Etickets

[Eticketer]

I recently travelled first class from Doncaster to edinburgh which I used to do regularly. Someone was sat in my seat and eventually I realised that the Eticket I had printed off was for the following weeks journey and not for the date I actually was travelling.

the inspector walked straight past my seat and I called him back to highlight my predicament, so there was no question of fare dodging. I showed him the proof of purchase of the correct ticket for the day i was actually travelling as well as the incorrectly printed ticket He then said I would have pay the full single fare again ie £132.50 as I was not able to show a valid ticket.

I then showed him the Eticket for the correct ticket on my iPad. He insisted that east coast trains don't do Etickets, even though the ticket itself was referred to as an Eticket .

I declined then to pay for a second ticket as I considered i already had one. It went to appeal which was lost. I wrote to say that under contract law they are required to be fair and not misleading but that it was misleading to refer to a ticket as an Eticket but then not to accept it when proferred in electronic form.

I have as yet had no reply but instead a letter demanding what is now for some reason £172.50 or they will recommend criminal proceedings. Quite what criminal offence has been committed in their eyes I don't know.

First of all I consider that this is entirely a civil matter and also as I say it is a civil case that I would expect to win. Also I think it is menacing and intimidating and heavy handed in the extreme to threaten criminal proceedings in these circumstances. What do other people think?

Être

 

[maniacmartin]

I then showed him the Eticket for the correct ticket on my iPad. He insisted that east coast trains don't do Etickets, even though the ticket itself was referred to as an Eticket

Are you sure? I thought that East Coast's website called them Print@Home tickets.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

First of all I consider that this is entirely a civil matter and also as I say it is a civil case that I would expect to win. Also I think it is menacing and intimidating and heavy handed in the extreme to threaten criminal proceedings in these circumstances. What do other people think?

This is a criminal matter I'm afraid. The railway industry is quote unique in that it has specific legislation for this scenario, which other industries do not. Failure to show a valid ticket is a strict liability offence under the Railway Byelaws, so they don't even need to prove intent.

I would advise that you pay the amount they requested and chalk this one up to experience.

 

[ffm]

I am as confused as your ticket inspector was. East Coast do not have Etickets, as he said, nor do any of the options for delivery ever include Eticket. The only one you can print is the Print@Home ticket, which does not state Eticket either. Nor does the date reflect anything other than the date of the original one purchased and it isn't possible to change it.

Perhaps you could further explain where this Eticket came from, as I can find no evidence of one through EastCoast?

 

[barrykas]

Just to make things more confusing, East Coast DO allow you to show a "Print@Home" ticket on an iPhone (don't know why they explicitly state iPhone, but there you go) if travelling between Berwick and York. Doesn't say if that's only between Berwick and York or also at intermediate stations though.

 

[Eticketer]

I am as confused as your ticket inspector was. East Coast do not have Etickets, as he said, nor do any of the options for delivery ever include Eticket. The only one you can print is the Print@Home ticket, which does not state Eticket either. Nor does the date reflect anything other than the date of the original one purchased and it isn't possible to change it.

Perhaps you could further explain where this Eticket came from, as I can find no evidence of one through EastCoast?

It's a print at home ticket which says On it "conditions of Eticket"
Well I travelled between Berwick and York (actually between doncaaster and Edinburgh so if I'd shown it between those intermediate stations would it be valid?

There are 2 points here. First it's not fair to charge someone for a second ticket when they've already purchased one and can show proof of purchase.

Second, it's misleading to refer to a document as an Eticket if it's not valid in electronic form.

So both unfair and misleading in contract terms.

As for criminal offence I can't see what criminal offence can have been committed. I wasn't issued a penalty fare as even the unreasonable inspector could see that I wasnt fare dodging.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just to make things more confusing, East Coast DO allow you to show a "Print@Home" ticket on an iPhone (don't know why they explicitly state iPhone, but there you go) if travelling between Berwick and York. Doesn't say if that's only between Berwick and York or also at intermediate stations though.

Yes one of my fellow passengers said that he'd seen someone having the barcode scanned on his iPhone. I had an iPhone as well as iPad as well but the inspector was having none of it.

