Legal definition of "first class"?

[antharro]

Is there any kind of legal definition or accepted meaning for what constitutes first class? If a TOC decided to mark a standard class carriage as "first class", charge more, but change *nothing* about the interior, would that be legally defensible? Given the very different offerings in first class, from Virgin's EC with nice seats and free drinks and snacks, to the Gatwick Express's first class "antimacassars only" offering, I'm guessing the answer is no, but I'd like to hear the forum's comments.

 

[yorkie]

Yes, providing it is advertised in the timetable that the train conveys 1st class accommodation, it can be identical to standard class.

As you say this is the case on most GTR operated trains that convey what purports to be 1st class accommodation.

See Could there be a National Minimum Standards for First Class?

 

[Failed Unit]

Is there any kind of legal definition or accepted meaning for what constitutes first class? If a TOC decided to mark a standard class carriage as "first class", charge more, but change *nothing* about the interior, would that be legally defensible? Given the very different offerings in first class, from Virgin's EC with nice seats and free drinks and snacks, to the Gatwick Express's first class "antimacassars only" offering, I'm guessing the answer is no, but I'd like to hear the forum's comments.

It is perfectly legal. I think the practice goes back to the 1990s with not having any noticeable difference between 1st / standard on the ScotRail 158s.

We have no minimum standard for seat pitch, type etc. However people pay the premium so it must work.

 

[CatfordCat]

maybe some people are paying to avoid travelling with the "totally different type of people" in standard-class train carriages...

(2010 news item involving now retired MP here)

 

[6Gman]

Weren't the betabled Trailer Standards on Virgin Voyagers (Coach D?) regarded as "convertible" for a time? So Standard most of the time, but First if it was decided they were going to be First.

 

[headshot119]

Weren't the betabled Trailer Standards on Virgin Voyagers (Coach D?) regarded as "convertible" for a time? So Standard most of the time, but First if it was decided they were going to be First.

For a number of years that was the case.

 

[6Gman]

For a number of years that was the case.

I thought so. I have a vague recollection of heading for the Euston - Chester hoping to grab two seats in Coach D (with table) only to find it set up with tablecloths and crockery!

 

[GatwickDepress]

What you're essentially paying for on GTR is a better chance of a seat and maybe access to a power socket. I wouldn't be surprised to see first class on GTR and Southeastern disappear or become "convertible" in the next few decades, as is possible with 700s, in order to maximise capacity across their networks.

 

[43096]

As you say this is the case on most GTR operated trains that convey what purports to be 1st class accommodation.

The Gatwick Express “first class” would make an interesting case for Trading Standards to look into, given the only difference with standard is getting a doily on the top of the seat.

 

[swt_passenger]

The Gatwick Express “first class” would make an interesting case for Trading Standards to look into, given the only difference with standard is getting a doily on the top of the seat.

Unlikely given much of Southern’s 377 fleet is exactly the same and has been for years. Some units have a door separating first, but not all. If trading standards had any interest, they’ve had many years to have done so.

 

[antharro]

Ah, but has anyone reported it to trading standards? I do feel it would come to naught but it could be interesting to explore.

 

[randyrippley]

going back to the 1970s on the Waterloo-Exeter.........some of the MkI second class compartment stock was three-a-side first class converted to four-a-side second class by locking the armrests upright. Only other difference was they removed the curtains

 

[MG11]

Weren't the betabled Trailer Standards on Virgin Voyagers (Coach D?) regarded as "convertible" for a time? So Standard most of the time, but First if it was decided they were going to be First.

Yes but there was an improved service that came with the First Class designation, i.e. First Class customers had dedicated hosts, providing an at seat refreshment service and the opportunity to eat hot meals, served on a plate, which isn't available for STD customers.

 

[BestWestern]

Ah, but has anyone reported it to trading standards? I do feel it would come to naught but it could be interesting to explore.

Provided nothing is being mis-sold (i.e. they tell you they'll feed you steak and peeled grapes but then all you get is an 'ironing board' with an antimacassar on it!) I don't think there's anything that could reasonably be done. It isn't illegal to sell something that's expensive and completely pointless, just so long as people know that's what they're buying!

