Anti-customer behaviour by Avanti

[yorkie]

You substantially edited post 41 stating no offence had been committed, hence my comment about btp/avanti this was part you removed from your original post. When people edit posts like this I tend not to answer their questions as they will probably edit out their responses again when they realise they made another error

I originally replied to your post; I then went to add an additional reply to @zwk500 unfortunately I accidentally removed my reply to your post. I will restore this reply now.

Op has boarded train without a valid ticket

He has passed opportunity to pay, he stated he may have used the tvm to change the ticket if that was possible but didn't as the tvm didn't have that functionality, as an excess isn't allowed on a operator restricted ticket, he would have had to buy a new one, he was willing to use the tvm but didn't because of his misconception not because of lack of a card

The ticket office was not open. Therefore there would be no reasonable grounds to suggest a passenger could be prosecuted. It is nonsensical to suggest that a passenger whose train has been deleted from the timetable who attempts to travel as close as possible to their itinerary should be prosecuted.

I'm sure the poster would be well represented in court if that was to happen and it would not go well if Avanti tried it.

Do you have any evidence of Avanti prosecuting under such circumstances?

Just because you feel the railway should do more and your entitled to that opinion and I do agree to an extent, that doesn't change what the law actually says, you may not be interested but the law is what's written down not what you feel it should be.

You cannot consider one area of law in isolation.

Do you work in the area of law? I am not a lawyer but I do work for solicitors on a freelance basis .

The op has travelled without a valid ticket and that's an offence, regardless of how likely it is to be prosecuted

Given the ticket office was not open, the passenger had a ticket with an itinerary that was no longer being honoured, I don't think this would go down well.

Are you familiar with contract and consumer law at all or are you just reading a literal interpretation of the Railway Byelaws?

Do Avanti prosecute people under the Railway Byelaws under such circumstances, do you know?

 

[Starmill]

Oh, and if NRCOT purports to offer less protection than what is now national primary legislation then any halfway competent Court will throw any TOC defence relying on it out with barely a second thought.

Indeed. And even the weaker protection in the Conditions is apparently not being accepted in practice. Why precisely is an operator whose train is running and has about a third of the 400 odd seats onboard vacant claiming that they "reasonably cannot" do anything whatsoever? The obligation plainly does not extend to them running an additional train or even over-forming a train, but those can't possibly arise in this case. The train is running anyway, it's not even close to being full, and in this case it's likely only one passenger who needed to be accomodated.

 

[JamesT]

If the train I am booked to travel on has disappeared, I have no way of knowing prior to boarding whether my ticket is "invalid" on alternative services. If the booked service was withdrawn at the last minute, perhaps ticket acceptance was arranged at the last minute? Who knows? A ticket machine isn't going to tell me. If in these circumstances the mere fact of boarding the most logical alternative service could constitute an "offence", I think that is a far more serious problem than anything else discussed in this thread, a serious problem which needs to be urgently addressed.

You’re carrying a ticket that says LNR-only, surely your starting point is that said ticket is invalid on an Avanti train unless you are told different?
The most logical alternative is then whatever the next LNR service is.

 

[AlterEgo]

The idea of the OP having committed "an offence" is a complete non-sequitur, entirely academic in the round, and detracts from the complete lack of customer service he received.

 

[CyrusWuff]

What difference does it make whether I agree or not?!

For the record, yes I agree it sounds like this was handled very badly by LNR especially. Without being in possession of all the facts it’s difficult to know whether Avanti’s decision to refuse ticket acceptance was sensible or not, but they (in their sole discretion) were perfectly entitled to take that course of action.

That doesn’t change the above, though.

As a rule, Avanti generally aren't agreeing to blanket ticket acceptance during disruption (even where CSL2 is declared) due to their ongoing reduced timetable and reliability issues.

Doesn't stop them from expecting other TOCs to grant them ticket acceptance in such instances, however!

 

[LowLevel]

To be fair I've always found the situation regarding ticket acceptance deeply immoral anyway.

If you board a crush loaded train where people with legitimate tickets for the train may not be able to board, but you have, you will probably get away with travelling on it whatever ticket you have because it is most unlikely there will be a ticket inspection or a waiting party looking for transgressors at the other end.

If you board a train with room for a ticket inspection to take place, usually not fully loaded by definition, and thus one that could probably help the network's passengers out, then you may be told "you can't use that ticket on here. It'll cost you 3 times what you paid in the first place" or you might even be prosecuted.

I want to see people use the network. If my train has empty seats and everything has gone wrong, particularly with the money largely ending up in the same pot (I will exempt open access operators from this statement) then I can't imagine the mentality of standing there telling someone who has already had their plans messed up that they are now required to shell out a load of money to simply get from A to B or worse, that they could end up in legal difficulty.

