Anti-customer behaviour by Avanti

[All Line Rover]

So in effect you chose not to buy a new ticket prior to boarding and you became a "pay when challenged" passenger travelling without a valid ticket for the service you were on, so rather than avanti potentially commiting fraud, you were the one actually potentially committing an offence instead

There is no way to modify an existing ticket at a TVM. In any event, this is the stock response I'd expect from a large proportion of rail workers, which is depressing. EVERYTHING is ALWAYS the passenger's fault.

 

[Watershed]

Not sure I can quite get to the same interpretation. Part B of NRCoT provides:


So making clear that in this case there is no contract with Avanti (since we are talking about an LNR only ticket which precludes the use of Avanti services).

In principle, yes. But Part B doesn't say that the contract is exclusively with those Train Companies and indeed 28.2 later contradicts any such assumption. It just goes to show how shoddy and ambiguous the wording of the NRCoT is, though. If it's been drafted by a lawyer, it certainly doesn't show!

28.2 provides

So contemplates that operators other than that with which you have contracted with will provide assistance,

If there's no contract with the other operators, why would they be under any obligation to assist? I don't think that interpretation would make any sense. In my view, 28.2 is what makes it a contract with all Train Companies.

but only were reasonable. It’s not difficult to see why a TOC might consider it unreasonable to allow ticket acceptance for the entirety of another operator’s services.

"reasonably can" is different to "reasonable". There's certainly an argument that it is unreasonable of WMT to foist their passengers on Avanti, but if Avanti have the capacity to accommodate them, it's reasonably practicable for them to do so. And if someone has managed to board the train - res ipsa loquitor!

Why, in your view, isn’t this done generally? Presumably it’s regarded as too much work for the teams involved? I realise that isn’t a particularly satisfactory answer, but I suspect it might be the correct one.

I think there's a lack of appreciation amongst the planning community of the impact that late-notice changes have on customers. It wouldn't be hugely time-consuming to do any of these things, it's just doesn't seem to be seen as necessary, as if providing accurate timetables on reasonable timescales is an optional extra!

But 28.2 doesnt necessarily apply on every train they are not obliged to assist on every service

They are not necessarily going to be liable to assist under 28.2 for one individual cancellation. But we are talking about a day when there no WMT services ran at all. That brings it into the same situation as if the last train had been cancelled.

The op never chose a refund, he applied to his bank to get the new ticket refunded, which may have been incorrect, he did not have the right to travel on the service of his choosing on the day of the strike

If he had a walk-up ticket, they absolutely did have the right to choose travel on any WMT service (subject to time restrictions). And with all services being cancelled, they could turn up at any time and would be stranded regardless.

so avanti may have been entitled to charge him a new ticket, he did have rights under the nrcot which avanti must help him with but it is not necessarily on his terms they would have been entitled to say wait for a later service etc

Perhaps. But if the OP managed to board a service, it's difficult for them to argue that this wasn't a situation where they "reasonably can" assisat.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

There is no way to modify an existing ticket at a TVM. In any event, this is the stock response I'd expect from a large proportion of rail workers, which is depressing. EVERYTHING is ALWAYS the passenger's fault.

Bit of a red herring there, you can't excess away an operator restriction a new ticket would have to have been purchased anyway.

Also remember these offences tend to be strict liability, so regardless of the passengers intention, the offence is complete as soon as you step on the train, it is the passengers responsibility to ensure their ticket is valid, in this situation you were wrong, how railway workers view the situation is pretty irrelevant.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2022 ==

They are not necessarily going to be liable to assist under 28.2 for one individual cancellation. But we are talking about a day when there no WMT services ran at all. That brings it into the same situation as if the last train had been cancelled.


If he had a walk-up ticket, they absolutely did have the right to choose travel on any WMT service (subject to time restrictions). And with all services being cancelled, they could turn up at any time and would be stranded regardless.


Perhaps. But if the OP managed to board a service, it's difficult for them to argue that this wasn't a situation where they "reasonably can" assisat.

You are mis understanding my point on a few of those quotes, I am saying avanti don't need to provide the assistance on all of their services they can choose which ones the allow wmt passengers on, they dont need to let them on every one of their services, they just have ro not leave them stranded and that he did not have the right to choose which avanti service it was provided on that is down to avanti

 

[Horizon22]

I suppose the issue is what happens where engineering works are arranged at short notice etc. (albeit it sounds like this was known about in advance).

