it helps, Condition 19 says that you can use two or more tickets for one journey provided they are valid for the entire journey and one of the three conditions applies.

Thank you. I'm familiar with the Conditions.

The problem really with split advance tickets is that once you have reached the destination of the first ticket, it is finished with, the TOC has complied with the contract. If you have another ticket to use from there then a different contract is in use.

Can anyone provide evidence that two or more such contracts arising from the one transaction (between the same parties, and for the one journey) are not linked and, where applicable, are not dependent?
That is the clarification I'm seeking.

 

[jon0844]

I think the rules are open to interpretation and you're basically at the mercy of the goodwill of a TOC (or member of staff, late at night). Not a nice situation to be in, unless you've got access to plenty of funds and the willingness to follow things up afterwards (and, I bet if you ever threatened any sort of court action/small claims, they'd fold so not to set a precedent).

Without there being an official rule on what to do in such a situation where a passenger has travelled with multiple tickets, it will always be like this. I don't think there's much incentive for any TOC, or ATOC, to clarify things either. Being vague gives them a get-out-of-jail card and forces most people to take no chances and book a direct direct, possibly costing considerably more - or having to factor in recovery time and be forced to hang around half the day to gamble that there will be delays.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Can it be proved that they are linked?

 

[phil35]

Without there being an official rule on what to do in such a situation where a passenger has travelled with multiple tickets, it will always be like this. I don't think there's much incentive for any TOC, or ATOC, to clarify things either. Being vague gives them a get-out-of-jail card and forces most people to take no chances and book a direct direct, possibly costing considerably more - or having to factor in recovery time and be forced to hang around half the day to gamble that there will be delays.

Couldn't have said it better myself.

 

[jon0844]

Can it be proved that they are linked?

Isn't that the problem? The fact you need to prove that all of your tickets are linked - when they're all owned and used by you to make a journey through multiple legs?

Common sense says that if you are going from A to B using multiple trains, and book individual point-to-point tickets for each of them - it's still one journey. The only requirement is that you make the first train and every connection, and if you have allowed for the necessary, published, connection times then you should be covered.

If you're silly enough to ignore the connection times and gamble, that's your problem. If you miss the first train, tough luck. If you follow the rules, it's a railway problem. By rights, the TOC liable is the one that delayed you first, or if that didn't result in you missing the next booked train, the next TOC to delay you that ultimately causes you to not reach your destination by the time of the last train.

It should be easy, and you should be given whatever you need to complete the journey (or a hotel if you can't) while the industry sorts itself out. After all, ATOC advertises that it's all TOCs working together does it not? Yes, the TOC at the end may end up sorting out the problem, but they must be able to claim internally - why should you have to?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I know that the view of most on this forum is that these rules are open to interpretation, but I'm trying to clarify as much as we can, if we can, rather than guess.

The 'linking' and 'dependence' of two or more tickets might help us. Certainly there would appear to be a dependence linking two contracts if they are purchased in the one transaction and they form one complete end-to-end journey with ancilliary documentation that links them (the itinery). That's why I believe its helpful to ask if there was any evidence to the contrary.
If the fulfillment of a subsequent contract is denied by one of the parties (a TOC) after having frustrated the other party (the passenger) in a linked and dependent contract, claiming that the other party (the passenger) has failed to fulfill their obligations where that failure was precisely the business of the TOC and was attributable to the TOC, then I am struggling to find any grounds to void the subsequent contract.
(It is certainly nothing to do with price paid, as journeys can be made on multiple tickets costing more than the same journey on one single ticket).

They are permits for carrying a passenger by train. Or trains. If the passenger arrives at the origin station of the first leg of their journey in good time, exactly why is a TOC refusing to convey the passenger for part of their journey? Is it because the TOC was unable to operate in accordance with the published timetable? That's what a TOC would have to demonstrate when arguing that there are unconnected contracts operating.
So, how does the failure in performance by one party become the failure in performance by the other party?