 

[soil]

http://www.eastcoast.co.uk/travel-information/train-ticket-information/mobileticketing/

Mobile ticketing

Travelling between Berwick and York? Why not use your iPhone to display your ticket
Buying your East Coast tickets online is fast, easy and great value – and you can even use your mobile phone to display the travel authorisation of your travel ticket.
If you’re travelling between Berwick and York and purchase your East Coast Advance ticket online, just choose the Print@Home option as your delivery method. Your Print@Home ticket will then be delivered to you by email as a PDF.
How your ticket works
Before your journey make sure your iPhone is fully charged or simply carry your charger with you to plug into the fitted sockets available on-board. To show your ticket to the on-board Guard during your journey, simply open the PDF on your iPhone – it contains a clever little 2D Aztec bar code which you can zoom in on, and the Guard will scan this for you.
So now you don’t have to worry about printing out a ticket and remembering to take it with you!

 

[transportphoto]

In my opinion and interpretation, you have breached Railway Byelaw 18 (1) by entering a train, for the purposes of travelling, without a valid ticket entitling you to travel as a Print@Home ticket is not valid unless it is printed on white A4 paper and presented with the specified ID. Edit, that was until I saw the above post...

TP

 

[bb21]

It's a print at home ticket which says On it "conditions of Eticket"
Well I travelled between Berwick and York (actually between doncaaster and Edinburgh so if I'd shown it between those intermediate stations would it be valid?

I think there is potentially a case regarding how this is interpreted. Is it for journeys solely between Berwick and York, journeys between these two stations exactly, or journeys including a section between these two stations?

There are 2 points here. First it's not fair to charge someone for a second ticket when they've already purchased one and can show proof of purchase.

In theory, the only proof of purchase and the contract is your rail ticket. Under normal circumstances, for all the train company knows, you could have handed your ticket to someone else while showing your "proof of purchase" in other format.

In the case of Print@Home tickets, the likelihood would be much smaller especially if a valid ticket can be presented in a form other than printed, ready for scanning, so I believe it is pretty harsh to demand that the passenger pay for a brand new ticket.

As for criminal offence I can't see what criminal offence can have been committed. I wasn't issued a penalty fare as even the unreasonable inspector could see that I wasnt fare dodging.

East Coast do not operate a Penalty Fares scheme therefore you cannot be charged one. Strictly speaking you have failed to show a valid ticket on demand, therefore broken the Railway Byelaws. It is a criminal matter whether we like it or not.

 

[Eticketer]

I think there is potentially a case regarding how this is interpreted. Is it for journeys solely between Berwick and York, journeys between these two stations exactly, or journeys including a section between these two stations?



In theory, the only proof of purchase and the contract is your rail ticket. Under normal circumstances, for all the train company knows, you could have handed your ticket to someone else while showing your "proof of purchase" in other format.

In the case of Print@Home tickets, the likelihood would be much smaller especially if a valid ticket can be presented in a form otherB than printed, ready for scanning, so I believe it is pretty harsh to demand that the passenger pay for a brand new ticket.



East Coast do not operate a Penalty Fares scheme therefore you cannot be charged one. Strictly speaking you have failed to show a valid ticket on demand, therefore broken the Railway Byelaws. It is a criminal matter whether we like it or not.

Well yes I could have handed the ticket to someone else but so could I have printed 10 copies of the tickets and distributed them to all my friends. I showe them the credit card I bought it with with proof of who I am and the ticket has my name on it.

The other thing if it's valid to show an Eticket sometimes but not others isn't this also unfair?

 

[bb21]

Well yes I could have handed the ticket to someone else but so could I have printed 10 copies of the tickets and distributed them to all my friends. I showe them the credit card I bought it with with proof of who I am and the ticket has my name on it.

Hence my comment that I think it was a little harsh.

The other thing if it's valid to show an Eticket sometimes but not others isn't this also unfair?

Not really, as long as passengers are advised accordingly. As I said, I think the way this new scheme has been worded leaves room for interpretation and is not entirely clear.

 

[Eticketer]

In my opinion and interpretation, you have breached Railway Byelaw 18 (1) by entering a train, for the purposes of travelling, without a valid ticket entitling you to travel as a Print@Home ticket is not valid unless it is printed on white A4 paper and presented with the specified ID. Edit, that was until I saw the above post...

TP

Thanks but the issue is that having purchased a ticket, contract law will apply.

Whatever bye laws say the contract law will override this.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Hence my comment that I think it was a little harsh.