Consequently for me, and I know most of the other common or garden guards on my TOC having been encouraged to use our discretion and "do the right thing" I will always welcome on board anyone whose train has been cancelled or disrupted. I might sometimes tell them they need to stand if it's busy, or give them a polite warning if they've boarded of their own accord that they might cause themselves some bother if they assume that's OK with the likes of advance tickets, but I never charge them.

 

[100andthirty]

To be fair I've always found the situation regarding ticket acceptance deeply immoral anyway.

If you board a crush loaded train where people with legitimate tickets for the train may not be able to board, but you have, you will probably get away with travelling on it whatever ticket you have because it is most unlikely there will be a ticket inspection or a waiting party looking for transgressors at the other end.

If you board a train with room for a ticket inspection to take place, usually not fully loaded by definition, and thus one that could probably help the network's passengers out, then you may be told "you can't use that ticket on here. It'll cost you 3 times what you paid in the first place" or you might even be prosecuted.

I want to see people use the network. If my train has empty seats and everything has gone wrong, particularly with the money largely ending up in the same pot (I will exempt open access operators from this statement) then I can't imagine the mentality of standing there telling someone who has already had their plans messed up that they are now required to shell out a load of money to simply get from A to B or worse, that they could end up in legal difficulty.

Consequently for me, and I know most of the other common or garden guards on my TOC having been encouraged to use our discretion and "do the right thing" I will always welcome on board anyone whose train has been cancelled or disrupted. I might sometimes tell them they need to stand if it's busy, or give them a polite warning if they've boarded of their own accord that they might cause themselves some bother if they assume that's OK with the likes of advance tickets, but I never charge them.

The voice of common sense.....thanks.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

I originally replied to your post; I then went to add an additional reply to @zwk500 unfortunately I accidentally removed my reply to your post. I will restore this reply now.


The ticket office was not open. Therefore there would be no reasonable grounds to suggest a passenger could be prosecuted. It is nonsensical to suggest that a passenger whose train has been deleted from the timetable who attempts to travel as close as possible to their itinerary should be prosecuted.

I'm sure the poster would be well represented in court if that was to happen and it would not go well if Avanti tried it.

Do you have any evidence of Avanti prosecuting under such circumstances?


You cannot consider one area of law in isolation.

Do you work in the area of law? I am not a lawyer but I do work for solicitors on a freelance basis .

Given the ticket office was not open, the passenger had a ticket with an itinerary that was no longer being honoured, I don't think this would go down well.

Are you familiar with contract and consumer law at all or are you just reading a literal interpretation of the Railway Byelaws?

Do Avanti prosecute people under the Railway Byelaws under such circumstances, do you know?

I note you haven't restored your reply.

Where either of us work doesn't really matter, neither does the likelihood of this being prosecuted, neither does avanti or any other companys prosecution history it all comes down to the simple reading of the law, the offence is complete

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2022 ==

If the train I am booked to travel on has disappeared, I have no way of knowing prior to boarding whether my ticket is "invalid" on alternative services. If the booked service was withdrawn at the last minute, perhaps ticket acceptance was arranged at the last minute? Who knows? A ticket machine isn't going to tell me. If in these circumstances the mere fact of boarding the most logical alternative service could constitute an "offence", I think that is a far more serious problem than anything else discussed in this thread, a serious problem which needs to be urgently addressed.



It's the passenger's responsibility to do something impossible? More good news for passengers!


^

You are looking at this the wrong way round, it's up to you to have a valid ticket, if you don't you buy one prior to boarding where possible

It's not the passengers responsibility to do something impossible as you put it, you had 2 options, ask the guard or buy a new ticket, if you can't get to the guard that didnt mean you can't buy a new ticket even if that meant waiting for a later train

 

[AlterEgo]

It's not the passengers responsibility to do something impossible as you put it, you had 2 options, ask the guard or buy a new ticket, if you can't get to the guard that didnt mean you can't buy a new ticket even if that meant waiting for a later train

Sure, those may be the options as presented but anyone defending that state of affairs isn’t on the right side of fairness in my view.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

Sure, those may be the options as presented but anyone defending that state of affairs isn’t on the right side of fairness in my view.

I don't disagree with you and i am not defending any company, the point I am trying to make is that the op committed an offence simply by stepping onto the train without a valid ticket, no matter what else was going on

Should it be an offence? No in my opinion

Should the railway have the powers to prosecute? No in my opinion

But that doesn't change what is black and white in this offence and the customers reasoning behind it doesn't change whether the offence was complete or not due to its strict liability

 

[SCDR_WMR]

You’re carrying a ticket that says LNR-only, surely your starting point is that said ticket is invalid on an Avanti train unless you are told different?
The most logical alternative is then whatever the next LNR service is.

