The details are in the Metro cross boundary guide, available vis the pdf link at http://www.wymetro.com/howtogetto/cross-boundary/ . It would be far better in terms of clarity if Metro cross-referred to these in their MCard conditions.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
NRCoC replaced by NRCoT from 1/10/2016
- Thread starter OwlMan
- Start date
- Status
The details are in the Metro cross boundary guide, available vis the pdf link at http://www.wymetro.com/howtogetto/cross-boundary/ . It would be far better in terms of clarity if Metro cross-referred to these in their MCard conditions.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
I don't believe the information boxes can be considered contractual.
However, I don't agree that a THAMESLINK ONLY ticket is valid on GX. A "reasonable man" would not believe this. The only people who would argue this are people whose raison d'être is deliberately trying to crowbar the TnCs for their own benefit.
However, I don't agree that a THAMESLINK ONLY ticket is valid on GX. A "reasonable man" would not believe this. The only people who would argue this are people whose raison d'être is deliberately trying to crowbar the TnCs for their own benefit.
Agreed. So can we move on?
Oh not this argument. If we are not discussing the changes, then why are we going through this again?
It is absurd to suggest that a "reasonable man" who has any knowledge of the actual conditions and the information about the company would believe that the company restriction applies to one of the company's route brand names.
Only people who have been duped into thinking that the company is actually four separate companies would "reasonably" believe a company restriction applies in the way you suggest.
Legal experts have looked at it already, and agree with what I have said above, and the small minority of people who have been charged in these circumstances have been refunded.
So, let's not go through that old ground again, and just look at any changes.
There are no contractual changes to the term that states tickets can be restricted to those of a particular company.
I suspect the information boxes were added by ATOC in an attempt to make a material change without actually requesting the DfT approves a material change. It's very underhand, and surely any reasonable person who reads the detail and sees what is going on, can see that!
It doesn't help that GTR use Southern branded rolling stock on both Gatwick Express and ThamesLink services. I saw one the other evening. I had to check the timetable shin to make sure it really was a ThamesLink as I thought it should be.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Why couldn't the information boxes simply be added into the terms and conditions? Would make more sense or how about saying they form part of the contract? Make it clear.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
Does this only apply on those loop services or does it also apply on linear routes? In other words - does this now make "stepping back" en route to collect haulages a minefield if you do not know the fares from each station en route given that it says "get off at" instead of "Break your journey at"?
Given that it is not a break of journey unless you actually leave a station, this change of wording would appear to have interesting, perhaps unintended, consequences...?
They announce trains as one thing, and they are shown on the boards as another, and use whatever branded stock they feel like. It's a good job none of that is contractual, isn't it?
It is made clear that information boxes do NOT form part of the contract. Therefore, they should be removed as some are contradictory and causing confusion.
Quite. If anyne wants to use a 'reasonable man' argument, if a train arrives in a particular TOC's livery, which TOC would a reasonable man assume is operating the service?
It's not a condition, but the information applies "where a train service makes a circular journey" which I think is just alternative wording for a "loop service", however it may cause confusion as some people may question the definition of "circular".
Only if you think a train makes a "circular journey" on a "linear route"
(and I'm staying out of that one!)I do not think it was valid to get off a train that was only valid because it was an advertised through train under the old rules.
The new rules say you may take "any direct train service between the station(s) shown on your Ticket; I think it is not wise to board such a train, alight at an intermediate station (that is not otherwise on a permitted route), then board another train to another intermediate station, and so on, at least not without consulting a solicitor or obtaining the agreement of the train company, or a member of its staff, first.
See Is a no-changes journey always a permitted route? for one example out of many threads on the subject. I think it's worth creating a new thread to debate the validity with the new rules.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
They are absolutely and certainly not part of the contract.
They do, however, explain and clarify what ATOC state they intend in the relevant contractual terms.
It will, therefore, be a lot harder for a passenger to claim that a different interpretation should be applied to the contractual term.
A "reasonable man" does not have intricate knowledge of the TnCs - nor about the corporate governance structure of GTR - and would not expect a ticket marked "THAMESLINK ONLY" to be valid on trains operated by Thameslink and Gatwick Express.
It is not reasonable to suggest this, despite its cause célèbre status on here (and the famous altercations at VIC with poor barrier staff).
Just because train companies have offered redress out of court does not make it a legal test.
I like a good bit of fare avoidance as much as the next man - in fact, I travel the world thanks to airline fare loopholes. The key for me is to play fair. If a fare is a mistake, and you know it is, prepare to be told this, and accept it. If there is a rule which looks preposterously in your favour, consider the intention of the rule, be reasonable. I have yet to fall foul of any TOC or airline, never had a confrontation, yet I've always saved money.