 

[jon0844]

It would seem that it is the TOC that failed to carry out its part of the contract, not the passenger. Thus, the TOC responsible should be liable, not the passenger.

How would it have worked under BR? I don't want to start an argument about pre/post privatisation, but would BR have considered it one journey or still look at each leg independently (bearing in mind that even under BR, you might still have one 'division' paying out for what could be attributed to another part)?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

It would seem that it is the TOC that failed to carry out its part of the contract, not the passenger.

If only it was that simple!
The TOC isn't in breach of contract whenever a train arrives late. We have to accept that, whether we like it or not.
Trains get delayed regularly and passengers as well as TOCs can expect that from time to time.
Its an inconvenience that all passengers must accept on occasion and, of course can lead to missed connections. The TOC has fulfilled its obligations but not exactly as published, but the passenger will have been taken to the destination of their ticket. The crucial point is to what extent the TOC can then hold the passenger to be in breach for the subsequent leg of their journey, purely and solely because of the TOC not performing quite to the published timetable.

Can it be proved that they are linked?

If they are not linked, (and using my example from yesterday of a passenger remaining on the same train where two tickets are joined to continue a journey but when the train has been severely delayed at Grantham), then although the passenger is comfortably seated on their booked train to Leeds, they are late in arriving at Doncaster station and (following HHF's response yesterday) they are therefore are in breach and consequently travelling onwards without a valid ticket. If the contracts do not allow for adjoining journeys to be linked to form a continuous journey then such a passenger would expect to be asked to buy another ticket from Doncaster, the station at which the tickets are 'joined' - for their onward travel, despite the fact that the 'invalid' ticket is for travel on the same train as the are now buying a replacement ticket!
Can we assume that situation has never arisen?
If the passenger finds themselves with as valid a ticket as the other equally delayed passengers, all on the same Leeds service, then it suggests again that the TOC accepts that a delay earlier in a journey does not, in itself, render tickets held for the rest of the delayed journey void. This provides exactly the sort of continuity we'd expect.
So please lets see if there is any evidence to support the view that adjoining contracts to be conveyed onwards are not linked.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

If they are on the train which is the first booked train on the second ticket, they have not missed it, have they? Infact you could argue that they arrived at the station in good time to catch it, as clearly they did, or atleast, as far as the contract is concerned they did. I think this is a slightly different scenario.

However, if it is not, a problem arises for the passenger. The condition to arrive at the origin station in good time for the first booked train is still a requirement of the second ticket and the TOC has forfilled it's obligation in respect of the first ticket.

Having arrived at the changeover station, the conditions currently broken are that of not arriving at the origin station (as shown on the ticket) in good time to catch the first booked train and, having missed it, not buying a new ticket (until they actually do so, which would make the conditions irrelevant anyway), and having been delayed, being allowed to use later trains.

Now, the last one is only broken if it actually applies. If the ticket is no longer valid, the condition cannot apply and neither can condition 19 of the NCoC (as you no longer have tickets that cover your entire journey). As the passenger has failed to adhere to the conditions ("for any reason") the ticket is not valid and has no value.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I would presume that the only way, legally, the tickets could be linked is if the passenger asks for a through ticket, but is instead offered a split ticket. That would provide a link as both sides are fully aware that the passenger intends to make the full journey rather than two closely timed journeys.

 

[Flamingo]

This is a tricky one, and I think Jon is correct when he says that ATOC is not interested in providing a definitive answer, but treats each on a case by case basis. (Mainly because it's not perceived as that big a problem / issue, IMHO). However, I'd put this down to the cock-up rather than the conspiracy theory, I seriously doubt that that when advanced tickets were being discussed that this scenario came up.

The idea behind ADVANCE tickets is the "Ryanair" approach to train travel. However, managers (except in a few well-publicised cases) as a rule don't want the hassle / publicity of taking the Ryanair model to it's punitive limit. Which kind of defeats the purpose of it, again IMHO. I'm sure the bean counters have done the sums, but I have to say I haven't noticed the off-peak trains particularly busier since ADVANCE tickets came into being. Personally, i think that abolishing them, but reducing the overall walk-up ticket price (maybe a differential between booked in advance and on the day) would be preferable, but this is only because it would make my life easier.