Which bear in mind rail replacement transport was provided, and will be on the remaining dates of engineering works this month, ran as scheduled, ticket acceptance was not in place on Avanti services. I think sometimes people just don't want to accept that their journey would take longer on such days and therefore they must be able to use whichever train is available

 

[Watershed]

I don't disagree with you and i am not defending any company, the point I am trying to make is that the op committed an offence simply by stepping onto the train without a valid ticket, no matter what else was going on

Should it be an offence? No in my opinion

Should the railway have the powers to prosecute? No in my opinion

But that doesn't change what is black and white in this offence and the customers reasoning behind it doesn't change whether the offence was complete or not due to its strict liability

However, whilst it is a strict liability offence, that does not mean that:

a) There would be any member of staff who considers it as such (buying on board seems to be generally accepted on Avanti)

b) If a) were met, that the member of staff would take the passenger's details with a view to prosecution

c) If b) happened, that the prosecutions department would pursue a prosecution (particularly after representations from the passenger)

d) If c) happened, that the passenger would be unsuccessful in applying for the proceedings to be stayed as an abuse of process

As you can see, there are a lot of "if"s there before this would even get to a conviction. And not even the first of those has happened in this case. So whilst I wouldn't necessarily recommend doing the same as what the OP did, equally it does seem rather a moot point to talk about it being an offence - because it's not being treated as such by the TOC.

And even if the TOC were to treat it as an offence - the potential commission of an offence doesn't nullify the TOC's liability for any breach of their obligations under the PRO or NRCoT. So the OP could pursue them for their resultant losses, which in extremis might include any fines and compensation they're ordered to pay upon conviction, etc.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

However, whilst it is a strict liability offence, that does not mean that:

a) There would be any member of staff who considers it as such (buying on board seems to be generally accepted on Avanti)

b) If a) were met, that the member of staff would take the passenger's details with a view to prosecution

c) If b) happened, that the prosecutions department would pursue a prosecution (particularly after representations from the passenger)

d) If c) happened, that the passenger would be unsuccessful in applying for the proceedings to be stayed as an abuse of process

As you can see, there are a lot of "if"s there before this would even get to a conviction. And not even the first of those has happened in this case. So whilst I wouldn't necessarily recommend doing the same as what the OP did, equally it does seem rather a moot point to talk about it being an offence - because it's not being treated as such by the TOC.

And even if the TOC were to treat it as an offence - the potential commission of an offence doesn't nullify the TOC's liability for any breach of their obligations under the PRO or NRCoT. So the OP could pursue them for their resultant losses, which in extremis might include any fines and compensation they're ordered to pay upon conviction, etc.

The reason I talk about it being an offence is the OP started this thread, querying whether avanti were committing fraud (the thread title now appears to have been changed) Where in fact avanti were not committing fraud but the op was the one who was actually breaking the law

 

[Wolfie]

Which bear in mind rail replacement transport was provided, and will be on the remaining dates of engineering works this month, ran as scheduled, ticket acceptance was not in place on Avanti services. I think sometimes people just don't want to accept that their journey would take longer on such days and therefore they must be able to use whichever train is available

That is a key factor. Had it not been the case the OP would have more grounds to complain.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2022 ==

The reason I talk about it being an offence is the OP started this thread, querying whether avanti were committing fraud (the thread title now appears to have been changed) Where in fact avanti were not committing fraud but the op was the one who was actually breaking the law

I am sure that a clever KC could put a very coherent argument that the ancient "law" you quote is itself contrary to more recent legislation and as such the newer legislation should be applied.

 

[Watershed]

The reason I talk about it being an offence is the OP started this thread, querying whether avanti were committing fraud (the thread title now appears to have been changed) Where in fact avanti were not committing fraud but the op was the one who was actually breaking the law

Avanti weren't committing fraud, but it's possible that they were committing the offence of aggressive commercial trading practices.

 

[yorkie]

I note you haven't restored your reply.

Unfortunately other things cropped up (some of us do have jobs to do!) but it should be there now.

Where either of us work doesn't really matter, neither does the likelihood of this being prosecuted, neither does avanti or any other companys prosecution history it all comes down to the simple reading of the law, the offence is complete

So you are arguing over a theoretical position, based purely on a literal reading of the Railway Byelaws without considering the wider legal / contractual position, is that correct?