The crusades by some to suggest that TL ONLY tickets are valid on GX, or that if journey planners say you can go from London to Farnborough via Inverness for a pound, is ridiculous. It's not about consumer rights, or protecting rail passengers, it's about enthusiasts getting track bashing in for a few quid less. Everyone well knows that TL ONLY tickets are only supposed to be valid on Thameslink services only. Only a very tiny number of people with vested interests - who mostly inhabit this forum - believe otherwise!
(FWIW, I agree entirely the "information" panels are a stupid idea and it would be better if they were removed entirely!)
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Probably true. But I still don't like them and I'm not sure why they exist in a contractual document. I'm not aware of any other contracts I have (employment, mortgage, credit card) which have information panels.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
It's something the Plain English Campaign are quite fond of, an explanation of what a complex term or piece of jargon means in clear language. You do see it in some terms and conditions (the Co-Op Bank use these boxes: http://www.co-operativebank.co.uk/a...ounts/common/banking-terms-and-conditions.pdf)
They are just explanatory, but the consequence of the explanation is that customers will struggle to argue that their interpretation of the contract (and therefore the correct interpretation of the contract) should be something else. Given that interpretation is a big part of contract law, it'd be a brave person who tried to argue that the information boxes should be ignored entirely.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Yes, this is it. It won't copy and paste to quote properly, but the sum-up is that 19(c) doesn't apply for journeys on EMT, XC and East Coast where one of the tickets is a WY Metro one. It has been discussed in here before, which is why I knew about it.
I would think this harked back to something that was similar that was the case a while ago (that Boundary Zone tickets were only valid on a TOC that had two stops within the TfL Zones, which has not been the case for some years) but East Coast does appear to stop twice within the WY Metro area.
I don't entirely know why it isn't in the new MCard T&Cs. This may be because it no longer applies, or may be unintentional omission. Yes, that would probably mean you could get away with it and argue that it didn't apply as it wasn't in the T&Cs, but it does show that it at least existed and is not an invention of mine as some seem to be alleging.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Agreed. It is quite clear what the intention of those tickets is. Previously, technically, they were not permitted to have those tickets, so people in the know got away with using them in a different way. Now, they would appear to be permitted to do so (give or take whether the explanatory boxes form a contract or not). If it is found they still aren't permitted because of a drafting error, I'm certain that will be sorted out.
Provided a regulated Any Permitted fare is available (yes, I know in some cases it isn't), I really don't see why they shouldn't have these fares, FWIW.
Last edited:
AIUI there is no chance of a delay because 1st October is when the consumer rights act applies to rail and certain things had to change for that. I have had clarification via two routes that there is no change to validity of travelcards. As long as all zones required are covered there is no need for two travelcards to overlap, and boundary zone tickets are definitely still valid with the travelcard up to the relevant boundary.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
They can of course issue a revised version fixing some of the holes, and they may well do so. Given that ATOC/TOC pricing managers are known to read this forum (a few post, I think) and plug other holes, it wouldn't surprise me if they also did for this.
bb21
Emeritus Moderator
- Joined
- 4 Feb 2010
- Messages
- 24,471
Please refrain from personal attacks against other forum members, and discuss only the new NRCoT - NOT other individuals.
Any further such occurrences in this thread will result in infractions regardless of any excuses. Sick and tired of such childish antics. I love you all, but please keep your bickering off the forum.
Any further such occurrences in this thread will result in infractions regardless of any excuses. Sick and tired of such childish antics. I love you all, but please keep your bickering off the forum.
MichaelAMW
Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 1,021
I would say you need to be careful what you wish for, Yorkie, because I imagine you are pleased to see this information box:
as I am sure you will be happy to quote my bolded bits when someone is having difficulty getting a ticket and doesn't wish to miss their next train. This "information" confirms something you have asserted many times but are only able to "prove", as such, by the claim (I agree with you, by the way) that nothing requires you to miss your connection, as opposed to something actually confirming that you definitely don't have to.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
FWIW, the vast majority of the information boxes appear to provide an interpretation very much in the passenger's favour - the one quoted above is not the only one.
I would prefer it to be included in the condition itself
I am against the information boxes attempting to impose additional conditions, but I am not necessarily opposed to all the content of them.
Some people made the false claim that the conditions stated you had to delay your journey, but nowhere was such a condition documented.
hairyhandedfool
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 8,837
I'm not twisting anything.
National Rail Conditions of Carriage said:
If "are able to" was not in 13(a)(i) then I would agree with you that it was never allowed, but there you go.