Yes, I am a little confused about the "short notice" element. Was their discrepancies between the TOC's timetable and other 3rd party journey planners? From what part has - as per the OP - these engineering works been "arranged at the last minute"?

If it was short-notice, there would probably be cancelled trains in systems (with "emergency engineering works" used as the reason) although of course these day they can be removed from planning systems by the TOC before 2200 the next day to only accurately show "what is running". So it depends whether an error had been made (with journeys showing WMT knew weren't available) and/or how far in advance these were planned and the details of tickets.

This website was updated a few days ago, but no doubt had been sharing information further back than that too - https://www.westmidlandsrailway.co....ruptions/major-engineering-works-october-2022

 

[All Line Rover]

When a guard announces repeatedly that they are prepared to sell tickets, and a passenger is ready and prepared to pay whatever fare the guard requests, there is no strict liability offence. And thank goodness for that. I get the impression that some members of this forum would want there to be.

 

[jamesst]

There is no way to modify an existing ticket at a TVM. In any event, this is the stock response I'd expect from a large proportion of rail workers, which is depressing. EVERYTHING is ALWAYS the passenger's fault.

And that in turn is the stock response from someone who can't comprehend that someone else may have a different point of view that doesn't align with there own.

 

[All Line Rover]

And that in turn is the stock response from someone who can't comprehend that someone else may have a different point of view that doesn't align with there own.

It is the response of a passenger. Who is not surprised that the rail industry, instead of looking at the big picture, reflecting and appreciating how it looks to outsiders, prefers to ask: Could we blame the passenger here? We can get them for something, surely?? Reminds me of the Post Office.

A passenger turned up at the station, the service in their booking confirmation didn't exist, no other services to London with that train operator existed, they took the most suitable alternative service and incurred stress and grief from so doing.

Average Joe: That's awful. How did this happen? What could be done to improve this situation in future?

Rail industry: You're awful. Off to jail! Be thankful we took your money, pleb.

 

[43066]

Article 16 requires that the TOC offers a choice between a full refund, continuation or re-routing at the earliest opportunity, or continuation or re-routing at the passenger's later convenience. Here the TOC must offer a choice between those three options to have fulfilled the requirement. They have still fulfilled it even if turns out to be completely impossible to re-route the passenger.

What if the passenger wishes to continue, but the TOC cannot provide the means to do so? The view of many commentators appears to be that offering a refund and refusing further assistance (even where it is impossible to provide) is not an option.

In principle, yes. But Part B doesn't say that the contract is exclusively with those Train Companies and indeed 28.2 later contradicts any such assumption. It just goes to show how shoddy and ambiguous the wording of the NRCoT is, though. If it's been drafted by a lawyer, it certainly doesn't show!

The wording of Part B makes it clear on an ordinary reading that the contract is only with those companies whose services the ticket entitles you to use. I expect most people would agree that reflects the common sense position. I agree the drafting is rather ambiguous in places

I don’t think that is in any way contradicted by 28.2 which makes no mention of underlying contractual relationships.

If there's no contract with the other operators, why would they be under any obligation to assist? I don't think that interpretation would make any sense. In my view, 28.2 is what makes it a contract with all Train Companies.

Simply because the obligation to assist (so far as reasonable) comes from NRCoT itself, which the TOC is a signatory to, rather than from the contract with the passenger. In addition, if the intention has been to create a binding contract between the passenger and all operators, this could have been expressly stated.

To put another way, just because you’ve entered into a contract with one operator that incorporates the NRCoT (and all operators are signatories to the NRCoT) it doesn’t follow that you’ve entered into a contract with all operators.

I find the notion that a passenger buying a ticket for a journey on a Thameslink train is entering into a contract with Scotrail to be fanciful in the extreme.

"reasonably can" is different to "reasonable". There's certainly an argument that it is unreasonable of WMT to foist their passengers on Avanti, but if Avanti have the capacity to accommodate them, it's reasonably practicable for them to do so. And if someone has managed to board the train - res ipsa loquitor!

Isn’t that your viewpoint rather than a statement of the legal position? If the TOC chosen not to accept other tickets, and despite this you board with a ticket for a different TOC, you are still potentially committing a ticketing offence.

In practical terms the key thing, in the absence of certain knowledge ticket acceptance is in place, is always to ask permission first.

A passenger turned up at the station, the service in their booking confirmation didn't exist, no other services to London with that train operator existed, they took the most suitable alternative service and incurred stress and grief from so doing.

