• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Booked seat not available on LNER as passengers wouldn't move

Status
Not open for further replies.

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
18,160
Were the seats reservations actually displayed?

I travelled on three LNER trains last Sunday and the reservations were not displayed on two of them. WHen reservations aren't displayed they are cancelled and it is a free for all.

The 2nd train I travelled on last Sunday was extremely busy but we did have seat reservations. When we got on the train at Doncaster there were people sat in our seats, but with no reservations displayed I could not insist they moved. We ended up having to stand for 1h30.
 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

Titfield

Established Member
Joined
26 Jun 2013
Messages
3,252
If notices were on display to indicate that the seats referred to in the OP had been reserved then at first glance the occupation of those seats by persons other than the reservation holders constituted an offence under Byelaw 19 of the Railway Byelaws, which contain ample powers for that Byelaw's enforcement, if the operator has the will to use them. Implicit in LNER's Seat Guarantee Scheme is an declaration that it lacks that will.

A potential difficulty arising from Byelaw 19's wording is that the requisite Notice must indicate “that it is reserved for a specified ticket holder or holders of tickets of a specific class.” Does this mean that the identity of the specified ticket holder must appear upon the Notice or does it suffice for such Notice merely to state that the associated seat has been reserved? And if the latter, then what purpose is served by the words “ for a specified ticket holder”?

The identity of the ticket holder (whether by name, ticket number or some form of reservation reference number) does not need to be specified on the Notice. The wording "specified ticket holder" means the notice and seat number can be associated with a specified ticket holder being the person holding some proof of association / entitlement ie some form of proof of seat reservation of the specific seat(s).
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
24,850
Byelaw 19 facilitates prosecution for failure to vacate the seat. It does not facilitate the physical removal of the person occupying the seat which was the desired outcome.
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
16,822
Location
UK
Byelaw 19 facilitates prosecution for failure to vacate the seat. It does not facilitate the physical removal of the person occupying the seat which was the desired outcome.
Yes it does. Byelaw 24(2)(2) provides a power of removal, including using reasonable force.

Of course the TOC may decide to selectively exercise that power - as is evidently the case here. But that doesn't mean they lack the necessary powers.
 

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
18,160
Seat reservations generally work fine. You reserve a seat, something saying the seat is reserved is displayed above the seat. If someone is sat in your reserved seat you’re ok to ask them to vacate it. Almost everyone will vacate without issue.

The problem comes if details of reservations aren’t displayed. Anyone boarding without a reservation doesn’t know what is and isn’t reserved so you can’t blame them for sitting in a seat that appears to be unreserved. The problem then gets compounded as people then start sitting anywhere in the train. This is what happened to me last Sunday between Doncaster and Peterborough. Some will say compulsory reservations is the way to go but it really isn’t. What needs to happen is train companies need to make sure seat reservations are displayed.
 

mikeg

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2010
Messages
2,072
Location
Selby
Put the passengers in Standard, refunding the difference, and then offer a free upgrade to First on another occasion for the inconvenience?
Once was on a TPE service where a couple got on and some passengers, without first class tickets, were occupying all of the few seats in first class. They were quite boisterous and the guard couldn't really handle the confrontation (fair enough). This is more or less what happened except they were given a back on track voucher for a completely complimentary first class journey anywhere on the network.
 

ChewChewTrain

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2019
Messages
355
I’ve just remembered that until 15-20 years ago or possibly later, the reservation cards inserted into the tops of seats had “Penalty for unauthorised occupation of this seat: £200” on them. Unlikely though that consequence may have been, perhaps pointing out that text to the selfish miscreants may have been enough!

(It also had “Penalty for [x]: £20” but I can’t remember what [x] was…)
 

Watershed

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
26 Sep 2020
Messages
16,822
Location
UK
I’ve just remembered that until 15-20 years ago or possibly later, the reservation cards inserted into the tops of seats had “Penalty for unauthorised occupation of this seat: £200” on them. Unlikely though that consequence may have been, perhaps pointing out that text to the selfish miscreants may have been enough!

(It also had “Penalty for [x]: £20” but I can’t remember what [x] was…)
Penalty for unauthorised removal of the reservation label, perhaps.
 

mikeg

Established Member
Joined
20 Apr 2010
Messages
2,072
Location
Selby
I’ve just remembered that until 15-20 years ago or possibly later, the reservation cards inserted into the tops of seats had “Penalty for unauthorised occupation of this seat: £200” on them. Unlikely though that consequence may have been, perhaps pointing out that text to the selfish miscreants may have been enough!