But out of interest, how many people on here have actually been charged a full open ticket (if not on a full open train) when discovered with an advance ticket irregularity? (not just the off-peak for that train). And how many times has this occurred in proportion to the number of journeys made?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Thanks again for a considered reply HHF.

If they are on the train which is the first booked train on the second ticket, they have not missed it, have they? Infact you could argue that they arrived at the station in good time to catch it, . . .

Well, yes. They certainly arrived in time (because they were already on-board). Whether that could also be construed as being "in good time" when in fact they were late (for the booked time) is less clear; I regret that I'd taken your earlier remark to suggest that this lateness might invalidate the (next) ticket(s). But if not then I can't see that it helps us at present.

Having arrived at the changeover station, the conditions currently broken are that of not arriving at the origin station (as shown on the ticket) in good time to catch the first booked train . . . .
. . . .
As the passenger has failed to adhere to the conditions ("for any reason") the ticket is not valid and has no value.

I think this is restating your previous understanding, perhaps in response to my question how failing to be on time (even in the light of "for any reason") is indeed a 'failure' by the passenger at all, when they had trusted their timely arrival to the very TOC who then holds that lateness against the passenger. I suspect that the rather circular logic here might be underpinned by a Fallacy; it might help if we could unpick this further.

Returning to the question of linked and dependent contracts (for consecutive legs of a journey), then its clear there are extreme cases in which they presumably are not linked and others in which they presumably are.

I would presume that the only way, legally, the tickets could be linked is if the passenger asks for a through ticket, but is instead offered a split ticket. That would provide a link as both sides are fully aware that the passenger intends to make the full journey rather than two closely timed journeys.

Whilst I don't accept that this is the only mechanism which links two tickets, it does help and brings me back to my question about the definition of 'a journey', which might still be a useful question to have answered.
From the Conditions of Use of Advance tickets:

If delays occur while travelling, you will be allowed to take the next available train(s) to complete your journey.

The single transaction, between the 2 sole parties, with a single itinery and a single payment for a single journey amounts to a de facto single contract. The number of tickets acting as permits to be conveyed over that journey may amount to more than one.
I'm still eager to hear any argument which demonstrates that the component parts of the journey are contracturally separated by the tickets rather than by the conveying TOCs, the walk between interchange stations and the direction of travel (which my Brighton-Leeds example attempted to provide).

Flamingo, I completely agree that this riddle is an unintended consequence. Presumably that is why it is complex!
Fortunately, I agree that we hear little (if any) evidence on here of passengers being found to be travelling without a valid ticket purely as a result of this matter. But on the other hand, we do receive quite a lot of requests for clarity which sound, to me at least, to be adding unnecessary anxiety to several who've posted on here. If we were able to clarify the situation absolutely, whatever the interpretation is, it would at least remove some of those passengers doubts and anxiety.

 

[Flamingo]

Bottom line is, as always, a ticket from A to C is valid, no argument.

If a ticket from A to B and B to C is cheaper, then go for it, but the cheaper the ticket, the more the buggerence, be it travelling on certain trains that stop at B, or the concern that the train from B to C might be missed and what happens then.

It's an imperfect world.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Sorry to jump back a few posts, but . . . .

If they are on the train which is the first booked train on the second ticket, they have not missed it, have they? Infact you could argue that they arrived at the station in good time to catch it, as clearly they did, or atleast, as far as the contract is concerned they did. I think this is a slightly different scenario.