Not really, as long as passengers are advised accordingly. As I said, I think the way this new scheme has been worded leaves room for interpretation and is not entirely clear.

The inspector told me that east coast trains don't do Etickets. I am told that they do, even if it's only on certain parts of my journey. So it's not clear at all. Also as is say the ticket itself refers to itself as an Eticket.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

In my opinion and interpretation, you have breached Railway Byelaw 18 (1) by entering a train, for the purposes of travelling, without a valid ticket entitling you to travel as a Print@Home ticket is not valid unless it is printed on white A4 paper and presented with the specified ID. Edit, that was until I saw the above post...

TP

Ok so if I print it in the office not at home it's not valid? Or if I print it on yellow paper it's not valid.? Or if I print it to a PDF document and show it on an iPad it's not valid? As I say I think unfair contract terms will apply.

 

[maniacmartin]

Thanks but the issue is that having purchased a ticket, contract law will apply.

Whatever bye laws say the contract law will override this.

If you are so confident of that, then let them take you to court. However, I don't think its a line of argument that will lead a successful outcome for you. Some other posters in previous threads have stated that they will go down the defence of unfair contract terms, but as far as I know, no-one has had any success. It would undermine the process used in most rail ticket prosecutions, so I'm sure we'd have heard about it if they were successful.

The "contract" in this case is the National Rail Conditions of Carriage which itself states in the introduction that you must present a valid ticket. A Print@Home ticket needs to actually be printed to be valid.

I must admit that I didn't know about the Berwick to York exception, but since you journey extended in both directions beyond Berwick and York, you still didn't hold a valid ticket for the whole journey anyway.

I can't work out what East Coast have to lose by not accepting the ticket on your phone accompanied by the supporting proof of ID, so I agree that it is unfair to charge a new fare. However, they do not need to put forward any case to a court of any actual loss for a successful prosecution under the Railway Byelaws.

 

[yorkie]

I think the rules are unfair and ridiculous - so good luck!

It could be argued that you held a valid ticket between York & Berwick, so you may be liable for a new ticket between Doncaster & York and also Berwick & Edinburgh (though that partly depends on whether or not an iPad is acceptable as it only allows an iPhone!). I know EC will not agree with that line of argument, however, so I don't suggest going there.

It's bonkers that an electronic ticket, has to be on paper except between York & Berwick, in which case it can only be displayed on an iPhone, and not an iPad or any other type of device!

But in railway ticketing, nothing surprises me any more!

 

[radamfi]

Eticketer, you sound like you fancy your day in court! I'm sure we would all be very interested in the outcome of this dispute so please keep the forum informed of any developments.

Presumably because this is a strict liability offence under the Railway Bylaws, then whilst there could be a criminal prosecution, you don't get a criminal record (based on what I've read on this forum, correct me if I'm wrong, forum members!), so perhaps the worst that can happen is that you have to pay a heavy fine if you are found guilty. Are you prepared to risk that for the sake of £172.50?

 

[transportphoto]

Thanks but the issue is that having purchased a ticket, contract law will apply.

Whatever bye laws say the contract law will override this.

Not really no, because the offence, in this case, is not the act of travelling without having purchased a ticket, it is travelling without being in possession of a valid ticket. It is a strict liability offence, and in what you said in your first post admits guilt to this offence anyway.

The reason I am being so upfront about it, even though I understand that the predicament you got yourself into was entirely accidental, is because I don't want you to be unaware that you have committed an offence and it is entirely possible for East Coast to bring a prosecution against you if they so wish and you are unlikely to have a defence.

TP

 

[yorkie]

EC may not choose the byelaws to prosecute though. In fact I am not convinced at all that EC routinely use the byelaws to prosecute. They may well use the RoRA, which is more serious but harder for them to get a conviction.

 

[tsr]

http://www.eastcoast.co.uk/travel-information/train-ticket-information/mobileticketing/

I am rather curious about this.

Firstly, the definition of "Berwick" is ambiguous. A "normal" passenger might assume this means "Berwick-upon-Tweed Railway Station", but equally it could mean "Berwick (Sussex) Railway Station". Since 76,888 people used Berwick (Sussex) Railway Station in the 2010/11 usage counting year, this means that at least one of those people could probably have reasonably expected this wording to apply to a journey to/from this station.