You are looking at this the wrong way round, it's up to you to have a valid ticket, if you don't you buy one prior to boarding where possible

It's not the passengers responsibility to do something impossible as you put it, you had 2 options, ask the guard or buy a new ticket, if you can't get to the guard that didnt mean you can't buy a new ticket even if that meant waiting for a later train

The customer had a valid ticket bought in good faith for an itinerary that was no longer being honoured. The change that occured to the timetable at short notice was extremely drastic in nature, and until relatively recently would have been almost unheard of, save for a major incident occuring.

It is generally acceped that a coordinated approach to the provision of passenger information during unexpected changes to train times of a disruptive nature is appropriate and important. During disruptive incidents, train companies should not discriminate against passengers who held TOC specific tickets who bought those tickets in good faith and found that it is no longer possible to make the journey using the original operator in a timely manner in accordance with their itinerary and/or contractual position.

You keep going on about Railway Byelaws as if they trump everything else, but the reality is that you cannot look at one small area of law (especially such an archaic one) and then consider that consumer law, contract law, custom and practice and rail industry principles should all be completely disregarded.

Do you have any examples of someone being prosecuted under these circumstances?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2022 ==

The idea of the OP having committed "an offence" is a complete non-sequitur, entirely academic in the round, and detracts from the complete lack of customer service he received.

I completely agree.

Now someone may say "but this is a random opinion from someone online"; it's not.

@Mak1981 I know for a fact that the above opinion by @AlterEgo is the opinion of someone whose job literally involved looking into incidents of customer service of this nature.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2022 ==

Which bear in mind rail replacement transport was provided, and will be on the remaining dates of engineering works this month, ran as scheduled, ticket acceptance was not in place on Avanti services. I think sometimes people just don't want to accept that their journey would take longer on such days and therefore they must be able to use whichever train is available

But you have to consider that the passenger held an itinerary which has a contractual value; where short notice disruption occurs, that was not known about at the time of purchase, train companies should be treating passengers in an even-handed manner, and not discriminating on the basis of holding TOC specific tickets.

 

[mikeg]

There is lots of citing of the airline analogy when claiming that TOCs legal obligations under heritage EU laws are impossible and hence that somehow gives them a pass. The airlines took a similar view until they faced litigation which went to the European Court of Justice and they comprehensively lost. The sooner more people sue TOCs at every conceivable opportunity and join more class actions the better.

Oh, and if NRCOT purports to offer less protection than what is now national primary legislation then any halfway competent Court will throw any TOC defence relying on it out with barely a second thought.

A big +1 to that. The question is how to structure such a class action? I've floated the idea that there's plenty of legal knowledge here on these very fora but comparatively little seems to happen, with one exception.

 

[O L Leigh]

I suspect that I’ll get shot down for this, but the whole premise of the OP’s complaint is that abiding by the terms of the ticket he bought was going to be inconvenient and that he was not likely to be stranded as a consequence of holding an “LNR only” ticket. No doubt there is an issue regarding the itinerary he was provided with but, unless it was an Advance ticket, there would have been nothing whatsoever wrong with continuing to use that ticket within it’s validity by following a different itinerary. Correct me if I’m wrong on this, but the itinerary does not form part of the contract between the ticket seller and the ticket purchaser.

As for Avanti’s role in this, they cannot really be criticised for not making it clear that the OP’s ticket was invalid.

It is generally acceped that a coordinated approach to the provision of passenger information during unexpected changes to train times of a disruptive nature is appropriate and important. During disruptive incidents, train companies should not discriminate against passengers who held TOC specific tickets who bought those tickets in good faith and found that it is no longer possible to make the journey using the original operator in a timely manner in accordance with their itinerary and/or contractual position.

A laudable position, and no doubt ticketing has become a bit of a dark art and needs to be tidied up, but I’m unsure under what circumstances customer inconvenience can be expected to trump ticketing regulations.

 

[yorkie]

I suspect that I’ll get shot down for this, but the whole premise of the OP’s complaint is that abiding by the terms of the ticket he bought was going to be inconvenient and that he was not likely to be stranded as a consequence of holding an “LNR only” ticket.

Did the rail industry abide by the terms of the contract?

No doubt there is an issue regarding the itinerary he was provided with but, unless it was an Advance ticket, there would have been nothing whatsoever wrong with continuing to use that ticket within it’s validity by following a different itinerary. Correct me if I’m wrong on this, but the itinerary does not form part of the contract between the ticket seller and the ticket purchaser.

The ticket seller isn't relevant here; they are merely acting as an agent. The train companies need to bear the responsibility for treating the customer in an appropriate manner.

The purpose of privatisation was not to create issues such as this, and indeed safeguards are supposed to be in place (but are woefully inadequate) to - in theory - avoid situations where customers are not given suitable alternatives where unexpected disruption occurs.