 

[AM9]

There is no legal definition of First Class, - or Business Class, Standard Class or any other notion of quality that the customer wishes to attach to rail accommodation other than that advertised. It is purely a marketing epithet, and provided the passenger wasn't misled by false descriptions of the product, the sale of goods legislation has no part in it. If the buyer's expectation exceeds whatever the vendor may have described or even inferred, that is the buyer's problem.

 

[Failed Unit]

The Gatwick Express “first class” would make an interesting case for Trading Standards to look into, given the only difference with standard is getting a doily on the top of the seat.

I suspect it is a case a customer only buys it once. Realises the train is carry fresh air and they have no benefit in paying the premium. Job done. Be interesting to see if 1st class useage of the GatEx has dropped since the 387s were introduced. GTR will never release these figures (until the announcement is made they are dropping it through lack of use).

If i take another area of GTR. I would never pay more to travel on a 387 in first. But if I knew it was a 365 i May consider it to get to Cambridge depending on the premium involved. I guess this thread is about many tourists wont know what to expect. If the get a 365 up in my example and a 387 back they won’t be happy.

 

[Bantamzen]

Is there any kind of legal definition or accepted meaning for what constitutes first class? If a TOC decided to mark a standard class carriage as "first class", charge more, but change *nothing* about the interior, would that be legally defensible? Given the very different offerings in first class, from Virgin's EC with nice seats and free drinks and snacks, to the Gatwick Express's first class "antimacassars only" offering, I'm guessing the answer is no, but I'd like to hear the forum's comments.

Is there a legal definition, no more than there is for any product with "First", "Premium", "Plus", "Extra" etc in the name. As long as the TOC is pointing out somewhere what the passenger can expect for their extra cash then there are really nothing more to say on this. Of course there will be differences between TOCs, as there will in prices. I'd happily wager for example that TPE's first class offering of slightly bigger seats, and free tea & coffee plus snacks (when there is a host onboard) will be costing a lot less than a Virgin service offering a full meal. Incidentally, the GatEx does offer free entrance to a lounge for passengers actually using the airport to fly which for £27.40 single travelling this morning isn't bad at all considering that airport lounges can often cost £20+ when booking alone. I'm not sure what else you'd expect on a half hour service if I'm honest.

Ah, but has anyone reported it to trading standards? I do feel it would come to naught but it could be interesting to explore.

Why? Nothing wrong has been done, why would anyone waste time doing this? Its not as if travelling first class is forced upon people, or is an only choice. The same would be true of airline or cruise tickets, you pay your money, you take your choice.

 

[skyhigh]

It's perhaps worth noting what the byelaws say:

Except with permission from an authorised person, no person shall remain in any seat, berth or any part of a train where a notice indicates that it is reserved for a specified ticket holder or holders of tickets of a specific class, except the holder of a valid ticket entitling him to be in that particular place.

From that I'd interpret that if there's a sign saying it's first class, it is (even if the seats are the same, or even if there aren't any!)

On the point about trading standards, I can't see anything much at all about first class on the Gatwick Express website, so it'd be hard to claim it had been mis-sold based on misleading information.

 

[Failed Unit]

Incidentally, the GatEx does offer free entrance to a lounge for passengers actually using the airport to fly which for £27.40 single travelling this morning isn't bad at all considering that airport lounges can often cost £20+ when booking alone. I'm not sure what else you'd expect on a half hour service if I'm honest.

A better seat, the standard seats on Southern branded GTR services are better than the first seats on Gatwick Express Branded GTR services.

But didn't know about the lounge access.

First return on Gatwick Express is £59.50
First return on Thameslink £33.60

I think I will pay for the lounge.

 

[Old Yard Dog]

Sometimes the fare differential is lower on services where First Class is anything but. But to my way of thinking 2+2 seating, as I have seen on certain services down south, can never be regarded as first class.

 

[Bantamzen]

A better seat, the standard seats on Southern branded GTR services are better than the first seats on Gatwick Express Branded GTR services.

But didn't know about the lounge access.

First return on Gatwick Express is £59.50
First return on Thameslink £33.60

I think I will pay for the lounge.

