Effect of NRCoT Section 5.2

[moliones]

Reading the interesting thread https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/nrcoc-5-2-defence.161632/, led me to wonder the effect of sections 5.1 and 5.2 of the NRCoT (and as this is off-topic, I have started a new thread for it.

For simplicity, let us assume that these are single (not return) tickets, and I'm not considering (say) a break of journey where the passengers "change" half-way.

As I read it,

5.1 A Ticket may only be used by the person who bought that Ticket or on whose behalf that Ticket was bought unless specifically allowed by the terms and conditions applying to that Ticket. A Ticket may not be resold to anyone else.

means I can purchase a ticket for someone else, as long as when purchased the intent was for that person to use it.
What if I was going somewhere, and there were two people who might accompany me; is it necessary to know which of the people I am purchasing the ticket on behalf of? (if buying the tickets in advance)

Further, and the main point for my post,

5.2 When a Ticket is purchased on behalf of an organisation, business or similar entity, it may be used by any person employed by that organisation, business or similar entity unless otherwise shown on the Ticket by means of a person’s name, photocard number or other identifying means. In such cases it may only be used by the person identified on the Ticket.

Where I am unclear here is what is the difference in rights/obligations from 5.1? An organisation can purchase tickets without having an employee in mind who will use it? What would be the effect of simply removing 5.2? Would it allow more, or fewer, people to travel?


(both quotes from NR CoT, http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/Conditions of Travel 2016.pdf)

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Thanks for separating this off from the Disputes and Prosecutions thread: if the guy who originally asked for advice is still reading it (and he's a long time contributor, so he may well be) he's probably more confused now than when he started.

But a problem in that thread (and maybe it's because I have only just caught up with reading that thread, but it rather feels like there may be the same problem here) is that there seems to be an assumption that the railway will impose the Conditions of Travel, the Bylaws and so on to the letter, with no room for manoeuvre.

We all know that's not true. So to take the query raised here about NCoT 5.1, if I am planning a day out and buy tickets (ordinary single tickets, no two together railcard or anything) for me and my mate Alfie, but then Alfie drops out and Bernie comes instead, then OF COURSE the railway are not going to try and argue a breach of conditions. For a start, there's no real world reason why anyone from the railway would ask Bernie or me who the original ticket was bought for, and even if they did ask, then there would be no measurable damage caused to the railway - two tickets would have been bought, and two tickets would have been used.

The railway's rules are not written to be followed by automata: they are written to be interpreted by people. And what that means is that trivial breaches are ignored. Of course, things may change: someone asked (I think in the original thread) what would happen if they bought a Group ticket for 6, but only 5 turned up to travel. Our advice was that this would be no problem - which sounds right to me. But if the group ticket is only available for 6 people, but cheaper than individual fares for 5 people, and if it turns out that day after day, a group of 5 people are turning up (Alfie, Bernie, Charlie, Dickie and Ernie) and explaining (day after day) that Freddie dropped out at the last minute then the railway would be within their rights to decide that this wasn't an individual unfortunate occurrence but a systematic attempt to exploit (or even break) the rules, and to enforce those rules.

So when people bring real-world problems to us, it seems to me that we need to give real-world answers. That doesn't mean saying (at one extreme) "you don't need to worry, the railway never enforce that rule" (pretty well by definition, if they've come to us it's because the railway ARE enforcing that rule), but it also does not mean saying "by the strict letter of the rules, you have committed a RORA offence and that can mean a prison sentence, so don't forget your toothbrush when you go to court'. In the original case, the OP has been caught falling foul of the rules - but there's no point in logic chopping over what, conceivably, the words 'any person' might mean. We all know, the railway knows, and the court knows, what they do mean.


[/rant]

 

[Romilly]

As regards the first question in #1, I have always thought of it in the following way: I am planning to go on a trip with one other person, that person being whichever of my friends/family-members/colleagues is available and willing on the day. I buy a ticket for myself and whoever on the day will be my companion. Come the day, whoever comes with me will be the person on whose behalf I bought the second ticket. I don't think there's any sort of problem here.