There would be another very relevant significance to this interpretation, if it was to be applied to passengers delayed by their earlier services:

Passengers are aware that sometimes TOCs vary their operational schedules in response to disruption and, consequently, become unsure about their oneard travel. Lets look more closely at what is meant by 'arrived at the station in good time' when in fact they were travelling on a seriously delayed servce:
This interpretation suggests that 'in good time' is NOT a predictable and absolute condition which any reasonable person could be expected to take responsibility for.
An analysis of 'in good time' as you have presented it, HHF, would define it as a post hoc condition which, after the event, can be seen to have either been fulfilled or not.
The TOC may simply delay the subsequent service (long distance operators usually have no alternatve), or may substitute another train-set to meet the timetabled committments and abandoning the earlier stops of the full service.
We'd have to contrast that retrospective analysis with the a priori condition which any reasonable person could be expected to have been able to anticipate WITHOUT knowing how events would ultimately transpire on the day of travel. That would be that there MIGHT be delays; it is not reasonable that a passenger could anticipate how a TOC manages the disruptions (by delaying subsequent calling patterns on the same service(s) as you've suggested, or by providing alternative means).
Its technically possible that the passenger travellng KGX-LDS finds that their tickets become technically 'invalid' when arriving at Doncaster after having been delayed at Grantham. Even if they intended travelling on the same train from St.P to Leeds and had tickets authorising this (see yesterday's posts for route details).

Can we therefore, please look again at the situation of the passenger holding two consecutive Advance tickets who, without any possibility of prior knowledge, finds that the TOC who conveys them decides to respond to disruption by running a scheduled service ahead on time, and consequently leaves the delayed passenger at the linking-point between the two tickets. All of this being decided and implemented without any dialogue with the other party to 'the contract'? The passenger?

 

[RJ]

If anyone claims they missed their train due to a previous delay on a train, I always have TRUST open and use it to verify their story. More often than not it's a load of cobblers and I look deep into their eyes whilst they claim that the evidence I printed proving they lied and that their train was on time is fabricated.

If the previous train was genuinely delayed (I take into account recommended interchange times) then I'll endorse the ticket for travel on the next train. So if someone claims to have been delayed into Paddington, I need to see that they were delayed by at least an hour* (in line with Cross London interchange times) before I'll endorse the ticket.

If someone has simply missed a train then I will send them to the RPIs who decide to either permit travel or send them back to buy a new ticket.

*Or whatever recommended time the journey planner gives.

Of course this only applies in circumstances where the customer isn't contractually entitled to rule easements.

 

[WillPS]

If anyone claims they missed their train due to a previous delay on a train, I always have TRUST open and use it to verify their story. More often than not it's a load of cobblers and I look deep into their eyes whilst they claim that the evidence I printed proving they lied and that their train was on time is fabricated.

If the previous train was genuinely delayed (I take into account recommended interchange times) then I'll endorse the ticket for travel on the next train. So if someone claims to have been delayed into Paddington, I need to see that they were delayed by at least an hour* (in line with Cross London interchange times) before I'll endorse the ticket.

If someone has simply missed a train then I will send them to the RPIs who decide to either permit travel or send them back to buy a new ticket.

*Or whatever recommended time the journey planner gives.

Of course this only applies in circumstances where the customer isn't contractually entitled to rule easements.

But surely they still have to travel across London? If their train was 50 minutes late then that's not going to give them enough time to transfer?

 

[BrummyBoy]

missed a connection for Bolton from Stockport due to late running VT service so spoke to a member of staff at Stockport station who said i could either wait 50mins for the next service or get a train to Manchester Piccadilly and change there, staff at Manc werent really fussed nor was the ticket bloke on the following train

 

[yorkie]

missed a connection for Bolton from Stockport due to late running VT service so spoke to a member of staff at Stockport station who said i could either wait 50mins for the next service or get a train to Manchester Piccadilly and change there, staff at Manc werent really fussed nor was the ticket bloke on the following train

That's because they are adhering to the easement rule that states that if you are delayed while travelling you will be allowed on later trains to complete your journey. No rail employee is likely to claim that clear easement is over-ruled by any other rules and deny onward travel. Well, except one guard for East Coast did that, but a memo has been sent round ensuring that does not happen again.

