Debate regarding trains advertised as conveying Standard class accommodation only

[yorkie]

The NRCoT cannot over-rule consumer law. While it would be nice if the NRCoT was clearer (it's a complete mess in many areas), it doesn't change the fact that trains advertised as only conveying standard accommodation have all accommodation classified as standard class.

 

[sarahj]

You cannot win with some punters. When a 313 I'm due to work is replaced by a 377, there is technically no first class. I tell the punters this, but some just won't believe you. I had one guy, after I told him he could sit in first class go, 'no way, you will come in and fine me'. Trying to get some round to the fact that 'no 1 in the timetable, no first class', and if your booked 313 becomes a 377, that means the original train was not timetabled to have first class, therefore, no first class', takes time, but I think I'm getting there.

 

[IanXC]

The NRCoT cannot over-rule consumer law. While it would be nice if the NRCoT was clearer (it's a complete mess in many areas), it doesn't change the fact that trains advertised as only conveying standard accommodation have all accommodation classified as standard class.

Its not really a case of the NRCoT 'over-ruling' consumer law. The issue is that there are 2 conflicting items of documentation available, which are:

- Timetables and journey planners show some trains as only conveying standard class accommodation.

- The contact governing the product states that some trains will have first class accommodation marked on board.

Seating Class information
This train has Standard Class seating only

Seating Class information
This train has First Class seating

I do tend to agree that the interpretation which is legally binding is that the term more favourable to the consumer takes priority, however I'm not sure I would want to put this to the test! What is remarkable is how easily this could be resolved (and no, RDG, I'm not going to tell you how!).