So if turn up at the airport and Ryanair has cancelled your flight, you’d expect BA to take you even though you hadn’t bought a BA ticket?! Good luck with that.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

When a guard announces repeatedly that they are prepared to sell tickets, and a passenger is ready and prepared to pay whatever fare the guard requests, there is no strict liability offence. And thank goodness for that. I get the impression that some members of this forum would want there to be.

That's actually incorrect, boarding without a valid ticket is an offence, you potentially committed the offence as soon as you stepped on the train. That's the strict liability offence

 

[zwk500]

It is the response of a passenger. Who is not surprised that the rail industry, instead of looking at the big picture, reflecting and appreciating how it looks to outsiders, prefers to ask: Could we blame the passenger here? We can get them for something, surely?? Reminds me of the Post Office.

A passenger turned up at the station, the service in their booking confirmation didn't exist, no other services to London with that train operator existed, they took the most suitable alternative service and incurred stress and grief from so doing.

The issue here is that many people still think of 'the railway' as a single system, when in fact it is not. It is many different companies with varying levels of cooperation between them. If you ordered online shopping from Tesco's, and they substituted an item with something you didn't like, you wouldn't expect Asda to give you the desired item for free. You'd tell Tesco to refund you for the missing item and then buy it from another Supermarket. This is exactly what Avanti have done.

 

[yorkie]

Threads like this are a good way to see who has been institutionalised and/or indoctrinated.

What exactly would this achieve? Public ownership with the current structure would be no different. It is also not necessary to nationalise the railways to change the current structures.

The issue here is that many people still think of 'the railway' as a single system, when in fact it is not. It is many different companies with varying levels of cooperation between them.

Do you work for a train company? I am assuming you do, as otherwise I doubt you'd be this defensive.

Did the train companies help the customer make a well-informed choice about the most appropriate and best value Ticket for their journey? If not, did they have reasonable grounds not to do so?

Was the service performed with reasonable care and skill? This would include ensuring that information regarding scheduled services was available to customers as soon as reasonably practicable.

Do Britain's train companies work together to deliver a successful railway for passengers? If not, why not? If so, how is this compatible with that?

Do the train companies aim to create a railway that delivers real improvements in customer experience? If not, why not? If so, how is this compatible with that?

Do the train companies not come together to preserve and enhance the benefits for passengers of Britain’s national rail network? If not, why not? If so, how is this compatible with that?

If you ordered online shopping from Tesco's, and they substituted an item with something you didn't like, you wouldn't expect Asda to give you the desired item for free. You'd tell Tesco to refund you for the missing item and then buy it from another Supermarket. This is exactly what Avanti have done.

Ah, the good old supermarket analogy.

Tell me this: is there a national conditions of shopping which applies to all supermarkets? is there a shopping settlement agreement?

No? In that case, your analogy completely falls down at the first hurdle and it's not worth spending a second thinking about.

Edit: restored the reply that was accidentally deleted (below):

That's actually incorrect, boarding without a valid ticket is an offence, you potentially committed the offence as soon as you stepped on the train. That's the strict liability offence

I don't see how anyone could realistically argue that a passenger who boards an Avanti train in this situation is committing an "offence" in any meaningful sense of the term; there is no way Avanti would want this tested in court.

Avanti are acting completely unreasonable here and if enough passengers were to decide to travel as close as possible to the itinerary they were provided with I can't see BTP supporting Avanti in removing anyone from the train simply for having the wrong kind of ticket, when the ticket was bought in good faith and the only sensible alternative is the one the passenger is on. BTP have better things to do with their time (and rarely do they get to do all of those things, but that's another story!)

 

[All Line Rover]

So If turn up at the airport and Ryanair has cancelled your flight, you’d expect BA to take you even though you hadn’t bought a BA ticket?! Good luck with that.

On multiple occasions Easyjet have rebooked me, and an entire flight's worth of passengers, onto a BA flight that was still running. No hassle, no grief. A very different experience to today, as I was provided with good information at the place of departure! So yes, it wouldn't surprise me if this happened. Although I'm sure it would surprise you, because no transport operator could possibly offer better customer service than the fine English rail industry.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Oct 2022 ==

BTP have better things to do with their time (and rarely do they get to do all of those things, but that's another story!)

Would probably have been a better use of their time to deal with the obvious county lines drug dealer sat opposite me. Three phones constantly pinging, clothes stinking of weed and lots of rustly packets in their jacket. Hmm...

