Advanced Tickets

[Central Trains]

Quick question - If you miss your advance ticket booked train as a result of a delay from another train but a different ToC what are your rights, if any?

Thank you in advance.

 

[WestCoast]

It will depend upon whether or not you have a through ticket. If you have a through ticket on different TOCs you are covered to get the next train if a service is delayed.

For example you see "VWC+connections" and "East Coast+connections" tickets.

If you have a different ticket on the 'connection' leg of your journey, then I'm not too sure...

 

[Central Trains]

I have split the ticket at Manchester.

 

[fairlie]

In that situation, I've had my advance ticket endorsed at the information desk at the station (having arrived late because of toc 1 and having a separate advance ticket for toc 2's train) - there was no dispute, the staff were very helpful.

 

[ainsworth74]

It would help if you could tell us exactly what your journey was and what tickets you held for each log of this journey.

But as long as you allowed the minimum interchange time at Manchester but still missed your train you should be allowed to travel on the next available service.

 

[MikeWh]

If you have left at least the recommended minimum connection time between arrival and departure between the tickets then it is likely that your situation may be viewed sympathetically. Unfortunately ATOC do not wish to be drawn on exactly what rights you have in this scenario. If it's just a case of getting a later train then you'll probably be alright, while if you end up requiring alternative transport or overnight accomodation then there might be more of an issue.

 

[marts]

I missed the 12:55 EMT St Pancras to Sheffield back in January, I was on an advanced ticket.

I missed it because the HS1 from Faversham was delayed and was advised to go to Victoria then tube to St Pancras instead. I got to the EMT desk just as the train was leaving, at first I was told I would have to buy a new ticket. But I told them about the HS1 delay, one of the EMT staff looked on a clip board and confirmed the HS1 was actually cancelled, he then validated my ticket for the next train, I only lost my seat reservation.

 

[island]

Officially if you split your advance ticket and the second journey goes south because of delays or messups to the first, you're out of luck.

Unofficially, posts here suggest that people will generally be treated sympathetically by TOC staff in these circumstances.

 

[Flamingo]

Usually worth sorting out at the station before boarding. An endorsement from the station staff usually over-rides the TM's individual interpretation of the rules.

 

[ainsworth74]

Officially if you split your advance ticket and the second journey goes south because of delays or messups to the first, you're out of luck.

Depends on how you interpret the relationship between the Conditions of Carriage, the word "journey" and the conditions of an advance ticket. I'm not going to go any further than that as it's been done almost literally to death by various other (more knowledgeable) people so search the forum for more.

 

[moonrakerz]

Officially if you split your advance ticket and the second journey goes south because of delays or messups to the first, you're out of luck.

Unofficially, posts here suggest that people will generally be treated sympathetically by TOC staff in these circumstances.

I was doing a trip from Sheffield to Warminster on 3 (split) tickets, two of which were Advances. This involved XC (nominated train) to New St, LM to Worcester (any train) & FGW to Warminster (nominated train). The XC train from Sheffield was running a good 30 mins late. When I explained to the guard on the XC train my somewhat roundabout route and that I was going to miss my FGW train from Worcester she said "well you seem to know what you are doing" and at my suggestion gave me a free ticket, to use on the following Virgin train, from New St to Cheltenham, where I could hopefully (and did !) catch up with my FGW train as it came down from Worcester.

I was very satisfied with her attitude. Whether it complied with the rules or not, I don't know - but well done !

 

[MCR247]

I'm confused, VT have never ran to Cheltenham while XC have existed

 

[moonrakerz]

I'm confused, VT have never ran to Cheltenham while XC have existed

You may well be correct - this journey was about 2 years ago and I confess I was racking my brains as to which rail company was involved (certainly was LM & FGW though). The gist of the story stands though !!

 

[Central Trains]

Thanks for everyones advice with this matter - most grateful.

 

[yorkie]

Officially if you split your advance ticket and the second journey goes south because of delays or messups to the first, you're out of luck

I disagree. This has been debated several times before, here is my standard response!