As for Avanti’s role in this, they cannot really be criticised for not making it clear that the OP’s ticket was invalid.

They can be criticised for their actions.

A laudable position, and no doubt ticketing has become a bit of a dark art and needs to be tidied up, but I’m unsure under what circumstances customer inconvenience can be expected to trump ticketing regulations.

Have you reead the following document?

https://www.raildeliverygroup.com/about-us/publications/archive/350-2014-07-passenger-information-during-disruption-cop/file.html

...During disruptive incidents passengers should not be discriminated against on the basis of operator and efforts should be made to deliver the same high standards to everyone. This includes passengers travelling on Railway Undertaking-specific tickets ....

It seems to me that some people replying to threads of this nature in defence of train companies are not particularly familiar with the relevant principles, such as consumer and contract law, and are simply keen to defend the actions of the railway; often this goes hand in hand with working for a train company. I find that to be disappointing. That said, I know such views are by no means representative of people who work in or for the industry as a whole, but it leaves a sour taste.


== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2022 ==

A big +1 to that. The question is how to structure such a class action? I've floated the idea that there's plenty of legal knowledge here on these very fora but comparatively little seems to happen, with one exception.

Unfortunately it's not really practicable to do this for the sort of incident that is described in this thread, as the experiences of passengers is very varied. The GTR and Boundary cases have a good chance of succeeding (especially the GTR case) because they are much more systematic and uniform in nature; even there, a huge amount of work is involved to bring such a case. It also needs a lot of funding, and you have to convince funders you have a realistic case. It's a discussion for a different thread though.

 

[43066]

As a rule, Avanti generally aren't agreeing to blanket ticket acceptance during disruption (even where CSL2 is declared) due to their ongoing reduced timetable and reliability issues.

Doesn't stop them from expecting other TOCs to grant them ticket acceptance in such instances, however!

Given that they can barely run their own service at the moment I can absolutely see the logic of not allowing ticket acceptance due to the likelihood of overcrowding and risk to their own passengers and staff. That’s just common sense. Of course - despite the assertions upthread - this is entirely in accordance with NRCoT and accepted industry practice.

To be fair I've always found the situation regarding ticket acceptance deeply immoral anyway.

If you board a crush loaded train where people with legitimate tickets for the train may not be able to board, but you have, you will probably get away with travelling on it whatever ticket you have because it is most unlikely there will be a ticket inspection or a waiting party looking for transgressors at the other end.

If you board a train with room for a ticket inspection to take place, usually not fully loaded by definition, and thus one that could probably help the network's passengers out, then you may be told "you can't use that ticket on here. It'll cost you 3 times what you paid in the first place" or you might even be prosecuted.

I want to see people use the network. If my train has empty seats and everything has gone wrong, particularly with the money largely ending up in the same pot (I will exempt open access operators from this statement) then I can't imagine the mentality of standing there telling someone who has already had their plans messed up that they are now required to shell out a load of money to simply get from A to B or worse, that they could end up in legal difficulty.

Consequently for me, and I know most of the other common or garden guards on my TOC having been encouraged to use our discretion and "do the right thing" I will always welcome on board anyone whose train has been cancelled or disrupted. I might sometimes tell them they need to stand if it's busy, or give them a polite warning if they've boarded of their own accord that they might cause themselves some bother if they assume that's OK with the likes of advance tickets, but I never charge them.

That is certainly the sensible approach. Unfortunately (as you don’t need me to tell you) approaches differ, and if you do as the OP did you are running a risk of an MG11 if you jump on without checking first. It doesn’t matter what people on here think of that because it won’t be them in the magistrates’ court.

Sure, those may be the options as presented but anyone defending that state of affairs isn’t on the right side of fairness in my view.

I think there’s a difference between defending the state of affairs and clarifying what the state of affairs actually is. There does seem to be a desire for people do show outrage and indicate disagreement with railway bylaws, but what is the point of that in reality?

My concern given the readership of this forum, who have a tendency to take things literally, is that people might put themselves onto the wrong side of revenue inspectors based on some half baked nonsense they’ve read on here.

I am sure that a clever KC could put a very coherent argument that the ancient "law" you quote is itself contrary to more recent legislation and as such the newer legislation should be applied.

Avanti weren't committing fraud, but it's possible that they were committing the offence of aggressive commercial trading practices.

There’s altogether too much barrack room legal advice on this thread. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing in this area, more than most others.

 

[yorkie]

Given that they can barely run their own service at the moment I can absolutely see the logic of not allowing ticket acceptance due to the likelihood of overcrowding and risk to their own passengers and staff. That’s just common sense. Of course - despite the assertions upthread - this is entirely in accordance with NRCoT and accepted industry practice.