I've never used the GatEx, I just checked today's walk-on prices which were £27 single from Victoria to Gatwick, and the GatEx site does state that lounge access is included. The cheapest of those is £20 which makes for a single fare of effectively £7 which for South East England & First Class isn't bad. Of course if you are not using the airport then it is of no value.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

I went on the Gatwick Express in first class yesterday.

I was NOT impressed... how they can offer that, on a Premium service as well...

 

[Failed Unit]

I always thought that the IC70 seats in the 317s were bad enough (considering they were standard class on most other route) - but at least they were 2+2 compared to 2+3 in the rest of the train...

 

[2HAP]

Except with permission from an authorised person, no person shall remain in any seat, berth or any part of a train where a notice indicates that it is reserved for a specified ticket holder or holders of tickets of a specific class, except the holder of a valid ticket entitling him to be in that particular place.

So if someone has a first class ticket and moves through the standard class area to access the toilet, they are breaking the byelaw?

 

[Bantamzen]

So if someone has a first class ticket and moves through the standard class area to access the toilet, they are breaking the byelaw?

This has been discussed elsewhere (although I can't honestly remember where, sorry) and so long as someone with a standard ticket does not stay in first class then it's fine for them to pass through on their way to another part of the train. Otherwise it could get quite tricky on some services, especially the TPE 185/350s.

 

[moliones]

This has been discussed elsewhere (although I can't honestly remember where, sorry) and so long as someone with a standard ticket does not stay in first class then it's fine for them to pass through on their way to another part of the train. Otherwise it could get quite tricky on some services, especially the TPE 185/350s.

I think this was the opposite situation, and I'm also sure a 1st class ticket holder is entitled to use standard class accommodation.

 

[daikilo]

I think this was the opposite situation, and I'm also sure a 1st class ticket holder is entitled to use standard class accommodation.

If standard class accomodation visibly stated it was standard class then the byelaw would not permit its use seated by a passenger holding a first class ticket (they would have to be seated in first class). If there is only standing room available (either or both classes) I don't whether the byelaw applies or how, it is probably considered to be a circulating area for use by anyone.

 

[HowardGWR]

So if someone has a first class ticket and moves through the standard class area to access the toilet, they are breaking the byelaw?

How could that be - if you read the byelaw kindly quoted by skyhigh
"no person shall remain in any seat, berth or any part of a train where a notice indicates.."
My emphasis.
The byelaw 19 appears to apply to a first class passenger remaining in a standard class seat, unless a railway official gave him permission.

 

[skyhigh]

Apologies for derailing the discussion somewhat

If standard class accomodation visibly stated it was standard class then the byelaw would not permit its use seated by a passenger holding a first class ticket (they would have to be seated in first class). If there is only standing room available (either or both classes) I don't whether the byelaw applies or how, it is probably considered to be a circulating area for use by anyone.

Technically, if standard class is packed full and there's standing space in first class the byelaw still applies - if you've only got a standard class ticket you cannot remain in those areas. In practice, first class may be declassified by announcement. See notices in VTEC first class vestibules for example - they state "These vestibules are for use of passengers holding first class tickets only" (or something along those lines). Part of the reason for posting the byelaw was by that definition, there doesn't even have to be seats for an area to be denoted first class.

How could that be - if you read the byelaw kindly quoted by skyhigh
"no person shall remain in any seat, berth or any part of a train where a notice indicates.."
My emphasis.
The byelaw 19 appears to apply to a first class passenger remaining in a standard class seat, unless a railway official gave him permission.

That is the intended application - there's (generally) no problem with someone walking through first to get to the toilet or vice versa. In terms of a reasonable reading and application of the byelaw, there's no issue with someone paying for a first class ticket and sitting in standard. If there were notices stating 'For standard class ticket holders only' then yes, there's a notice indicating they're not meant to be there and the byelaw would apply - but I've never seen something like that.

 

[wellhouse]

If a TOC decided to mark a standard class carriage as "first class", charge more, but change *nothing* about the interior

This is exactly what happened when Class 319s with only standard accommodation first ran through to Brighton on Thameslink services. For the benefit of First Class passengers on the Brighton Main Line, temporary window labels marked a First Class area on peak services.