This has been done to death on this forum but as plenty has been said about it before, I recommend doing a search (the hyperlinks that follow are a result of a quick search I have done just now; there are many more examples of this being discussed). I suggest in particular reading this (which I totally agree with), and my experiences (mentioned here among other places) are in accordance with what I expect to happen. A word of warning some rail staff will have their own opinion that is in no way based on what the rules say, they then state it as fact (example) so be prepared to encounter this. But just because you are on one ticket does not mean that rail staff will get you to your destination without a fight, as this example demonstrates. If they are going to make excuses, then it can be about anything, the main thing is to be aware of the rules and your rights.

I helped someone who was wrongly issued an Unpaid Fare Notice (note: never pay up front in such a circumstance; it's much harder to get the money back than if they have to chase you) for being on a combination of Advance tickets for one journey, and getting a later train on the second ticket, due to an earlier delay when the guard did not correctly adhere to the rules. Not only was the UPFN quashed but the guard was given suitable advice by the company concerned. I am also armed with an excellent quote from someone about as high up as you can get, that is sufficient to get someone out of that situation.

Of course, you must allow sufficient interchange time between trains. I would strongly advising plenty more than the absolute minimum, although on a contractual point of view the absolute minimum should be fine, but some of the minimum interchange times are not clear. The more time you allow, the more likely staff will deem it reasonable, and if staff deem something reasonable then the issue of whether you are entitled to it may not arise, this can avoid potential arguments, disputes and stress.

I've never had a problem, out of hundreds of journeys and I very rarely buy one ticket from origin to destination, instead I either buy further (and finish short) or a rover/ranger, or a combination of tickets.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I agree entirely with island. I think the advice has to be that whilst staff are generally okay with endorsed tickets, the conditions of the ticket(s) is/are quite specific, if you miss the first booked train for any reason you must buy a new ticket, therefore, there is a fair chance you could be up a well known creek with a shortage of paddles.

 

[yorkie]

I agree entirely with island. I think the advice has to be that whilst staff are generally okay with endorsed tickets, the conditions of the ticket(s) is/are quite specific, if you miss the first booked train for any reason you must buy a new ticket, therefore, there is a fair chance you could be up a well known creek with a shortage of paddles.

The easement states you can "complete your journey", and you know ATOC's interpretation of this, and that your post above is contrary to that, don't you?

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I have never disputed the condition that allows later travel if you are delayed, but you simply ignore the condition that invalidates the ticket. Without a valid ticket a journey cannot legally be made.

This thread has a quote from an ATOC representative in which he he states that condition 19 does not automatically confer the same rights as a through ticket. So how do you 'bypass' the first booked train condition?

 

[yorkie]

I have never disputed the condition that allows later travel if you are delayed, but you simply ignore the condition that invalidates the ticket. Without a valid ticket a journey cannot legally be made.

This thread has a quote from an ATOC representative in which he he states that condition 19 does not automatically confer the same rights as a through ticket. So how do you 'bypass' the first booked train condition?

So what rights does it confer, what rights doesn't it, and where is this documented?

As for how do you 'bypass' that condition, how do you bypass the easement that immediately follows? The only logical interpretation is that the easement overrules it, otherwise why would it exist?

However if you feel there is doubt over which rule prevails then the law deals with that:-

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si1999/19992083.htm
7. - (2) If there is doubt about the meaning of a written term, the interpretation which is most favourable to the consumer shall prevail but this rule shall not apply in proceedings brought under regulation 12 [Injunctions to prevent continued use of unfair terms].

 

[island]

Conditions are one thing; in practice I think if you encounter an unreasonable guard/ticket office clerk all bets are off.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

If you arrive after the departure of your first booked train (for any reason), you (not the TOC) have broken the condition of the ticket (until you buy a new one). How you get to the departure station for that ticket is none of the TOCs concern (even if it is by their services on another ticket). Having missed the first booked train, the ticket is invalid, it no longer covers your onward journey and so condition 19 (NCoC) and the condition of the advance ticket (allowing later travel) are no longer applicable as you do not have a valid ticket for the rest of your journey (until you buy a new one).