 

[celdor]

Maybe not relevant but on a previous strike day we returned from a cruise into Soton
and the ship was late docking (5 Hours) Luckily it was a strike day???. The staff on the
station said your in luck, next rain to Waterloo is in 10 minutes.
Next up Avanti on Euston station Us- we have tickets to Preston Avanti- Thats ok mate
last train went an hour ago you can get any train that gets you home or near to.
We got the last train to Manchester.
Manchester : Headed for a train to Preston Northern were not not bothered about tickets
- just get on a train. On the platform the dispatcher? asks a general question where are you all going.
Only us seem to answer Preston! . He says well our train is going to be packed and asks
guard? on a TransPennine train if we can go with them. Of course they can - we do advise
that we have no tickets at all at this point and he just waves us on board.
So Cheers all round for all four rail companies and their staff on that particular day.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

The way train companies treat passengers is appalling in my opinion, especially in situations like these, however 2 wrongs don't make a right.

Proper advice should be given to passengers, staff should be on hand in event of disruption, clear messages given to passengers over multiple channels also, authority to travel in writing should be given as much as practical

And passengers should buy the correct ticket prior to boarding, waiting to be "challeneged" over an incorrect ticket is also wrong, correct ticket should be bought prior to boarding and it is the passengers responsibility to do so where possible

 

[yorkie]

And passengers should buy the correct ticket prior to boarding, waiting to be "challeneged" over an incorrect ticket is also wrong, correct ticket should be bought prior to boarding and it is the passengers responsibility to do so where possible

Was the passenger given correct and accurate information when they purchased their ticket? Was the passenger able to make a well-informed choice about the most appropriate and best value Ticket for their journey?

If a passenger has an itinerary and attempts to travel as close to the itinerary as possible, ending up with a journey 5 minutes slower, how is the passenger in the "wrong"?

How can a passenger buy "the correct ticket" if they purchase a ticket for an itinerary and the itinerary is not honoured?

 

[CyrusWuff]

Part of the issue here is the way Network Rail's systems work. (Disclaimer: Not a Train Planner, so this is merely my interpretation based on observation.) If a given day's service isn't "bid" by T-14 (i.e. 14 weeks in advance of it being due to run), ready for publication at T-12, then it won't be shown in downstream systems (e.g. websites, journey planners, Ticket Issuing Systems, etc) until the Thursday before implementation.

One problem with that is that it applies regardless of whether it's due to a late bid by the TOC or a late confirmation/late notice of Engineering Work from Network Rail, which isn't exactly passenger-friendly!

 

[Adam Williams]

Tell me this: is there a national conditions of shopping which applies to all supermarkets? is there a shopping settlement agreement?

NRCoS (National Retail Conditions of Shopping) condition 6.1: "You must hold a valid Basket, Trolley or authority to shop before you enter a supermarket where there was
the opportunity to collect one, unless one of the following circumstances applies..."

8.1: "If you use a Clubcard or Nectar Card to purchase discounted shopping, you must carry the Clubcard or Nectar Card (and have it available for inspection) when you shop. The Clubcard or Nectar Card must be within its period of validity when you shop (in other words it should not have expired)."

9.2 "If you are unable to satisfy the self-checkout machine when prompted as to the weight and number of your items in the bagging area and the conditions set out in
Condition 6 do not apply, we are permitted in law to charge you a Penalty Fare or report you for prosecution"

Hilarious jokes aside, I 100% agree none of these analogies are ever accurate or useful. I don't think there is anything easily comparable with the UK rail system that helps explain any particular points of view - it's unique and needs to be understood in its own right.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

Was the passenger given correct and accurate information when they purchased their ticket? Was the passenger able to make a well-informed choice about the most appropriate and best value Ticket for their journey?

If a passenger has an itinerary and attempts to travel as close to the itinerary as possible, ending up with a journey 5 minutes slower, how is the passenger in the "wrong"?

How can a passenger buy "the correct ticket" if they purchase a ticket for an itinerary and the itinerary is not honoured?

Again 2 wrongs don't make a right, the passenger has a responsibility as does the train company

So going by the bylaws as they stand, has this passenger committed an offence? Your edited post seems to have removed that part

What btp do or whether avanti choose to push for dontvreally come into it, it's fairly clear its a strict liability offence, so did the op commit an offence?

 

[yorkie]

Again 2 wrongs don't make a right

This is an irrelevant buzz-phrase.

the passenger has a responsibility as does the train company

Can you answer my questions above?