However as a general rule, where unexpected disruption occurs at short notice, the general principle is that passengers should not be discriminated against on this basis. Unfortunately it's all very wooly and not legally defined

That is certainly the sensible approach. Unfortunately (as you don’t need me to tell you) approaches differ, and if you do as the OP did you are running a risk of an MG11 if you jump on without checking first. It doesn’t matter what people on here think of that because it won’t be them in the magistrates’ court.

When the ticket office is closed, there is no realistic prospect of a prosecution when a passenger boards an alternative service where their original itinerary is no longer being honoured (see above).

I think there’s a difference between defending the state of affairs and clarifying what the state of affairs actually is. There does seem to be a desire for people do show outrage and indicate disagreement with railway bylaws, but what is the point of that in reality?

The railway bylews cannot be considered in isolation without considering other areas of law.

My concern given the readership of this forum, who have a tendency to take things literally, is that people might put themselves onto the wrong side of revenue inspectors based on some half baked nonsense they’ve read on here.

Unfortunately much of the incorrect inteprretations posted on here is very much on the side of Avanti!

There’s altogether too much barrack room legal advice on this thread. A little knowledge is a dangerous thing in this area more than most others.

Indeed a little knowledge is dangerous; I refer you to the post above by @AlterEgo who is vastly experienced in this area and has considerable knowledge.

 

[Watershed]

I suspect that I’ll get shot down for this, but the whole premise of the OP’s complaint is that abiding by the terms of the ticket he bought was going to be inconvenient and that he was not likely to be stranded as a consequence of holding an “LNR only” ticket.

I feel you have the wrong end of the stick here.

The passenger bought their ticket on the basis of there being a direct train service taking around 2h10m. On the day, they found out that they had been sold their ticket on a false premise. Yet the rail industry's position was that they would have to change trains, as well as endure a journey more than an hour longer, unless they wanted to additionally stump up what would probably have amounted to twice their original fare (or more).

Any inconvenience here arose entirely as a result of the misrepresentations of the train company (through their agents) and their failure to adequately resolve that.

I hesitate to use the phrase victim blaming, but this very much seems like an example of it.

No doubt there is an issue regarding the itinerary he was provided with but, unless it was an Advance ticket, there would have been nothing whatsoever wrong with continuing to use that ticket within it’s validity by following a different itinerary. Correct me if I’m wrong on this, but the itinerary does not form part of the contract between the ticket seller and the ticket purchaser.

It absolutely does - see section 50 of the Consumer Rights Act. The average person would certainly be influenced in their purchasing decision by the itinerary presented when buying their ticket.

 

[SCDR_WMR]

Unfortunately other things cropped up (some of us do have jobs to do!) but it should be there now.

So you are arguing over a theoretical position, based purely on a literal reading of the Railway Byelaws without considering the wider legal / contractual position, is that correct?

The customer had a valid ticket bought in good faith for an itinerary that was no longer being honoured. The change that occured to the timetable at short notice was extremely drastic in nature, and until relatively recently would have been almost unheard of, save for a major incident occuring.

It is generally acceped that a coordinated approach to the provision of passenger information during unexpected changes to train times of a disruptive nature is appropriate and important. During disruptive incidents, train companies should not discriminate against passengers who held TOC specific tickets who bought those tickets in good faith and found that it is no longer possible to make the journey using the original operator in a timely manner in accordance with their itinerary and/or contractual position.

You keep going on about Railway Byelaws as if they trump everything else, but the reality is that you cannot look at one small area of law (especially such an archaic one) and then consider that consumer law, contract law, custom and practice and rail industry principles should all be completely disregarded.

Do you have any examples of someone being prosecuted under these circumstances?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2022 ==


I completely agree.

Now someone may say "but this is a random opinion from someone online"; it's not.

@Mak1981 I know for a fact that the above opinion by @AlterEgo is the opinion of someone whose job literally involved looking into incidents of customer service of this nature.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2022 ==


But you have to consider that the passenger held an itinerary which has a contractual value; where short notice disruption occurs, that was not known about at the time of purchase, train companies should be treating passengers in an even-handed manner, and not discriminating on the basis of holding TOC specific tickets.

I do find it odd that timetables weren't correct in advance given it was in the weekly company memos (internal) for the last 5-6 weeks. This wasn't (or shouldn't have been) short notice disruption but planned engineering works with hourly replacement between Stafford and Rugby to match the number of trains unavailable.

100% agree that there shouldn't be TOC specific ticket at all though, pain in the backside they are

 

[glasgowniteowl]

Unfortunately other things cropped up (some of us do have jobs to do!) but it should be there now.