Secondly, the use of the word "iPhone" is not accompanied by any indication that it's a Registered Trademark of Apple, Inc., which seems to be somewhat dodgy, as the method of specifically using an iPhone to display the ticket is promoted alongside commercial advertising for East Coast:

Travelling between Berwick and York? Why not use your iPhone to display your ticket

Buying your East Coast tickets online is fast, easy and great value – and you can even use your mobile phone to display the travel authorisation of your travel ticket.

Thirdly, the screenshot images are either from an iPod touch or a developer simulation of one - not an iPhone or an iPad. Even if it is permitted for a passenger to show a ticket on an iPod touch, it'll also likely require a third-party's internet connection en-route to display said ticket, which may be a problem if an additional WiFi connection has to be paid for onboard (meaning that unexpected additional costs may be incurred as a result of purchasing the ticket!).

All in all, it's not a great webpage...!

 

[34D]

in which case it can only be displayed on an iPhone, and not an iPad or any other type of device!

Secondly, the use of the word "iPhone" is not accompanied by any indication that it's a Registered Trademark of Apple, Inc., which seems to be somewhat dodgy, as the method of specifically using an iPhone to display the ticket is promoted alongside commercial advertising for East Coast:

Could it not be that, rather than meaning to refer specifically to the i-Phone® as produced by Apple® that i-phone refers to internet-phone?

I mean, the idea that my ladyfriend can show her ticket on her iPhone5® but I can't show my ticket on a BlackBerry® is just ridiculous!

Considering full-touch-screen phones, how are staff supposed to identify models?

 

[wijit]

Thanks but the issue is that having purchased a ticket, contract law will apply.

Whatever bye laws say the contract law will override this.


Ok so if I print it in the office not at home it's not valid? Or if I print it on yellow paper it's not valid.? Or if I print it to a PDF document and show it on an iPad it's not valid? As I say I think unfair contract terms will apply.

The Law of Contract would only apply if you had a contract. You had no contract, as they were contractually obliged to transport you under the terms of the ticket. These were for you to travel on another date.

LoC, would be over-ridden by any strict liability law, as with most laws, guilt must be proven, with strict liability it is assumed, and you would have to prove otherwise. It is clear that you could not do this, I would suggest that to pursue this matter further might be seen as frivolous, and could be judged more harshly because of this.
I would seriously take the good advice given by others and put this down to experience. The circumstances dictate that whether or not you had an e-ticket is immaterial.

 

[maniacmartin]

Firstly, the definition of "Berwick" is ambiguous. A "normal" passenger might assume this means "Berwick-upon-Tweed Railway Station", but equally it could mean "Berwick (Sussex) Railway Station". Since 76,888 people used Berwick (Sussex) Railway Station in the 2010/11 usage counting year, this means that at least one of those people could probably have reasonably expected this wording to apply to a journey to/from this station.

East Coast don't sell e-tickets or Print@Home to Berwick (Sussex)

 

[soil]

East Coast don't sell e-tickets or Print@Home to Berwick (Sussex)

It is nonetheless ambiguous.

Does it mean
'are you making a journey from Berwick to York?'
or
'are you making a journey from Berwick to York or York to Berwick'
or
'are you making a journey from a point between Berwick and York to another point between Berwick and York'
or
'are you travelling between Berwick and York'
or
'are you travelling between Berwick and York or York and Berwick'

As part of a journey from Edinburgh to Doncaster on East Coast you would unquestionably travel between Berwick and York.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The Law of Contract would only apply if you had a contract. You had no contract, as they were contractually obliged to transport you under the terms of the ticket. These were for you to travel on another date.
LoC, would be over-ridden by any strict liability law, as with most laws, guilt must be proven, with strict liability it is assumed, and you would have to prove otherwise. It is clear that you could not do this, I would suggest that to pursue this matter further might be seen as frivolous, and could be judged more harshly because of this.
I would seriously take the good advice given by others and put this down to experience. The circumstances dictate that whether or not you had an e-ticket is immaterial.

:roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll::roll:

If you read the OP properly you would see that he is a regular customer of East Coast, and had purchased an e-ticket for the day of travel AS WELL AS a ticket for the following week. The issue was that he had printed out the wrong ticket.

However according to the Eastcoast website "you don’t have to worry about printing out a ticket and remembering to take it with you!"