So going by the bylaws as they stand, has this passenger committed an offence?

What offence do you think they have committed and what do you think the chance of a prosecution is?

Your edited post seems to have removed that part

Which post was edited; what exactly do you mean by this?

What btp do or whether avanti choose to push for dontvreally come into it

Are you talking theoretically or practically?

If you are talking about a theoretical position then quite frankly you can think what you want and you are entitled to that; I am not interested (sorry to be blunt but that's the truth). If we are talking practicalities then it very much does come into it.

it's fairly clear its a strict liability offence, so did the op commit an offence?

What strict liability offence do you think was committed?

Given the ticket office wasn't even open, I think you'd struggle with that one.

 

[Watershed]

What if the passenger wishes to continue, but the TOC cannot provide the means to do so? The view of many commentators appears to be that offering a refund and refusing further assistance (even where it is impossible to provide) is not an option.

I think we've discussed this one previously and I think we're both unlikely to change our positions! Suffice it to say, in this situation it was possible for the TOC to assist, as demonstrated by the fact that the OP managed to board their train.

I don’t think that is in any way contradicted by 28.2 which makes no mention of underlying contractual relationships.

This ultimately comes down to interpretation. I fail to see how 28.2 can have any meaning, unless it creates an enforceable right against other TOCs.

Simply because the obligation to assist (so far as reasonable) comes from NRCoT itself, which the TOC is a signatory to, rather than from the contract with the passenger.

It can't be an obligation unless there's a corresponding right to enforce it if the obligation is breached; the right to enforce it only arises if the other TOCs are party to the contract.

In addition, if the intention has been to create a binding contract between the passenger and all operators, this could have been expressly stated.

It could have been, but the failure to explicitly state things is a common feature throughout the NRCoT! I don't think that it can in any way be used to suggest the absence of a contractual relationship.

To put another way, just because you’ve entered into a contract with one operator that incorporates the NRCoT (and all operators are signatories to the NRCoT) it doesn’t follow that you’ve entered into a contract with all operators.

I find the notion that a passenger buying a ticket for a journey on a Thameslink train is entering into a contract with Scotrail to be fanciful in the extreme.

It's only really fanciful because ScotRail would never be likely to be reasonably able to assist. And so whilst that contractual right exists on paper, there are unlikely to be any circumstances in which it would be exercised. If you take Thameslink and LNER instead, it's no longer fanciful at all.

Isn’t that your viewpoint rather than a statement of the legal position?

Everything written on a forum like this is someone's viewpoint! I don't think any of us are Supreme Court justices

If the TOC chosen not to accept other tickets, and despite this you board with a ticket for a different TOC, you are still potentially committing a ticketing offence.

In some circumstances, yes - however, the fact that an offence may be committed doesn't mean it's the end of the story. Our putative defendant could apply to have the proceedings stayed on the basis that they're an abuse of process, if the offence only arose as a result of the prosecutor breaching their obligation to assist the passenger!

In practical terms the key thing, in the absence of certain knowledge ticket acceptance is in place, is always to ask permission first.

That's usually a good point to start from. However, in the situation the OP was in - being at a station where there are no WMT staff present - it's unlikely that this would have got them very far, as the staff would likely have told them that they need to buy a new ticket to travel on Avanti.

If you ask for permission but it's wrongly denied, it's difficult to suggest that you should shell out huge amounts to make up for the failings of TOCs.

So if turn up at the airport and Ryanair has cancelled your flight, you’d expect BA to take you even though you hadn’t bought a BA ticket?! Good luck with that.

I think it is well established that analogies with other industries don't really work very well! But if we must, the closest airline analogy would be if you had a booking for a flight legally operated by Ryanair's UK division, Ryanair UK Ltd (as opposed to Ryanair DAC, the main Irish entity) and the Ryanair DAC staff at the airport refused to rebook you on alternative flight, telling you to try and find someone from Ryanair UK to help.

They may be technically correct from an EU261 perspective, but they would be wrong from a contractual perspective - where there is no distinction between the DAC and UK Ltd. Just as in the rail example, Avanti would be technically correct to refuse assistance under the PRO, but still have to do so under the NRCoT.

 

[infobleep]

In my opinion any law that imposes an impossible obligation is is a rather silly law.

It doesn't matter if a law is silly. As long as the law is not judged to be illegal it applies.

 

[zwk500]

Do you work for a train company? I am assuming you do, as otherwise I doubt you'd be this defensive.