So you are arguing over a theoretical position, based purely on a literal reading of the Railway Byelaws without considering the wider legal / contractual position, is that correct?

The customer had a valid ticket bought in good faith for an itinerary that was no longer being honoured. The change that occured to the timetable at short notice was extremely drastic in nature, and until relatively recently would have been almost unheard of, save for a major incident occuring.

It is generally acceped that a coordinated approach to the provision of passenger information during unexpected changes to train times of a disruptive nature is appropriate and important. During disruptive incidents, train companies should not discriminate against passengers who held TOC specific tickets who bought those tickets in good faith and found that it is no longer possible to make the journey using the original operator in a timely manner in accordance with their itinerary and/or contractual position.

You keep going on about Railway Byelaws as if they trump everything else, but the reality is that you cannot look at one small area of law (especially such an archaic one) and then consider that consumer law, contract law, custom and practice and rail industry principles should all be completely disregarded.

Do you have any examples of someone being prosecuted under these circumstances?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2022 ==


I completely agree.

Now someone may say "but this is a random opinion from someone online"; it's not.

@Mak1981 I know for a fact that the above opinion by @AlterEgo is the opinion of someone whose job literally involved looking into incidents of customer service of this nature.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2022 ==


But you have to consider that the passenger held an itinerary which has a contractual value; where short notice disruption occurs, that was not known about at the time of purchase, train companies should be treating passengers in an even-handed manner, and not discriminating on the basis of holding TOC specific tickets.

I wouldn't describe it as theoretical, reading of the law is clear he has committed the offence,

was his ticket valid for this train? That's a fact of being No, there's nothing theoretical about that

whether he is likely to be prosecuted would fall under "theoretical" highly highly unlikely but it is not theoretical whether he broke the law or not

I have at no point defended any train company on this thread, I am pointing out however that this passenger after misunderstanding his rights, decided he had the right to board this train under PRO rules which he has no authority to enforce on a third party company, then feels that announcements the third party company stating his ticket was not valid may have amounted to fraud where in fact legally he may have boarded the train and committed an offence,

You disregard my previous comment that 2 wrongs don't make a right. But that doesn't detract that there are in fact 2 wrongs

 

[O L Leigh]

I feel you have the wrong end of the stick here.

The passenger bought their ticket on the basis of there being a direct train service taking around 2h10m. On the day, they found out that they had been sold their ticket on a false premise. Yet the rail industry's position was that they would have to change trains, as well as endure a journey more than an hour longer, unless they wanted to additionally stump up what would probably have amounted to twice their original fare (or more).

Any inconvenience here arose entirely as a result of the misrepresentations of the train company (through their agents) and their failure to adequately resolve that.

I hesitate to use the phrase victim blaming, but this very much seems like an example of it.

Yes, I probably have.

My reason for highlighting the convenience issue is not to attempt "victim blaming" but to try and explore the limits to which "inconvenience" can be used as a justification as a "disruptive incident" (a question I posed but which was hidden by @yorkie who didn't like my response to the thinly-veiled insult he threw my way). To me there is a thin end of the wedge when you open up the question of "inconvenience" as it is a fairly nebulous concept. Who decides what is or isn't inconvenient and when does this become a "disruptive incident".

I happen to agree that the key to this specific incident is the problematic and ultimately fictional itinerary, and I don't think it's been specified from whom the OP bought his ticket and who provided this itinerary. Either way, notwithstanding the morality of the situation, the position as it stands now is that the railway clearly disagreed with his view that his own inconvenience was sufficient to class it as a "disruptive incident". A lot of the discussion so far has been about the rights and wrongs of this state of affairs, but frankly I want to put that to one side as it's been done to death. That he feels he has been hard done by under contract law and what options he has for restitution are already well discussed, and if he feels he has a claim I would encourage him to pursue it.

However, I don't agree that this amounts to a fraud by Avanti committed against the OP, nor yet could it be argued that Avanti were ambiguous about the validitiy of "LNR Only" tickets on their services. In spite of this, the OP boarded an Avanti service and presumably complied with the requirement to buy a new ticket, the cost of which he is appears to be pursuing with some vigour. My contention was simply that he has applied his own interpretation on the regulations which has seen him bending the ticketing regulations. If he is successful in his claim to get a refund back from LNR (and I think he will be) then all's well that end's well and I will be happy for the OP.

 

[43066]

Did the rail industry abide by the terms of the contract?

How exactly does an entire industry become party to a contract? The contract here was with LNR. Privity of contract is a fundamental legal principle and I don’t see anything to suggest it doesn’t apply to railway ticketing contracts!