 

[moliones]

Thanks for the replies; I agree that people won't have a problem if buying a ticket for a friend etc, and a different friend travelling with them.

I assume this rule (being allowed to buy on behalf of someone, but not to eg resell tickets) is there for a reason. Stopping ticket touts, perhaps? Not allowing people to claim they bought a counterfeit tickets from a guy in front of the station, thinking it was legitimate?

Perhaps I'm too naive, but I feel each of the sections in the NRCoT is (or should be) there for a reason. Do you have any comments on the reason (or effect) of 5.2?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Its biggest benefit is in preventing people buying up stacks of Advances for sale at a higher price. Look at how gig tickets end up sold.

 

[lyndhurst25]

Its biggest benefit is in preventing people buying up stacks of Advances for sale at a higher price. Look at how gig tickets end up sold.

The solution to that would be the same solution that should also be applied to gig tickets: not have it that all tickets non-transferable, but instead make it illegal to sell tickets on for more than the face value.

 

[talldave]

As regards the first question in #1, I have always thought of it in the following way: I am planning to go on a trip with one other person, that person being whichever of my friends/family-members/colleagues is available and willing on the day. I buy a ticket for myself and whoever on the day will be my companion. Come the day, whoever comes with me will be the person on whose behalf I bought the second ticket. I don't think there's any sort of problem here.

There is if they hand you the money for the ticket you purchased for them. Which is the sort of thing that normal people going about their normal lives, do. Sadly, the rail industry - for their own convenience in trying to prevent one specific aspect of ticket reselling - have outlawed what is just common sense to many passengers.

 

[mallard]

The railway's rules are not written to be followed by automata: they are written to be interpreted by people.

The problem with that arguement is that one person's (whether they're staff or passenger) idea of what is "reasonable", "minor", "within discretion" or whatever subjective standard is used to decide whether a particular rule should be applied will always vary. That can (and does) lead to all sorts of unfortunate situations; someone being told several times that a particular use of tickets "is fine" only to come across a less understanding RPI later in the journey, someone assuming that a particular circumstance is "basically the same" as something that was "fine" last week only to find that it's not, etc.

In my opinion, as far as is humanly possible (obviously there will always be a little room for "discretion"), rules should be enforced to the letter. Where this is unworkable (as is obviously the case with the railway rules), the rules should be updated.

The fact that it's entirely possible for a passenger to fall foul of the railway rules through events completely out of their control (e.g. a train changing "identity" en-route due to disruption without an on-train annoucement, rendering an off-peak ticket invalid; a train skipping a stop without prior notice, such as due to signal problems, causing someone to overtravel; becoming the victim of a crime during a journey rendering a person ticketless, etc. All of these can theoretically result in financial and/or criminal penalties, even if in the vast majority of cases discretion is shown.) just goes to show how anti-consumer and archaic the structure of railway rules and laws really are.

If we're talking about the specific case of "tranferring" tickets between passengers; take the example of two passengers making a return journey where the "outward" journey is made together and the "return" is made seperately. If one passenger buys the tickets for both and fails to correctly match up the near-identical outward and return portions when they part company, they have, by the letter, both broken the law, despite there being no loss to the railway or any advantage gained by the passengers.

 

[Romilly]

There is if they hand you the money for the ticket you purchased for them.

I understand the point you are making but, if they are the person I bought the ticket for, I remain to be persuaded that their putting me in funds (whether before or after the purchase), or not, makes a difference to the analysis. In any event, my mum might have given me the money to go to buy tickets for me and whichever of my siblings is available on the day. I still think that I bought the ticket for the sibling who actually travels on that sibling's behalf.