Close but no cigar. I used to work for Network Rail until this summer. I left the railway for a number of reasons, but a large connecting thread between them was a frustration with the 'nothing to do with me, guv' attitude that has tripped up the OP.

Your questions are all valid criticisms. My post was attempting to explain to the OP the way the system is run, not passing judgement on it. I would welcome changes that make the railway closer to a unified system, operating a unified service. But it doesn't run that way at the moment.

 

[43066]

On multiple occasions Easyjet have rebooked me, and an entire flight's worth of passengers, onto a BA flight that was still running. No hassle, no grief. So yes, it wouldn't surprise me if this happened. Although I'm sure it would surprise you, because no transport operator could possibly offer better customer service than the fine English rail industry.

That’s not an equivalent situation because EasyJet would have elected to pay BA to take you, and BA had agreed. Had either of those things not happened (for instance if the BA flights were full), you would have not been allowed to travel on the BA flight. Would you then be accusing BA of fraud? It is a nonsensical position to take.

I think we've discussed this one previously and I think we're both unlikely to change our positions! Suffice it to say, in this situation it was possible for the TOC to assist, as demonstrated by the fact that the OP managed to board their train.

Agreed re. the first sentence.

The TOC had no absolute obligation to assist and in this case had elected not to do so. The fact the passenger was able to board the train makes no difference to this.

Your second sentence implies TOCs have no ability to deny ticket acceptance in any circumstances other than where it’s physically impossible to board trains. That is patently untrue. My TOC on occasion refuses ticket acceptance and quite rightly so given how busy the services are (we are back to the stage of leaving people behind at weekends). Those Avanti or LNER passengers presenting themselves at our terminal are accordingly charged for new tickets or denied boarding.

This ultimately comes down to interpretation. I fail to see how 28.2 can have any meaning, unless it creates an enforceable right against other TOCs.

It’s all rather ambiguous (“will” versus “must”) and I suppose could reasonably be read as a general statement that TOCs will generally assist where they can. It’s by no means clear this even gives rise to an enforceable contractual obligation, and indeed the NRCoT seems to make expressly clear that the contract in question is with the operators upon whose services the tickets are valid. I think we will have to agree to disagree.

It can't be an obligation unless there's a corresponding right to enforce it if the obligation is breached; the right to enforce it only arises if the other TOCs are party to the contract.

On further reflection I’d suggest it’s by no means clear that it is an absolute obligation. Even if it is it appears to be “binding” on the assisting TOC by virtue of the NRCoT rather than the contract the passenger has made with the TOC upon which their tickets are valid. How it might be enforced is unclear.

It could have been, but the failure to explicitly state things is a common feature throughout the NRCoT! I don't think that it can in any way be used to suggest the absence of a contractual relationship.

It’s a mess. Ambiguous and poorly drafted.

Everything written on a forum like this is someone's viewpoint! I don't think any of us are Supreme Court justices

Everything written on a forum like this is someone's viewpoint! I don't think any of us are Supreme Court justices

Even if we were, we would still likely find plenty to disagree about .

I was at law school with LJ (as he was at the time) Neuberger’s son, if that counts for anything? (it doesn’t )

In some circumstances, yes - however, the fact that an offence may be committed doesn't mean it's the end of the story. Our putative defendant could apply to have the proceedings stayed on the basis that they're an abuse of process, if the offence only arose as a result of the prosecutor breaching their obligation to assist the passenger!

In theory, perhaps. In reality that’s highly unlikely to wash. In almost every circumstance, by far the best approach is not to be accused of committing an offence in the first place.

That's usually a good point to start from. However, in the situation the OP was in - being at a station where there are no WMT staff present - it's unlikely that this would have got them very far, as the staff would likely have told them that they need to buy a new ticket to travel on Avanti.

If you ask for permission but it's wrongly denied, it's difficult to suggest that you should shell out huge amounts to make up for the failings of TOCs.

I think in the circumstances described the staff would have been quite correct to advise that, because ticket acceptance was not in place. Indeed this is what their employer would have instructed them to do.

They may be technically correct from an EU261 perspective, but they would be wrong from a contractual perspective -

All depends how the contract is drafted as to who the parties are. It’s entirely possible to contract with one group entity and not another, especially when one is based overseas. I don’t think this analogy works as Avanti and WMR aren’t the same owning group

 

[yorkie]

Comparisons with airlines, supermarkets etc are null and void for the reasons stated upthread.