However as a general rule, where unexpected disruption occurs at short notice, the general principle is that passengers should not be discriminated against on this basis. Unfortunately it's all very wooly and not legally defined

As you say, all very woolly and you appear to be basing this “general principle” on a non binding code of practice. There’s nothing to indicate this is an absolute duty. Almost all businesses “discriminate” at some level against customers of other businesses by not serving them.

There’s also nothing I’ve seen to indicate that Avanti cannot refuse ticket acceptance in their current circumstances, indeed it seems they are currently doing so as a general principle. They will have an in house legal team who will presumably have considered the legal risks of doing so, weighed against other imperatives, and have concluded this is the correct way to go.

Do you agree that, given Avanti’s parlous state at the moment, declining ticket acceptance it’s a logical enough approach?

When the ticket office is closed, there is no realistic prospect of a prosecution when a passenger boards an alternative service where their original itinerary is no longer being honoured (see above).

Low risk isn’t the same as no risk. There was presumably a TVM, so the OP had passed a means of payment before boarding.

The railway bylews cannot be considered in isolation without considering other areas of law.

All that needs to be considered is whether the elements of an offence have been made out. If they have then the TOC has the ability to prosecute should it choose to do so. It is a criminal law matter, so contract and consumer law really has no bearing.

Unfortunately much of the incorrect inteprretations posted on here is very much on the side of Avanti!

I think a lot of people have simply explained the situation as they see it. It’s not about taking sides. Avanti are a pretty awful company by all accounts, most TOCs are. I think you are way off track to imagine that people who work for the railway are trying to somehow “defend its honour” - many railway workers despise their employers just as much as the passengers do! That’s not altogether healthy but it’s true nonetheless.

Indeed a little knowledge is dangerous; I refer you to the post above by @AlterEgo who is vastly experienced in this area and has considerable knowledge.

I don’t think anyone has disagreed that there is a low risk of prosecution, but there is at least a theoretical risk. It would be remiss of anybody not to make this clear - again I would hope you would agree - especially remembering the nature of the readership on here which includes many with a tendency to take things very literally.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 17 Oct 2022 ==

However, I don't agree that this amounts to a fraud by Avanti committed against the OP, nor yet could it be argued that Avanti were ambiguous about the validitiy of "LNR Only" tickets on their services. In spite of this, the OP boarded an Avanti service and presumably complied with the requirement to buy a new ticket, the cost of which he is appears to be pursuing with some vigour. My contention was simply that he has applied his own interpretation on the regulations which has seen him bending the ticketing regulations. If he is successful in his claim to get a refund back from LNR (and I think he will be) then all's well that end's well and I will be happy for the OP.

Absolutely. Whatever the legal whys and wherefores, he *should* be given the money back, preferably by LNR.

 

[mikeg]

How exactly does an entire industry become party to a contract? The contract here was with LNR. Privity of contract is a fundamental legal principle and I don’t see anything to suggest it doesn’t apply to railway ticketing contracts!

Yet the fact is the NRCoT does put onuses on the industry as a whole and certain aspects of the ticketing contract are with the railway as a whole. In particular, the presence of Rail Settlement Plan Ltd, who decide the terms of such a contract, implies cross-industry liability. It's a unique industry.

 

[43066]

Yet the fact is the NRCoT does put onuses on the industry as a whole and certain aspects of the ticketing contract are with the railway as a whole.

Yes, but that is separate and distinct from the contract entered into by the passenger buying a ticket. The contracts are largely standardised (and indeed incorporate the NRCoT) but they are separate nonetheless.

My contention is that Avanti (by virtue of the NRCoT, not the underlying ticket contract) is supposed to make “reasonable efforts” to assist passengers of other TOCs during disruption (albeit it’s unclear what the scope of this “obligation” is) but it cannot be compelled to do so due to the fact it has no contract with them. Clearly @Watershed and @yorkie have a different view.

 

[infobleep]

The common sense position and the position under the rules is that Avanti were under no obligation to assist you.

Surely common sense doesn't come into it. Either it's legal or it isn't.

Common sense might apply when deciding whether to prosecute but I'm not aware of common sense being written into laws.

Perhaps someone could tell me otherwise if I am wrong.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Oct 2022 ==

I don’t think anyone has disagreed that there is a low risk of prosecution, but there is at least a theoretical risk.

There may be a risk but is there a risk of a successful production? I mean someone could prosecute someone even if they know the person not to be doing anything unlawful.

I'd advise against doing that but it doesn't mean they can't.

 

[100andthirty]

I once asked a lawyer about whether UK law was based on common sense. He said: "no, because common sense isn't all that common".