(It also had “Penalty for [x]: £20” but I can’t remember what [x] was…)
On Grand Central they still have this. Not sure how they enforce it...
 

ChewChewTrain

Member
Joined
27 Jun 2019
Messages
355
Penalty for unauthorised removal of the reservation label, perhaps.
Pretty sure that was it, yep.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==

This suggests the penalty for unauthorised removal was higher than for authorised occupation. £200 vs £50.
https://www.picclickimg.com/~GIAAOS...eat-Reservation-Label-No-Seat-Reserved-in.jpg
I only occasionally took trains in BR days, and my parents would have dealt with matters such as seat reservations. The ones I saw would have been on Great Western, and possibly GNER and Virgin, around 2000. I’m almost sure the two penalties were the way round I thought, but the memory does play tricks.
 
Last edited:

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
4,914
So basically DONT book just get on train and sit in any empty seat and refuse to move.

Which is fine until someone smacks someone in the teeth (I’m in no way justifying such a response but it could and would happen)

Put the passengers in Standard, refunding the difference, and then offer a free upgrade to First on another occasion for the inconvenience?
All well and good but this sounds like an amount of effort some staff members may not have time / care for.
 

sheff1

Established Member
Joined
24 Dec 2009
Messages
6,063
Location
Sheffield
All well and good but this sounds like an amount of effort some staff members may not have time / care for.
Indeed. We have already been told by staff members that staff cannot really take the action explicitly promised in the existing LNER Passenger's Charter (no explanation as to why not of course)
 

Parallel

Established Member
Joined
9 Dec 2013
Messages
4,543
As others mention, on LNER, it seems to be if reservations are not displayed, they are not valid. This was true of my last trip with them when an 800 covered for a Mark 4 set.

Realistically, issuing a penalty to someone occupying a reserved seat probably won’t happen in many cases and the BTP won’t be interested and the TOC won’t want to delay the train.

Really, if reservations were shown on the train, the member of staff should have at least asked them to move, but if not, there’s not a lot that the passengers holding the reservations can do other than write in requesting a refund/compensation afterwards.
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
24,850
Really, if reservations were shown on the train, the member of staff should have at least asked them to move,
Correct, and if they refuse find alternative seats for the passengers with reservations. But if a train is full and none are available then only the post journey compensation options remain.
 

AndrewE

Established Member
Joined
9 Nov 2015
Messages
7,372
As others mention, on LNER, it seems to be if reservations are not displayed, they are not valid. This was true of my last trip with them when an 800 covered for a Mark 4 set.

Realistically, issuing a penalty to someone occupying a reserved seat probably won’t happen in many cases and the BTP won’t be interested and the TOC won’t want to delay the train.

Really, if reservations were shown on the train, the member of staff should have at least asked them to move, but if not, there’s not a lot that the passengers holding the reservations can do other than write in requesting a refund/compensation afterwards.
This comes up periodically, and used to be the convention although no-one seems able to point to any "rules" implementing it. It is a good system for avoiding further grief in the circumstances (like joining a busy train and repeatedly being asked to move when people with reservations for "your" seat get on later.)

The OP doesn't say whether the reservations were showing... if they weren't and the rule was explicit then they would get their compensation and, more importantly, would have known that that's just how it is, avoiding the stress of further confrontation.

This sort of thing is what colours people's perception of rail travel and makes them less likely to risk it again, jeopardising any rcovery or further growth. Of course with things as they are the railway can't even run its trains, let alone do the frilly bits like operate a reservation system. While some industries (or sectors of the economy) are lionised or feather-bedded, you get the impression that the government would be happy for others to die the death of a thousand cuts. Rail and agriculture are in the second category...
 

ainsworth74

Forum Staff
Staff Member
Global Moderator
Joined
16 Nov 2009
Messages
31,139
Location
Redcar
It's disappointing that, presumably, the ability to print reservation tags has been ditched despite the IEP spec making provision for the display of printed reservations.

I also assume that the train software cannot cope with diversions and seat reservations seeing as this seems to happen all the time with planned diversions. Indeed the train I'm on now has no reservations. Thankfully expecting this I was able to postion myself to grab a free solo seat. But this is a recurring issue. I've seen it on Carlisle diversions as well.
 

robbeech

Established Member
Joined
11 Nov 2015
Messages
4,914
It’s just another half arsed job, something the railway excels at it seems.
 

Hadders

Veteran Member
Associate Staff
Senior Fares Advisor
Joined
27 Apr 2011
Messages
18,160
It's disappointing that, presumably, the ability to print reservation tags has been ditched despite the IEP spec making provision for the display of printed reservations.