Staff who behave in a manner that defies common sense (there's a word for that, which I won't repeat here) or in a manner that is dubious from a contractual/consumer rights point of view do themselves and the entire industry a disservice.

 

[zwk500]

Just for completeness, here's my responses to these counterpoints: (especially to 'being institutionalised')

Did the train companies help the customer make a well-informed choice about the most appropriate and best value Ticket for their journey? If not, did they have reasonable grounds not to do so?

No, they absolutely failed on this one. No idea exactly where the point of failure was, but it isn't the customer.

Was the service performed with reasonable care and skill? This would include ensuring that information regarding scheduled services was available to customers as soon as reasonably practicable.

Nope, again, dropped the ball with one HELL of a clang about getting information out in good time.

Do Britain's train companies work together to deliver a successful railway for passengers? If not, why not? If so, how is this compatible with that?

No, because they don't have good enough financial incentives to work together.

Do the train companies aim to create a railway that delivers real improvements in customer experience? If not, why not? If so, how is this compatible with that?

By and large No (there are some companies that aim to improve the customer environment but pretty much only for their own operations), because they don't have good enough financial incentives to do so.

Do the train companies not come together to preserve and enhance the benefits for passengers of Britain’s national rail network? If not, why not? If so, how is this compatible with that?

They do not come together nearly often enough, because they do not have the financial incentive to cooperate.

My comment was not a defence but an attempt at an explanation, and frustration at these problems was a factor in me leaving the industry.

 

[yorkie]

Just for completeness, here's my responses to these counterpoints: (especially to 'being institutionalised')

No, they absolutely failed on this one. No idea exactly where the point of failure was, but it isn't the customer.

Nope, again, dropped the ball with one HELL of a clang about getting information out in good time.

No, because they don't have good enough financial incentives to work together.

By and large No (there are some companies that aim to improve the customer environment but pretty much only for their own operations), because they don't have good enough financial incentives to do so.

They do not come together nearly often enough, because they do not have the financial incentive to cooperate.

My comment was not a defence but an attempt at an explanation, and frustration at these problems was a factor in me leaving the industry.

Thanks; I'd like to see some of the others with anti-passenger sentiments have a go too

 

[181]

Arguably the supermarket analogy would be more correct if you thought of a large supermarket, formerly run as a single entity, where different parts had been franchised out to different companies, with some aisles being entirely run by one company, and others containing different brands of the same general type of goods, sold by different companies. You could continue to treat it as a single supermarket by paying medium or high prices, but lower prices would be available if you were willing to confine your purchases to one company's goods.

The customer-friendly approach would be that if one company had sold out of something essential in a shared aisle you could take a similar item from the other company's shelf and pay for it as if it was from the first company's shelf, with the finances being sorted out between the companies behind the scenes. Instead the approach seems be to accuse the customer of shoplifting unless the companies have already decided that the shortage is severe enough for them to co-operate.

It's by no means a perfect analogy, because railways and supermarkets are very different things, but I think it has some merit.

 

[yorkie]

Arguably the supermarket analogy would be more correct if you thought of a large supermarket, formerly run as a single entity, where different parts had been franchised out to different companies, with some aisles being entirely run by one company, and others containing different brands of the same general type of goods, sold by different companies. You could continue to treat it as a single supermarket by paying medium or high prices, but lower prices would be available if you were willing to confine your purchases to one company's goods.

The customer-friendly approach would be that if one company had sold out of something essential in a shared aisle you could take a similar item from the other company's shelf and pay for it as if it was from the first company's shelf, with the finances being sorted out between the companies behind the scenes. Instead the approach seems be to accuse the customer of shoplifting unless the companies have already decided that the shortage is severe enough for them to co-operate.

It's by no means a perfect analogy, because railways and supermarkets are very different things, but I think it has some merit.

Indeed; supermarket analogies (especially of the sort posted by apologists for rouge train companies) are deeply flawed, but if we have to go with such an analogy, yours is one of the best I've seen so far!

 

[westcoaster]

Today there are engineering works, announced at the last minute, on the Trent Valley section of the West Coast Main Line. This has resulted in the withdrawal of all LNR services between London and Crewe.

Avanti services on diversion via Birmingham are running at roughly the times that LNR services would normally arrive/depart Euston and Crewe. They are marginally slower, arriving into Euston/Crewe a few minutes later.

I hold the return portion of a flexible "LNR only" ticket (London to Crewe), purchased before these engineering works were announced. I have an itinerary for today, listing a non-existent LNR train.

