E-tickets and using return portion before outward

[akm]

Using the return portion of a return ticket, without ever having used (or intending to use) the outward portion, has been discussed here before, see for example https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/must-i-use-outward-portion-of-ticket.138040/

Then, the forum consensus appeared to be that this was 'OK', despite the 2016 Conditions of Travel saying

12.3 A return Ticket must be used in the correct sequence (you must use the
outward portion of your return Ticket before you use the return portion). The
outward portion of a return Ticket is no longer valid for travel once the return
portion has been used.

which might appear to some to be tighter wording than the earlier Conditions of Carriage

17. Using a return ticket
A return ticket (including a two-part return ticket) is only valid for the outward journey
shown on that ticket if the ticket is completely unused. You may not use the outward part
of a return ticket after you have used the return part.

However, I think all those discussions pre-date the widespread popularity of e-tickets, so I wanted to ask:

• With an e-ticket return, where the outward portion of a return has not been used (but 'could have been', given timings), will the return portion successfully operate gates?
• Will staff scanning the return portion know that the outward portion has not been used?
• And is there documentary evidence (staff manuals or the like) about whether this activitiy is, in fact, 'OK' or 'not OK' ?

My particular example, if it matters:

A passenger at VIC London Victoria wanting to take the 20:05 to CCH Chichester might think they should buy the £33.10 off peak day single from the available fares from VIC to CCH - but the return portion of a £20.40 super off peak day return from CCH to VIC would also be valid on exactly the same train. If they buy that return as an e-ticket on their mobile device while at Victoria, will it operate the gates, and raise no eyebrows en route?

 

[JonathanH]

With an e-ticket return, where the outward portion of a return has not been used (but 'could have been', given timings), will the return portion successfully operate gates?

It is perfectly possible not to have the outward portion checked / scanned on a given journey so using the return portion (only) should not be a problem.

 

[island]

I am not sure if e-tickets indicate their time of issue like paper tickets do, but if they do, and a ticket checker notices that the ticket could not have been used for the outbound journey, there is a theoretical possibility of running into problems.

 

[JonathanH]

I am not sure if e-tickets indicate their time of issue like paper tickets do, but if they do, and a ticket checker notices that the ticket could not have been used for the outbound journey, there is a theoretical possibility of running into problems.

That would have to be one incredibly zealous revenue protection officer to pull someone up on not using the outward portion of a return ticket based on its issue time. What fine would or could they levy? (I'm totally on board that the outward portion is void at that point.)

 

[gray1404]

There is no basis to stop question or take action against anyone for failure to use the outward portion of a return ticket. It is perfectly acceptable to only use a return portion and not in breach of any rules or regulations. It should be noted however that once a return portion is used the outward portion is no longer valid for use. This means portions cannot be used in reverse order.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Yes they’ll open the gates

 

[alistairlees]

Mention of the format being an eTicket has no bearing on matters; the ticket has the same validity as an otherwise identical ticket issued on a different format.

With a return ticket, there is no obligation to use the outward portion (or the return portion). Each portion is valid in its own right, subject to the one requirement that you can’t use an outward portion after the return portion of the same ticket.

 

[Bletchleyite]

With a return ticket, there is no obligation to use the outward portion (or the return portion). Each portion is valid in its own right, subject to the one requirement that you can’t use an outward portion after the return portion of the same ticket.

It does seem that the NRCoT entry would allow for the railway to insist an outward journey was made, as some airlines do, though.

Of course <mumbles about single-fare pricing solving yet another problem>

 

[JonathanH]

Of course <mumbles about single-fare pricing solving yet another problem>

Single fare pricing doesn't solve this one because the return is less than the single from London (but more than a single from the country destination).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Single fare pricing doesn't solve this one because the return is less than the single from London (but more than a single from the country destination).

It does in the sense that if you have two singles you can use them (or not) in any order you like, there is no concept of outward vs. return. Directional anomalies by definition have to be removed.