This 'not having to worry' may or may not be contingent on where you were on the East Coast network, and whether you had their approved brand of overpriced Chinese-made smartphone.

This was linked on another thread: http://www.penmanjohnson.com/ForIndividuals/CriminalDefence/FareEvasion/FareEvasionCases.aspx and suggests that the actual practical implementation law in the area of rail ticketing is to a large degree dependent on whether you will roll over and pay what they ask, or are willing to pay perhaps more money for a lawyer to fight the matter.

 

[ian959]

The question regarding an Eticket between Berwick and York is a furphy. What would a reasonable person expect when told that you can purchase and use an Eticket between Berwick and York on East Coast? You can bring up all the ambiguities of Berwick in Sussex and whether it means any journey covering that portion of a longer journey but they are irrelevant in law. The judge simply asks himself what would a reasonable person expect it to mean.

It is very clear what it means - a journey from Berwick-on-Tweed to York (and no other) on East Coast railways can be done using an Eticket which can be loaded onto your iPhone, presented to the ticket inspector and it will be scanned as an acceptable ticket.

As to why just that journey, perhaps they are just trying to gauge the general use of such a ticket for a specific journey to determine whether to bring the scheme in for the TOC as a whole?

As for the OPs specific issues, I am afraid that they have you dead for rights for failing to show a valid ticket for your journey. You have an obligation to show a valid ticket and you did not do so, end of story. Proof of payment is irrelevant - the byelaws are very clear on what you must provide.

Even if contract law did apply in this case, you failed your obligation under the contract and therefore you would not be successful in arguing that line of reasoning either. Your part of the contract is to show a valid ticket.

Your reference to the Print@Home ticket being an Eticket is incorrect. It is a Print @Home ticket which by its very name tells you what is required. The instructions that your should have read regarding that ticket clearly indicate that you MUST print the ticket in a specific way and carry it with you when your travel. The fact that it may be issued in accordance with the Eticket terms and conditions does not in itself make it an Eticket - it merely tells you what terms and conditions apply to that ticket. The terms and conditions for the issuance of any ticket may not necessarily be named specifically the same as the ticket. A Season Ticket for instance may not be issued under Season Ticket terms and conditions but under General Ticket terms and Conditions.

It may not be fair but in this case the Ticket Inspector was absolutely correct and you best just pay up and chalk this one up to experience.

 

[soil]

Sorry but you are wrong.

Berwick station is definitely in Sussex: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1816419 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/300618

Berwick-upon-Tweed is a different place, but it's presumably what they mean.

You are also wrong about it not being an eticket, firstly, because as has been quoted twice in the thread already, you don't necessarily have to print it out, and secondly because they say:

http://www.eastcoast.co.uk/travel-information/train-ticket-information/

"Please note, by purchasing any kind of electronic ticket, you agree to cooperate with the train inspector and let him/her clearly view the ticket on your mobile electronic device, and you accept that they may be required to hold your mobile electronic device to enable them to do this. If you do not produce your ticket or hand over your mobile electronic device upon a request to do so by the train inspector, or if any fault with the device means the ticket cannot be read, the train inspector shall be entitled to consider that you are travelling without a ticket."

So:

(a) there are electronic tickets, or etickets, on East Coast Trains
(b) you can use your electronic device as a ticket
(c) the electronic device does not have to be an iphone

The 'General Ticket Information', upon which the customer is entitled to rely, does state that you may hold your eticket on your electronic device, but if your device isn't working, and they therefore cannot check it, then they can charge you for a new ticket. Which seems reasonable.

According to the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, section 9, an electronic ticket is a valid ticket:

'In some cases a Train Company, transport authority, travel agent or other authorised person may issue you with a ticket where the details of the trains you are entitled to use, together with any rights to goods or services supplied by another person, are stored only in electronic form. Such a ticket is referred to in these Conditions as an Electronic Ticket.
Any reference in these Conditions to the term “ticket” includes an Electronic Ticket unless specifically stated otherwise.
An Electronic Ticket may be stored on a:
(i) Smartcard (including an Oyster or ITSO card);
(ii) payment card or identity card;
(iii) mobile telephone;
(iv) personal organiser;
(v) other mobile electronic device; or
(vi) database, in conjunction with an authorised Contactless Bank Card'

In particular, a printed ticket is NOT an electronic ticket.