By travelling on the equivalently-timed Avanti service, I would arrive into London only 5 minutes later than expected. There are no direct LNR services from Crewe to London and, if I attempt to travel exclusively on LNR services, changing at Birmingham, I would arrive into London 1.5 hours later than expected.

My understanding is that, as I would arrive over 1 hour later than expected if attempting to comply strictly with the terms of my ticket, I am entitled to be conveyed on the services of suitable alternative operators - in this case, Avanti.

However, the guard on the Avanti service announced after every stop (Crewe, New Street, International, Coventry and again on the approach to Rugby) that LNR tickets were definitely "NOT VALID" and any passengers holding such tickets would be charged for an entirely new ticket. This train was then non-stop to Watford and today I initially need to travel as far as Milton Keynes, so I alighted at Rugby to catch the LNR Rugby - Milton Keynes - London shuttle service (running as a result of the engineering works). At Rugby, I noticed platform staff, wearing Avanti uniforms, telling passengers that LNR tickets were not valid. Subsequently, in the space of 5 minutes, I heard three distinct station announcements (these were not pre-recordings) stating "Would passengers please note that LNR-only tickets are NOT valid on Avanti services".

This is not the first time that Avanti are refusing to comply with passengers' legal rights. Previously, on a strike day, I held a reservation for a LNR service. All LNR services had been withdrawn and only Avanti were running a skeleton service. Both platform staff at Euston and an Avanti guard refused to accept that my "LNR-only" ticket was valid and insisted on selling a new ticket. Avanti customer services then repeatedly refused to refund the new ticket. I had to complain to my bank to receive a refund.

When Avanti services experience problems because of Avanti's constant staff shortages, and Avanti passengers are displaced onto LNR services, I do not hear similar language from LNR guards against passengers holding Avanti tickets.

There appears to be a consistent pattern of behaviour from Avanti, spanning upper management, customer services, station staff and on-board staff.

Does a train operator knowingly forcing passengers to pay for unnecessary tickets amount to fraud?l

Looking at the LNWR website it says

• Crewe – London Euston services will run between Rugby – London Euston only
• Rail replacement buses will be running between Rugby – Stafford
• Customers are advised to use alternative services between Stafford – Crewe

So it seems there was two alternative routes available for a toc specific ticket to be used (yes you may have been delayed and entitled to delay repay), but alternatives were in place.

I Guess Avanti refused any ticket acceptance because of this and a fear of overcrowding on their own services.

And staff are quite in their right to announce this fact on-board and on stations.

On you last point about unnecessary tickets amounting to fraud. In your case ( my opinion) is your ticket /contract is between you and LNWR to get you from A to B and nothing to do with Avanti.

 

[Howardh]

What if the passenger wishes to continue, but the TOC cannot provide the means to do so? The view of many commentators appears to be that offering a refund and refusing further assistance (even where it is impossible to provide) is not an option.



The wording of Part B makes it clear on an ordinary reading that the contract is only with those companies whose services the ticket entitles you to use. I expect most people would agree that reflects the common sense position. I agree the drafting is rather ambiguous in places

I don’t think that is in any way contradicted by 28.2 which makes no mention of underlying contractual relationships.



Simply because the obligation to assist (so far as reasonable) comes from NRCoT itself, which the TOC is a signatory to, rather than from the contract with the passenger. In addition, if the intention has been to create a binding contract between the passenger and all operators, this could have been expressly stated.

To put another way, just because you’ve entered into a contract with one operator that incorporates the NRCoT (and all operators are signatories to the NRCoT) it doesn’t follow that you’ve entered into a contract with all operators.

I find the notion that a passenger buying a ticket for a journey on a Thameslink train is entering into a contract with Scotrail to be fanciful in the extreme.



Isn’t that your viewpoint rather than a statement of the legal position? If the TOC chosen not to accept other tickets, and despite this you board with a ticket for a different TOC, you are still potentially committing a ticketing offence.

In practical terms the key thing, in the absence of certain knowledge ticket acceptance is in place, is always to ask permission first.



So if turn up at the airport and Ryanair has cancelled your flight, you’d expect BA to take you even though you hadn’t bought a BA ticket?! Good luck with that.

If Ryanair cancels a flight I think the rule is to put you on the next suitable flight with them or, if not available, then one with another company (eg BA). So if I'm right then he would expect BA or another airline to take him. Can anyone confirm?