I also assume that the train software cannot cope with diversions and seat reservations seeing as this seems to happen all the time with planned diversions. Indeed the train I'm on now has no reservations. Thankfully expecting this I was able to postion myself to grab a free solo seat. But this is a recurring issue. I've seen it on Carlisle diversions as well.
Diverted trains means fewer usually operate meaning that those that do operate are extremely busy.

Exactly the time you want your seat reservation system working....
 

WesternLancer

Veteran Member
Joined
12 Apr 2019
Messages
15,414
Yes, the issue seems to be that we don't know if the reservation system was working (ie displayed) or not and the staff thus stating that reservations were suspended on that train. That would be helpful to know in terms of implied criticism of staff for not intervening in this - including my own comment on that.

Would help if the OP clarified, if indeed they knew, on this on that - apols if I have missed that.
 

John Palmer

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2015
Messages
399
s others mention, on LNER, it seems to be if reservations are not displayed, they are not valid. This was true of my last trip with them when an 800 covered for a Mark 4 set.

Realistically, issuing a penalty to someone occupying a reserved seat probably won’t happen in many cases and the BTP won’t be interested and the TOC won’t want to delay the train.

Really, if reservations were shown on the train, the member of staff should have at least asked them to move, but if not, there’s not a lot that the passengers holding the reservations can do other than write in requesting a refund/compensation afterwards.
I know of no explicit rule that the non-display of of a seat reservation notice invalidates a reservation of that seat. However, the effect of the operator's failure to display such notices is to make the seat reservation scheme unenforceable, because the presence of such notices is a prerequisite of such enforcement by exercise of the available byelaw sanctions. The 'rule' that undisplayed reservations are not valid seems to be not so much a rule as a consequence of the operator's failure to make its reservation scheme one capable of being enforced.

If, in the OP's case, there were no notices to indicate the seat reservations he had made, then my sympathy lies with those who were already occupying them. If the operator failed to alert them that their seats had been reserved by the OP, then why should they suffer inconvenience as a result of that failure?

If seat reservation notices were on display then naturally the seats' unauthorised occupants forfeit my sympathy. If no other seats in the train were available then it was incumbent upon the operator's staff to ask them to vacate those seats so that it could fulfil its obligations to the OP under the terms of its Passenger's Charter. These terms required the operator, not the passenger, to take the initiative in rectifying the passenger's loss of his entitlements, e.g. “If you’ve reserved a seat but it’s not available, our staff will try to find you another seat on the train.” (my emphasis). In addition it was up to staff to make the passenger aware of his entitlement to compensation, rather than leaving it to him to discover that entitlement for himself. In the OP's case a failure by LNER staff to take the positive action required of them by their employer’s Passenger's Charter should lead to a compensation award over and beyond the appropriate fraction of his ticket cost.

I can fully understand a reluctance on the part of staff to enforce seat reservations by ejection of the unauthorised occupants from the reserved seats or by reporting them with a view to prosecution for byelaw breach. However, declaring a policy in which it is implicit that a blind eye will be turned to such byelaw infractions is to encourage a perception that seat reservations can be disregarded. I'm not convinced that this is a wise course for operators to take in the long run.

In any case, the vital first step for operators to take is to ensure seat reservation notices are displayed.
 

Bletchleyite

Veteran Member
Joined
20 Oct 2014
Messages
113,909
Location
"Marston Vale mafia"
I have said before and will again, the main conflict issue with no display is easily resolved by placing notices around the coach saying what applies if they are not displayed, i.e. if they still apply or they don't.
 

londonbridge

Established Member
Joined
30 Jun 2010
Messages
1,896
Which is fine until someone smacks someone in the teeth (I’m in no way justifying such a response but it could and would happen)


All well and good but this sounds like an amount of effort some staff members may not have time / care for.
This is exactly what I was going to say, if you refuse to move sooner or later someone WILL try and physically manhandle you out of the seat.
 

Haywain

Veteran Member
Joined
3 Feb 2013
Messages
24,850
This is exactly what I was going to say, if you refuse to move sooner or later someone WILL try and physically manhandle you out of the seat.
And is one way it will lead to BTP involvement. And quite possibly court action for assault.
 

skyhigh

Established Member
Joined
14 Sep 2014
Messages
6,906
Is a Guard permitted to remove someone from a seat or from the train if they take someone else's seat?
Do you mean physically remove?

The Byelaws allow for it, but company policy will often be that Guards don't get hands on, for obvious reasons.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top