Disputed Route Procedure

[mikeg]

It is appreciated that on occasions customers may claim that the National Routeing Guide now prevents them from travelling via a route that was previously valid for them to travel on under the ‘any reasonable route’ ruling. In such instances the following procedures should be followed.
1. Inform the customer that travel is now only valid via the permitted routes shown within the National Routeing Guide. 2. Advise the customer that a ‘disputed routeing procedure’ exists whereupon consideration will be given to whether the route disputed by the customer can be included as an easement and included as a permitted route in the future. 3. Take details of the disputed route which the customer now claims to be prevented from using and forward to the Customer Relations Office of any Train Operator providing services along the disputed route. Remember to record the customer’s name and address. 4. Advise the customer that a ruling will be sought through the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) in liaison with the Department for Transport, to ascertain whether the disputed route should be allowed or declined. A written reply will be sent by ATOC direct to the customer advising them of the adjudication as soon as possible. 5. Upon receipt of a disputed routeing from a customer the Customer Relations Office should arrange to forward details to ATOC as soon as possible to allow for a prompt adjudication. 6. Should a disputed route be conceded the customer will be entitled to a refund of fare for any additional payment that may have been necessary to have allowed them to make their journey via the disputed route. In this event, the customer will be compensated. 7. Where a disputed route is conceded, ATOC will arrange for an additional easement to be published.

Reading through the instructions for the National Routeing Guide, I notice this is still here. Do any of us think it may be worth taking advantage (en masse if possible) of the disputed route procedure to try to gain some changes to the current shambles that is the new Routeing Guide? Does anyone have any experience of this procedure being followed, or is it just a flimsy paper right which you'd be better not to use? Would FOI requests on previously-permitted routes be more useful?

Personally I've never had to use this procedure as all bar one of the journeys I have made have been permitted by the routeing guide (the other one was permitted by a journey planner).

 

[swt_passenger]

"Where a disputed route is conceded, ATOC will arrange for an additional easement to be published."

Or they could just fix any relevant errors on their maps, and then they wouldn't need an easement?

 

[RJ]

I see the text for this section has changed as well. Previously, it stated;

4. Advise the customer that a ruling will be sought through the
Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) in liaison with the
Office of the Rail Regulator and Department for Transport, to ascertain
whether the disputed route should be allowed or declined. A written
reply will be sent by ATOC direct to the customer advising them of the
adjudication as soon as possible.

 

[johnnycache]

I think the Office of Rail Regulation may be sympathetic to the fact that there is no longer any proper process for establishing whether a routeing is valid or not. It seems to be a question of its only valid if NRE says it is. That's not satisfactory.

 

[RJ]

I think the Office of Rail Regulation may be sympathetic to the fact that there is no longer any proper process for establishing whether a routeing is valid or not. It seems to be a question of its only valid if NRE says it is. That's not satisfactory.

No, it isn't. It makes my job more difficult and devalues the services I can offer as a ticket office clerk. Plus RJIS is still very much feeding from the previous incarnation of the NRG. I patiently await ATOCs response as to how their members can determine permitted routes for any extant ticket.

 

[Clip]

No, it isn't. It makes my job more difficult and devalues the services I can offer as a ticket office clerk. Plus RJIS is still very much feeding from the previous incarnation of the NRG. I patiently await ATOCs response as to how their members can determine permitted routes for any extant ticket.

Good luck with that. We've been chuckling about this for a while now. I'd suggest having a little chat with your line manager about it if you havent already

 

[yorkie]

No, it isn't. It makes my job more difficult and devalues the services I can offer as a ticket office clerk. Plus RJIS is still very much feeding from the previous incarnation of the NRG. I patiently await ATOCs response as to how their members can determine permitted routes for any extant ticket.

Simple: any ticket the TOCs don't like, they go running to ATOC who immediately declare the ticket as "not intended to be valid" as it looks "unreasonable" in their opinion therefore BR would have said it wasn't valid, therefore no DfT approval required. :roll: DfT appear to be scared of the TOCs who can simply threaten loss of revenue which will result in lower bids for future franchises.

This sham needs exposing in the national press, and I am confident it will be

 

[telstarbox]

Surely the number of people using good value, unusually routed tickets is vanishingly small compared to the millions who buy full-price annual season tickets, travel for business on Anytime Returns, always "book in advance because it's cheaper", have "great days out when they go by train", and do all the other lucrative things the TOCs want them to?

Do the TOCs not spend more time (and therefore money) closing loopholes than they gain by closing them? (and hi ATOC if you're reading this ).

 

[Clip]

Simple: any ticket the TOCs don't like, they go running to ATOC who immediately declare the ticket as "not intended to be valid" as it looks "unreasonable" in their opinion therefore BR would have said it wasn't valid, therefore no DfT approval required. :roll: DfT appear to be scared of the TOCs who can simply threaten loss of revenue which will result in lower bids for future franchises.

This sham needs exposing in the national press, and I am confident it will be

I dont mean to be rude but instead of sitting there wishing for it to be exposed to the press why dont you do it yourself? Its pretty simple and I am sure you can get a good bunch of people from this very forum alone to assist you.

Would you like any assistance in getting hold of the details of the national newspapers? If you want full blown outrage and scandal then I would suggest you start with the daily mail, then more indepth scandal go to the Guardian or the Indy.

Good luck on your quest

 

[yorkie]

Don't worry, there are some discussions taking place (and we've not been approaching them; quite the opposite!), hence I added "...and I am confident it will be"

 

[Clip]

Well I look forward to seeing something very soon then, will we get anything before the fare rises in January or will we be having to wait longer?