East Coast do explicitly say that you should "produce your ticket or hand over your mobile electronic device". In this case, the latter was done and therefore the ticket is valid.

 

[rdwarr]

Sorry but you are wrong.

Berwick station is definitely in Sussex: http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/1816419 http://www.geograph.org.uk/photo/300618

Berwick-upon-Tweed is a different place, but it's presumably what they mean.

No, he's correct. In the context of a journey between Berwick and York on the ECML nobody but the most desperate pedant would pretend to assume it meant Berwick in Sussex. I (like most people) didn't even know there was one.

"Presumably what they mean" = "what they mean" and I can't imagine any court saying anything different..

 

[Eticketer]

The question regarding an Eticket between Berwick and York is a furphy. What would a reasonable person expect when told that you can purchase and use an Eticket between Berwick and York on East Coast? You can bring up all the ambiguities of Berwick in Sussex and whether it means any journey covering that portion of a longer journey but they are irrelevant in law. The judge simply asks himself what would a reasonable person expect it to mean.

It is very clear what it means - a journey from Berwick-on-Tweed to York (and no other) on East Coast railways can be done using an Eticket which can be loaded onto your iPhone, presented to the ticket inspector and it will be scanned as an acceptable ticket.

As to why just that journey, perhaps they are just trying to gauge the general use of such a ticket for a specific journey to determine whether to bring the scheme in for the TOC as a whole?

As for the OPs specific issues, I am afraid that they have you dead for rights for failing to show a valid ticket for your journey. You have an obligation to show a valid ticket and you did not do so, end of story. Proof of payment is irrelevant - the byelaws are very clear on what you must provide.

Even if contract law did apply in this case, you failed your obligation under the contract and therefore you would not be successful in arguing that line of reasoning either. Your part of the contract is to show a valid ticket.

Your reference to the Print@Home ticket being an Eticket is incorrect. It is a Print @Home ticket which by its very name tells you what is required. The instructions that your should have read regarding that ticket clearly indicate that you MUST print the ticket in a specific way and carry it with you when your travel. The fact that it may be issued in accordance with the Eticket terms and conditions does not in itself make it an Eticket - it merely tells you what terms and conditions apply to that ticket. The terms and conditions for the issuance of any ticket may not necessarily be named specifically the same as the ticket. A Season Ticket for instance may not be issued under Season Ticket terms and conditions but under General Ticket terms and Conditions.

It may not be fair but in this case the Ticket Inspector was absolutely correct and you best just pay up and chalk this one up to experience.

Well I did have an iPhone as well as iPad but the inspector was having none of it.
I think it may be between Berwick and York because of the strength of the signal. Once you get past Berwick the signal might not be great. But if you show the ticket between Berwick and York which I did, and especially as I was traveling first class which has "free" ie included in the price of ticket wifi I think the signal wasn't an issue.

I think the variability of the signal might be practical thing, but no different really to someone struggling to locate their ticket in the lining of the coat. You might on occasions expect the inspector to come back when your are able to show the ticket. Anyway academic really I was able to get a signal and was able to show the Eticket.

The inspector said , and east coast and RPSS have all said they don't do Etickets which is patently not true. As for what a reasonable judge might think is meant by Berwick to York we can speculate about that but so can we speculate about what a reasonable judge would think about charging a customer twice for the same journey when he is able to show proof of purchase and an Eticket.

Really what difference does it make in terms of proof of purchase whether you show the ticket in hard copy form or printed to a PDF file on an electronic device? I invited the inspector to scan the barcode which he declined to do.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The question regarding an Eticket between Berwick and York is a furphy. What would a reasonable person expect when told that you can purchase and use an Eticket between Berwick and York on East Coast? You can bring up all the ambiguities of Berwick in Sussex and whether it means any journey covering that portion of a longer journey but they are irrelevant in law. The judge simply asks himself what would a reasonable person expect it to mean.

It is very clear what it means - a journey from Berwick-on-Tweed to York (and no other) on East Coast railways can be done using an Eticket which can be loaded onto your iPhone, presented to the ticket inspector and it will be scanned as an acceptable ticket.

As to why just that journey, perhaps they are just trying to gauge the general use of such a ticket for a specific journey to determine whether to bring the scheme in for the TOC as a whole?