 

[Paul Kelly]

With a return ticket, there is no obligation to use the outward portion (or the return portion). Each portion is valid in its own right, subject to the one requirement that you can’t use an outward portion after the return portion of the same ticket.

It does seem that the NRCoT entry would allow for the railway to insist an outward journey was made, as some airlines do, though.

I agree; the NRCoT does indeed seem to have introduced this requirement (presumably through shoddy drafting):

11.3. A return Ticket must be used in the correct sequence (you must use the outward portion of your return Ticket before you use the return portion). The outward portion of a return Ticket is no longer valid for travel once the return portion has been used.

I'm not sure if this has been discussed before? I wonder if a FOI request to Passenger Focus or the DfT about approval for this reduction in flexibility might shed some light on it.

 

[Watershed]

I agree; the NRCoT does indeed seem to have introduced this requirement (presumably through shoddy drafting):
I'm not sure if this has been discussed before? I wonder if a FOI request to Passenger Focus or the DfT about approval for this reduction in flexibility might shed some light on it.

Contracts (such as the NRCoT) are merely a written recording of the intentions of each of the parties.

Therefore where, as here, there is an apparent conflict between the meaning of two parts of a contract, namely -

A return Ticket must be used in the correct sequence

and

you must use the outward portion of your return Ticket before you use the return portion

(which might be read to be rather more onerous) - this must be interpreted so as to reflect the intention of the parties.

In any case, an ambiguous contract is always to be inferred in favour of the non-drafting party, i.e. the passenger here.

I suspect there was no intention on the part of the RDG/DfT to bar the use of a return portion if the outward portion is unused. After all, break of journey - including 'starting late' on a ticket - is expressly permitted, so I don't see that this is notably different.

But as you say, correspondence with them may elucidate the matter.

 

[Paul Kelly]

I did think about that but I can't see how "A return Ticket must be used in the correct sequence" conflicts with "you must use the outward portion of your return Ticket before you use the return portion"?

 

[XAM2175]

I did think about that but I can't see how "A return Ticket must be used in the correct sequence" conflicts with "you must use the outward portion of your return Ticket before you use the return portion"?

I see it as an ambiguity in the first wording - the sequence is arguably correct if you use the return coupon and junk the outward (because an incorrect sequence could be said to only exist if you used the outward after the return), but the newer wording suggests that the return coupon has no validity until after the outward has been used.

 

[alistairlees]

If you possess a return ticket, you may (unexpectedly) end up getting a lift to your destination, but still need to use the ticket on your way back. It's perfectly ok to do this, of course.

The NRCoT is just bad wording and is being over interpreted here.

 

[Feuillesmortes]

Another example
0002 Victoria to Brighton tonight (Sat morning)

£30.90 Off Peak Single
£17.70 return leg of Super Off Peak Return - impossible to have used the outward

 

[island]

That would have to be one incredibly zealous revenue protection officer to pull someone up on not using the outward portion of a return ticket based on its issue time. What fine would or could they levy? (I'm totally on board that the outward portion is void at that point.)

The passenger, not holding a valid ticket, would be treated as any other ticketless passenger, and sold a new anytime ticket, issued a Penalty Fare, or reported for potential prosecution. The unused return ticket could be refunded, subject to any prevailing admin fee.

Contracts (such as the NRCoT) are merely a written recording of the intentions of each of the parties.

Therefore where, as here, there is an apparent conflict between the meaning of two parts of a contract, namely -

and

(which might be read to be rather more onerous) - this must be interpreted so as to reflect the intention of the parties.

There is nothing the least bit ambiguous or contradictory about NRCoT 11.3. The "intent of the parties" is irrelevant when the natural meaning of a contract is clear, and it is abundantly clear that the conditions make the return portion of a return ticket valid only when the outbound portion has been used. As per Arnold vs Britton [2015] UKSC 36, the starting point in interpreting a contract is the natural meaning of the language used in a Contract, and the courts are not there to re-write a contract based on commercial common sense or a party making a bargain they didn't mean to make.

It is, of course, most unlikely indeed to come up in the real world.