Can a tweet authorise a route?

[rdwarr]

Quick question.

If you buy a ticket from A-B and tweet the TOC to ask if it's valid via C, and a TOC rep replies "Yes", would that authorise you to make the journey even if the route is, in fact, invalid?

I thought it would but am now worried that this may fall under what the NRCOT lists as a "customer responsibility".

 

[AlterEgo]

Quick question.

If you buy a ticket from A-B and tweet the TOC to ask if it's valid via C, and a TOC rep replies "Yes", would that authorise you to make the journey even if the route is, in fact, invalid?

I thought it would but am now worried that this may fall under what the NRCOT lists as a "customer responsibility".

In my view that constitutes authority to travel, though I would not advocate taking advantage of routeings which you know to be wrong.

 

[RJ]

Quick question.

If you buy a ticket from A-B and tweet the TOC to ask if it's valid via C, and a TOC rep replies "Yes", would that authorise you to make the journey even if the route is, in fact, invalid?

I thought it would but am now worried that this may fall under what the NRCOT lists as a "customer responsibility".

You can get permission over Twitter, a letter from customer services, a valid itinerary from the TOC's own website or a telegram from the Queen. If the guard doesn't like it or the barrier staff won't let you through, there's not a lot you can do about it.

Also the NRCOT means diddly squat to a lot of ticket inspection staff so I wouldn't rely on what's in there to help you on the day. If you're concerned, you're best off buying a ticket which the member of staff is more likely to pass.

 

[rdwarr]

Thanks for the replies. Wasn't me personally but didn't want so see another passenger get into trouble, especially as she'd followed up the initial reply with an "Are you sure it's OK?" and got another "yes" back.

 

[westv]

You can get permission over Twitter, a letter from customer services, a valid itinerary from the TOC's own website or a telegram from the Queen. If the guard doesn't like it or the barrier staff won't let you through, there's not a lot you can do about it.

Elbows and shoulders. Elbows and shoulders.

 

[jon0844]

If you get authority from someone from the social media team for the train operator in question, even if said advice turns out to be wrong, I'd say it should be honoured.

I guess the rules haven't kept up with this, and some might consider it a grey area, but that's for the TOC to worry about.

Twitter doesn't really allow for disclaimers to be attached to say that what you're told may not be correct, so they either give advice they can be held to - or refuse to answer questions and say they're not able to.

 

[185143]

I asked if I could use my TPE advance to Edinburgh on Virgin to Glasgow when Lamington Viaduct fell down (as I was travelling to Thurso-so I didn't care where I ended up). All 3 TMs I got between Wigan and Glasgow were fine with it 'as long as you know where you're going' to quote at least 2 of them!

 

[najaB]

Quick question.

If you buy a ticket from A-B and tweet the TOC to ask if it's valid via C, and a TOC rep replies "Yes", would that authorise you to make the journey even if the route is, in fact, invalid?

I'll add my voice to the crowd saying "Yes, but..."

Social media teams are deemed to be an 'official' voice of the TOC, so what they say goes in the end. However the tweet doesn't guarantee that you won't get harassed if you encounter a guard/RPI/ticket barrier staff who is of a different mindset.

 

[talldave]

As an example of the opposite scenario, Southeastern's Twitter team don't believe that "Any Permitted" tickets are valid on HS1. Presumably, an HS1 OBS should be booting a lot of people off

 

[rdwarr]

Thanks for the further replies. The route in question was Arlesey to Alexandra Palace via Finsbury Park. Had two "Yesses" from the GN Twitter team and by the time one of the more knowledgeable ones said "No" it was too late.
I thought that if it was valid then anybody going to FPK could just buy a ticket to AAP and stop short. Didn't seem right at all.

 

[221129]

so what they say goes in the end.

I'm sorry but this is untrue.

 

[jon0844]

I would consider the social team to be authorised as per the terms of the conditions of travel. If wrong, lucky you for getting authority to travel!

 

[RJ]

I'm sorry but this is untrue.

What are you trying to say - that the left arm doesn't know what the right is doing where TOCs are concerned? Staff putting out contradictory information, yet it's the customer that's always wrong!

 

[Cantab26]

I would consider the social team to be authorised as per the terms of the conditions of travel. If wrong, lucky you for getting authority to travel!

If you are referring to NRCOT n.6.3(b), I am not at all convinced that this is as comprehensive as many assume. My view is that permission under NRCOT n.6.3(b) does not displace any contractual obligation to pay an excess fare under NRCOT nn.9.4, 13.4 or 16.5.

Whilst the authority to travel may estop a prosecution under the byelaws, I see no reason why a refusal to pay the excess fare could not be prosecuted under the 1889 Act.

It would be a brave TOC that actually tried to demand payment or to prosecute though!

 

[AngusH]

I'm not sure that that the twitter staff need to be officially "authorised" persons,

As a written medium it seems to be equivalent in my mind to an official poster or advertising notice put out under the company name.


edit: i.e the relevant section is the "making information available" bit in 2.3

That's not to say that the information given is necessarily correct, but if the company puts out written advice under its name, then it's reasonable to believe it correct. (If it isn't correct the staff shouldn't have been authorised to put it up in the first place)



It might also be argued that advertising a route as valid when it isn't is in breech of some consumer regulations, but that's a different kettle of fish.

 

[221129]

What are you trying to say - that the left arm doesn't know what the right is doing where TOCs are concerned? Staff putting out contradictory information, yet it's the customer that's always wrong!

I was responding to the quoted piece that says whatever the Twitter team says, goes. Which is false.

 

[najaB]

I'm sorry but this is untrue.

I posit that a TOC would have a very difficult time bringing a successful prosecution against someone who had followed written advice given to them via a TOC's official communications channel, regardless of if it was written on paper or electronically.

 

[jon0844]

I also think any prosecution would fail, if a TOC ever considered taking it that far, if someone produced a Tweet or Facebook comment. I'd also expect an appeal for a penalty fare to succeed.

The TOC would be better off using the time and money to make sure the social team didn't continue to give incorrect advice and perhaps delete the post and publish the correct info for anyone else that might see it.

Now I suppose there could be exceptions for something mad like someone saying it's fine to jump down on the track to retrieve lost property etc but I am also quite confident that this wouldn't happen and in most cases the problem is they give incorrect advice to a passenger to their detriment.