As for the OPs specific issues, I am afraid that they have you dead for rights for failing to show a valid ticket for your journey. You have an obligation to show a valid ticket and you did not do so, end of story. Proof of payment is irrelevant - the byelaws are very clear on what you must provide.

Even if contract law did apply in this case, you failed your obligation under the contract and therefore you would not be successful in arguing that line of reasoning either. Your part of the contract is to show a valid ticket.

Your reference to the Print@Home ticket being an Eticket is incorrect. It is a Print @Home ticket which by its very name tells you what is required. The instructions that your should have read regarding that ticket clearly indicate that you MUST print the ticket in a specific way and carry it with you when your travel. The fact that it may be issued in accordance with the Eticket terms and conditions does not in itself make it an Eticket - it merely tells you what terms and conditions apply to that ticket. The terms and conditions for the issuance of any ticket may not necessarily be named specifically the same as the ticket. A Season Ticket for instance may not be issued under Season Ticket terms and conditions but under General Ticket terms and Conditions.

It may not be fair but in this case the Ticket Inspector was absolutely correct and you best just pay up and chalk this one up to experience.

Well you say it means Berwick upon Tweed and York and no other. But the example Eticket shown on EC website is actually from Darlington.

And what if you lived in Berwick in sussex and had never heard of Berwick upon tweed? I don't think its safe to rely upon people's knowledge of local geography which will depend on where you live.

Desperate pedant or not, as I say it's EC really who are being pedantic in not accepting the validity of a ticket when it's absolutely clear that a valid ticket has been purchased. Two can play at that game.

 

[yorkie]

The question regarding an Eticket between Berwick and York is a furphy. What would a reasonable person expect when told that you can purchase and use an Eticket between Berwick and York on East Coast? You can bring up all the ambiguities of Berwick in Sussex and whether it means any journey covering that portion of a longer journey but they are irrelevant in law. The judge simply asks himself what would a reasonable person expect it to mean.

A 'reasonable person' without intricate knowledge of the route the ECML takes who is from the South East may think Berwick means simply Berwick. They may not necessarily know the train passes through Berwick-upon-Tweed (though I am sure we all know that). The rule does not really make much sense at all, either you allow an e-ticket (by whatever name) to be shown electronically or you don't.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

No, he's correct. In the context of a journey between Berwick and York on the ECML nobody but the most desperate pedant would pretend to assume it meant Berwick in Sussex. I (like most people) didn't even know there was one.

But if you were from somewhere near Berwick (Sussex), you wouldn't necessarily know there was a Berwick-upon-Tweed or, for that matter, a North Berwick!

As for pedants, that is surely an accurate description of EC, who choose to accept tickets electronically between York & Berwick but not between Doncaster & York, or Berwick & Edinburgh?

 

[island]

Thanks but the issue is that having purchased a ticket, contract law will apply.

Whatever bye laws say the contract law will override this.

I don't think that's right.

 

[ffm]

There are some very interesting, but entirely irrelevant discussions here. The whole point is that Eticketer had printed the Print~@Home ticket and claims that its date did not reflect the purchased date. Well this is very bizarre as the printed ticket will be for the purchase, going into the account for bookings will only lead to the same pdf to print. The date on the ticket is that you booked.

Thereis then the issue of e-ticket, or not. Eticketer has tried to claim that it is an eticket and it says so in its conditions. Well yes and no, the conditions are:

SPECIFIC e-TICKET CONDITIONS
This is your travel document which must be retained and available for inspection during your journey. This ticket must be clearly printed on plain, clean, white paper

This is what is stated on the printed ticket!

I think this is actually rather clear - it has to be printed, Eticketer had done so, but obviously had booked the wrong date - simples. He is at fault end of.

 

[transportphoto]

He had booked two dates, the day in question and another, he was carrying the incorrect ticket (the one for the other day) from what I gather. He is still just as liable IMO.

TP

 

[SussexMan]

Living very close to Berwick, if someone says Berwick to me I don't think of "Berwick Upon Tweed" unless of course it is in some conversation which might be to do with the Berwick up North - not of course to be confused with North Berwick station! Having said that I can't see anyone really getting too confused in this instance between Berwick Upon Tweed and the small village of Berwick in Sussex. However, the simple addition of "Upon Tweed" and therefore giving it its correct name would of course have been sensible.