 

[talldave]

I understand the point you are making but, if they are the person I bought the ticket for, I remain to be persuaded that their putting me in funds (whether before or after the purchase), or not, makes a difference to the analysis. In any event, my mum might have given me the money to go to buy tickets for me and whichever of my siblings is available on the day. I still think that I bought the ticket for the sibling who actually travels on that sibling's behalf.

OK, so the ticket was £9.60. The friend arrives and hands over a £10 note, "no I don't want any change, you had the hassle of queuing "....

Now, it's reselling at a profit. Where are you going to draw the line?

 

[MichaelAMW]

OK, so the ticket was £9.60. The friend arrives and hands over a £10 note, "no I don't want any change, you had the hassle of queuing "....

Now, it's reselling at a profit. Where are you going to draw the line?

No it isn't. First, you didn't charge the friend, they offered the extra. Second, in any case, the extra was for your hassle and not to pay for the ticket.

 

[sheff1]

Where I am unclear here is what is the difference in rights/obligations from 5.1? An organisation can purchase tickets without having an employee in mind who will use it? What would be the effect of simply removing 5.2? Would it allow more, or fewer, people to travel?

Nowadays it probably wouldn't make much difference but back in pre-internet days when I worked in a booking office it would have caused problems (and mot probably for the railway!).

To expand. Every month without fail a secretary from a prominent law firm would arrive at the station and purchase a number of First Class returns to London. The number would vary but could be anything from 5/6 to 20 plus and were all dated for the day after purchase. During the following weeks these tickets would be dished out to whichever lawyers needed to travel to London on any given day.

If the railway had decided to insist on knowing which person was going to be using which ticket I doubt the said law firm would have been at all pleased !

 

[Romilly]

Now, it's reselling at a profit.

I don't think it's "re-selling" of any kind in that I don't think it's "selling". The ticket was bought for the friend. They are simply reimbursing the money you spent in buying a ticket for them.

 

[talldave]

I don't think it's "re-selling" of any kind in that I don't think it's "selling". The ticket was bought for the friend. They are simply reimbursing the money you spent in buying a ticket for them.

OK, so say I bought the tickets a few days before and the friend drops out, I put an ad on Craigslist to find someone to take their place and someone replies:

1) I don't charge the person I give the ticket to - is that OK?
2) The person insists on handing over the exact cash, just as the original friend might have done - is that OK?
3) The person hands over more cash than the face price of the ticket, just as the original friend might have done - is that OK?

I'm just trying to point out that even though the NRCoT are apparently explicitly clear on this matter, contributors to this forum all seem to be making up their own interpretations on-the-fly of what's OK and what's not OK.

 

[Ianigsy]

I read 5.2 as saying that it's not an issue if a business customer wants to buy a couple of tickets for staff to go to a conference but doesn't know exactly who's going to be going, but the railway is not responsible for policing the use of corporately purchased tickets once they've been distributed by the buyers.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I'm just trying to point out that even though the NRCoT are apparently explicitly clear on this matter, contributors to this forum all seem to be making up their own interpretations on-the-fly of what's OK and what's not OK.

I think the issue is two-fold: firstly, there is a significant disparity between the theoretical, legal position and the practical position, and secondly, that there is significant ambiguity over the definition of "any person" in the context of tickets bought for or by organisations.

Addressing each point in order:

1) The NRCoT are clear that tickets bought for individuals (i.e. legal entities other than organisations) cannot be transferred. That means that none of the three scenarios you suggested in your post would be acceptable, legally speaking. This is not only a contractual, civil law issue - by virtue of Byelaws 21(2) and 21(3) of the Railway Byelaws 2005, transferring tickets other than in compliance with the tickets' conditions is a criminal (non-recordable) offence. However, as we all know, this is difficult to enforce due to the fact that most non-season tickets do not have any means of identifying the ticket-holder on them. It is only in cases of blatantly obvious or frequent/regular transfers that any action could be, or actually is, taken.