Please explain how a condition that no longer applies can allow you to travel?

 

[cuccir]

Having missed the first booked train

This is the key difference - from Yorkie's viewpoint you haven't missed your first booked train, as the first booked train was the first train that you took at the start of your journey, which covers all tickets. So the condition still applies. I don't see that there's any chance of either groups reconciling this difference

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Then Yorkie needs to re-evalute the situation, particular the conditions relating to the second (Advance) ticket.

The Advance ticket conditions apply to the ticket and, from the initial part of the condition (to arrive at the station (on the ticket) in good time), we can easily deduce this does not apply to the 'journey'. At no point anywhere does it say this condition is transfered to another ticket when used as allowed by condition 19, even if this is the same type of ticket.

 

[yorkie]

An EC guard shared HHFs view. But EC disagreed and cancelled the UPFN and issued advice to guards to honour the whole journey.

Also see the EC revenue handbook. If a passenger does not make their booked train due to the fault of a TOC no charge is made. That means any TOC not just EC.

If HHF denied people onward travel I would expect a complaint against him to be equally successful as the EC case.

 

[WillPS]

Frankly, the day passengers are expected to plan in failure of the railways (not in the ATOC sense, in terms of actual failure regardless of cause) when planning a railway journey is the day I stop making long railway journeys.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . The Advance ticket conditions apply to the ticket and, from the initial part of the condition (to arrive at the station (on the ticket) in good time), we can easily deduce this does not apply to the 'journey'.

All we need to do to clear this up is to clarify: What is a 'journey'?

Example: Return Brighton-Leeds, change just once in each direction at Kings Cross/St Pancras, return the same day.

Buy five tickets in one transaction from the one TOC or agent (on line or at a Ticket Office) with one receipt and one itinery.
OUT: Advance Brighton to Peterborough (FCC to St.P then EC to P'bro)
_____Off-Peak Return on the same EC to Doncaster
_____Advance on the same EC to Leeds
RTN: Advance Leeds to Doncaster EC
_____Off-Peak Return on the same EC to P'bro (the RTN portion of the above RTN)
_____Advance P'bro to Brighton (EC to St.P then FCC to Brighton)

Is this:
1 journey? because that's what the passenger intends, pays for and has received one receipt and one itinery
2 journeys? because its a return
4 journeys? because its 2 trains each way and the passenger must change
5 journeys? because its 5 tickets
6 journeys? because its in 6 component parts
7 journeys? because there are 6 'Single' trips on Advances plus an Off-Peak return
8 journeys? because its in 6 component parts with 2 of them involving a change of train and change of TOC

Where will the passenger find that definition of 'journey'?
Where will commercial rail staff find that definition of 'journey'?
And for clarification of my example, if we apply those definitions and the NCoC, do all the following specific queries now have clear answers?

At which of the 8 interfaces between those 6 components parts will the Condition 'to arrive at the station (on the ticket) in good time' apply in the event of lateness?
If there was a significant delay on the OUT at London Bridge, leading to misssing the connection, then during which component parts will the passenger be travelling without a valid ticket' (you arrive after the departure of your first booked train (for any reason), you (not the TOC) have broken the condition of the ticket')
If there was a significant delay on the OUT at Grantham, so no connection is missed, then during which component parts will the passenger be travelling without a valid ticket' (you arrive after the departure of your first booked train (for any reason), you (not the TOC) have broken the condition of the ticket')
If there was a significant delay anywhere on the OUT, so that the booked return train could not be caught (only the EC would be a booked train), which components of the return leg would be 'without a valid ticket'?

Thank you.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

An EC guard shared HHFs view. But EC disagreed and cancelled the UPFN and issued advice to guards to honour the whole journey.

Also see the EC revenue handbook. If a passenger does not make their booked train due to the fault of a TOC no charge is made. That means any TOC not just EC.