East Coast revenue handbook states:

C7.1.6. Travel on a service other than that specified on the ticket – Advance Tickets

Where atrain company is at fault

Do not charge an excess fare.
Endorse ticket or issue a permit if held (EC7000 form).

Clearly if you arrive by train and the train is delayed, then this is a circumstance where the ticket should be honoured for onward travel and the passenger allowed to "complete their journey" in accordance with the conditions.

Any other interpretation will be dealt with accordingly I am sure, as it already has been with East Coast in a case where someone came here asking for advice. We dealt with it appropriately and EC responded appropriately. In the unlikely event of any guards acting how HFF argues they could, I would expect a similar outcome and I would certainly assist in fighting for it.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Sorry to jump back a few posts, but . . . . There would be another very relevant significance to this interpretation, if it was to be applied to passengers delayed by their earlier services:

Passengers are aware that sometimes TOCs vary their operational schedules in response to disruption and, consequently, become unsure about their oneard travel. Lets look more closely at what is meant by 'arrived at the station in good time' when in fact they were travelling on a seriously delayed servce:
This interpretation suggests that 'in good time' is NOT a predictable and absolute condition which any reasonable person could be expected to take responsibility for.
An analysis of 'in good time' as you have presented it, HHF, would define it as a post hoc condition which, after the event, can be seen to have either been fulfilled or not.
The TOC may simply delay the subsequent service (long distance operators usually have no alternatve), or may substitute another train-set to meet the timetabled committments and abandoning the earlier stops of the full service.
We'd have to contrast that retrospective analysis with the a priori condition which any reasonable person could be expected to have been able to anticipate WITHOUT knowing how events would ultimately transpire on the day of travel. That would be that there MIGHT be delays; it is not reasonable that a passenger could anticipate how a TOC manages the disruptions (by delaying subsequent calling patterns on the same service(s) as you've suggested, or by providing alternative means).
Its technically possible that the passenger travellng KGX-LDS finds that their tickets become technically 'invalid' when arriving at Doncaster after having been delayed at Grantham. Even if they intended travelling on the same train from St.P to Leeds and had tickets authorising this (see yesterday's posts for route details).

Can we therefore, please look again at the situation of the passenger holding two consecutive Advance tickets who, without any possibility of prior knowledge, finds that the TOC who conveys them decides to respond to disruption by running a scheduled service ahead on time, and consequently leaves the delayed passenger at the linking-point between the two tickets. All of this being decided and implemented without any dialogue with the other party to 'the contract'? The passenger?

It's an interesting point and perhaps this is where the gamble of splitting tickets backfires, a through ticket would cover this without question.

In terms of defining 'journey(s)', I think we have to look at the term as it is used and from that we can deduce that a journey is not the origin to the destination of one ticket neccesarily, but it could be the origin of one ticket to the destination of another (or a midway point if not on advance tickets) but does this definition really help us to resolve the issue?

At what point can we say that the passenger takes no responsibility for the situation?

They were made aware of the conditions at the time of sale, irrespective of the tickets being bought together, yet popular opinion seems to be that the passenger should bear no responsibility for the risk of splitting the ticket.

I'm not suggesting the passenger it 'to blame' for the situation, but they do have a share in the responsibility for the situation arising.

At the point of sale the passenger can turn to the clerk and say they are not happy with the risk of splitting and choose to buy a through ticket instead, maybe at a higher price. Yet some people say here that the risk is nil as the conditions of the tickets purchased are the same as if they bought the through ticket. They are not.

We can yell and scream that the TOC made the passenger late as much as we want, but there is always the risk of something going wrong and that is the risk you take with splitting advance fares.

In terms of the same service being used, the TOC only really has responsibilities to provide you with a particular service from A to B and another particular service from B to C, I'm not convinced that this ever becomes a responsibility for a particular service from A to C.

If the TOC decides that, as a result of A-B being late, B-C is going to use a different train, have they altered the contracts? They are still providing those particular services and, as far as I can see, are still within the agreed terms of the contracts.