2) There are many different opinions on this forum (and likely elsewhere) over the correct interpretation of "any person" in Condition 5.2 of the National Rail Conditions of Travel, and whether this means that, for example, the outbound and return legs of a particular ticket can each be used by different employees of an organisation, or whether even a single leg of a particular ticket can have parts of the journey made by different employees. My personal view is that it is unlikely that it is the train companies' intention to allow the use of one ticket by several people, as they would rather prefer for the employees to buy one ticket each, as that is likely to end up bringing in more revenue. In the case of a dispute over the meaning of a term of a contract in the non-consumer landscape*, the matter is typically decided on the intentions of the parties at the point of agreeing the contract, trying to reconcile these as much as possible.

*In a consumer landscape, any ambiguity or possible alternative interpretation should always be made in favour of the consumer, by virtue of laws such as the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

[JB_B]

...
*In a consumer landscape, any ambiguity or possible alternative interpretation should always be made in favour of the consumer, by virtue of laws such as the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

I can't (on a quick look) spot a provision in CRA 2015 which says this - could you point me in the right direction?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I can't (on a quick look) spot a provision in CRA 2015 which says this - could you point me in the right direction?

It's Section 69(1).

 

[JB_B]

It's Section 69(1).

That's useful - thanks.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

That's useful - thanks.

Having just reread it, it in fact is more generous to consumers (and detrimental to traders) than I thought. Vague terms are interpreted in the consumer's favour - except when it's to do with regulators obtaining an injunction against a trader for unfair terms, in which case the default pro-consumer interpretation no longer applies, and the term will probably be resolved in the trader's favour, hence presenting even more evidence as to its "unreasonableness".

 

[trainophile]

Interesting points made. I have bought a ticket for a friend to travel from London to Hartlepool, meeting me on her train as it passes through York, as I am initially travelling from somewhere else, and changing onto her Grand Central at York. We both have railcards, and the ticket I have bought for her bears my surname in tiny print as it was bought on my account. She is going to pay me back the value of her ticket when we meet up a couple of weeks before the journey. I very much doubt there will even be a close inspection, but if it is picked up on an inspection before York, while she is still travelling alone, that her ticket bears a different name to that on her railcard is she liable to have any problems? Never thought about it until reading this thread.

 

[Bletchleyite]

The ticket is valid for the person for whom (not by whom) it was bought, so no she should not have any problems. If she is asked of the circumstances, the best approach is honesty.

I do wish they wouldn't print names in this way, because it probably makes lots of people think they need it in their name.

 

[trainophile]

I don't see the point of printing names on tickets. IS there any good reason?

 

[alistairlees]

I don't see the point of printing names on tickets. IS there any good reason?

Seasons

 

[Dai Corner]

Seasons

Or to detect/discourage tickets being transferred. If railways really cared about this I think they'd print names on them. Ok, in the absence of compulsory ID cards it wouldn't be 100% effective but it would be better than nothing.

 

[trainophile]

Seasons

Which are hardly the majority of tickets purchased.

 

[alistairlees]

Which are hardly the majority of tickets purchased.

It's a reason. You asked for a reason. It's not relevant whether it's a majority of tickets or not.

 

[trainophile]

I doubt most guards even check the name printed (in tiny lettering) on a ticket. Which rather defeats the object of having it on there. Maybe in the rare event of a suspected anomaly it might be needed for proof of validity or evidence to the contrary, but in the normal way it's superfluous to general requirement. Most guards barely glance at my tickets anyway, and certainly don't check the finer details.

 

[trainophile]

The other thing is, why does it matter if a return ticket is used by two different people. Both journeys have been paid for, and as long as there's no railcard discrepancy or an adult travelling on a child ticket then what's the harm in it?

 

[etr221]

Regarding 5.1, my thought is that a ticket is bought on behalf of the person who will be using it; and that person is only further defined when they start using it.

I don't see the point of printing names on tickets. IS there any good reason?

The only good reason is that the ticket may only be used by the (named) individual, and so to match it to them.