If HHF denied people onward travel I would expect a complaint against him to be equally successful as the EC case.

But you have said in previous discussion that EC have 'a policy to backdown'. Does that make the guard, whoever it may be, less correct? Is it fair to say this undermines the guard?

Frankly, the day passengers are expected to plan in failure of the railways (not in the ATOC sense, in terms of actual failure regardless of cause) when planning a railway journey is the day I stop making long railway journeys.

Joe public may becoming more aware of split tickets, but most still by through tickets for which this is clearly not an issue. Those who buy the advance fares are warned of the restrictions when the ticket is bought.

All we need to do to clear this up is to clarify: What is a 'journey'?....

I'll stop you there. No one is questioning the definition of 'Journey'. there is no debate about condition 19, there is no debate about using later services if your delayed wwhilst travelling. The point is that the condition of the ticket that you agree to by buying the ticket, is that you are at the origin station as printed on your ticket in good time. If you miss the first booked train for any reason you must buy a new ticket.

So Condition 19 requires the ticket(s) to be valid and the condition can only apply if you have a valid ticket. In both cases you do not if you miss the first booked train for any reason.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Thanks for replying HHF though I did particulary want the various outcomes of my hypothetical Brighton-Leeds return to be clarified. Perhaps someone else can help?

From your reply and previous posts, I understand that if (as in my last scenario) there were serious delays at Grantham so that the return journey was missed, then you are tellling us that the passenger would not have a valid ticket for the Doncaster-Leeds, Leeds-Doncaster and Peterborough-Kings Cross legs. I'm unable to interpret your reply in terms of the St.Pancras-Brighton leg of the return which, although on an Advance is not a booked service.

One interesting outcome from your answer however, is a comparison of the responsibility of the passenger and the responsibility of the TOC on that delayed northbound train at Grantham. Whilst the passenger 'is responsible for arriving' (on the same train) at the Stations marked as their ticket's origin (Doncaster and then Leeds) in time, if they choose to fulfil that responsibility by travelling by rail, then they would have failed. (Even if they were already sitting in their booked train).

How you get to the departure station for that ticket is none of the TOCs concern (even if it is by their services on another ticket).

'None of the TOC's concern' even if it is precisely the TOC's contracted business to convey the passenger to that station?

Please explain how a condition that no longer applies can allow you to travel?

This is very much what I am seeking to clarify. The point at issue appears to be, as you have rightly identified, whether the passenger can reasonably assign their responsibility to be at the station of Origin to the TOC whom takes them to that station, and from there, to be conveyed onwards, even if there are delays.
Its vexing to consider that a TOC cannot accept that responsibility but expects it of a passenger.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

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.

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. If this contract stipulates that you have to be there for a set time and if you are not for any reason then the contract is not worth anything, then it is you who loses out when you fail to get there on time. They did not tell you to take the train to get there, they did not tell you to split the ticket. You pay for what you get.

 

[jon0844]

This debate has been done time and time again, and really needs testing in court one day as the rules seem to be written so they can be read in more than one way to suit either argument.

If you buy a series of split/advance tickets in one go and set off with them all in your possession then I would hope that it would be considered one journey - and if by the end of the day that means missing your last train, you should be given a taxi/hotel stay as required.

How the industry sorts itself out shouldn't be down to the poor passenger. ATOC should perhaps have some sort of insurance, or a system that allows for each TOC to make a claim against the TOC that caused the delay if they are having to help a passenger that turned up late due to delays that could have been hours ago/miles away.

In theory, as long as you have the minimum connection times between services, you should be able to travel all day on advance tickets with individually booked trains. Miss one and you get bumped onto the next service (but lose your seat reservations). If that then means you can't complete the journey in the day, you're covered.

Or we go down to the Ryanair route where it's 'tough s**t' if you are delayed by someone else - which means everyone must be warned when buying more than one ticket. It would also mean rewriting the rules, and expecting negative press as a result.