This is, of course, before mentioning ScotRail's 'Negative Easements', which can't actually be applied.
Okay, so let's say I have a Edinburgh-Rosyth Anytime Day Return and I find, and board, a train that is advertised as a direct train via Kirkcaldy. I decide, at Kirkcaldy, to get off the train, the NRCoT makes it clear I can do this with no extra fare to pay.
If I decide to continue my journey to Rosyth later that day, I have broken and resumed my journey on a route which is neither the shortest route, nor a mapped route, on trains which run from the origin of my ticket to the destination of my ticket, on a ticket type that allows a break of journey.
The NRCoT says that if I break my journey when I am not allowed to do so I must pay the difference between what I have paid and the "lowest priced Ticket available for immediate travel" that would allow me to start, break or resume my journey at the station concerned. If it is judged that I cannot break and resume my journey, given I have paid the highest through return fare available, what is the difference in fares that I should pay? How would this be calculated?
Let us assume for a moment that I do go all the way through to Rosyth without breaking my journey. On the return my friend gives me a lift to Kirkcaldy and I start my journey there on a train that came from Rosyth and is advertised as a direct service from there to Edinburgh. Remember that I could have ended my outward journey at Kirkcaldy for no extra fare.
If the NRCoT is, again, the only thing saying I can't do this, given that I did travel to Rosyth on the outward journey and I have paid the highest through return fare, what difference in fares should I have to pay?
Of course, all of this assumes that Edinburgh to Rosyth via Kirkcaldy is a route for which the NRCoT says I can't break and resume my journey, but I haven't seen anything which actually says that? How do I know if the this is one of those "normally" services? Perhaps this is one of the exceptions? What tells me which is which?
There are already examples of this. Passengers with TfGM passes travelling to Wilmslow or beyond, for example, where trains can go via Stockport or the Styal Line, should be offered a fare that best suits the needs of the passenger.
Generally speaking, passengers who are unsure ask before buying anything, those who think they know tend to ask for what they think is right even if it isn't.
Given the people involved in the discussion, I don't think any wording would change their mind.
I think it's the other way around, I see more disagreement with the new wording than the old.
Last edited:
I am aware they are not part of the contract but why were they not made so. Surely that would be a better solution if they really want them to exist or update the wording at the start to say they are part of the contract if such thing is legally possible.
At the moment they are there but it says they don't form part of the contract.
Yes they could be removed but if they really want them put them into the terms and conditions.
What is stopping them?
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Would you expect a train branded Southern to turn up in place of a ThamesLink train when your wishing to travel on a ThamesLink train with a ThamesLink only ticket? Surely you'd expect it to get ThamesLink as that's the branded service your using.
On the day in question I was at East Croydon, there were delays of up to 30 minutes or even more. Both Southern and ThamesLink share the same platforms.
What if someone though perhaps at the last minute a Southern train came in and the customer information screens weren't updated?
Perfect for confusion.
If passengers must use the particular train for a picture ticket type then why shouldn't GTR be made to use a particular branded rolling stock for a particular branded train service?
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
Last edited:
This is neither here nor there in the context of the NRCOT and ticket validity, but I agree it is entirely confusing!!
As they say, life's unfair. I won't drag it off topic any further.
Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
MichaelAMW
Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 1,021
You are really only repeating here the argument that has occurred on the forum several times before. I, like others, simply don't agree with you. As I have said, the through-train rule is a concession that allows the use of non-permitted routes in specific circumstances and you are not going to persuade me that the intention is anything other than to only allow the entire journey to be made in one go. If you decide to get off intermediately then I don't believe the conditions allow you to do that without additional payment because you do not have a valid ticket over that route unless you stay on the train. Any point you try to make on the basis that you could end your journey at Kirkcaldy with no extra fare to pay is therefore not valid.
The excess fare is either the difference to a routed ticket valid via the station you alight at or the fare for the part of the journey not covered by the permitted routes for your original ticket, which doesn't include the route taken by the through train because you got off on the way.
"What tells you which is which" is the routeing guide, which tells you whether the through train in question is taking a permitted route.
A long thread! Generally the changes seem to clarify current practice, offer a few more rights in some places, and overall this seems a clearer document. Three negatives which stand out:
1. I agree that there are problems created by 'generally', 'usually', or 'may'.
2. In particular the new condition 16.4 and the wording "However, this [breaking a journey] may not be the case with some through services that take an indirect route" is a little baffling. HairyHandedFool outlines a number of the problems with it above. How is a passenger to know when and where this is not the case, particularly as the example has the 'not normally' in it, muddying the waters.
3. "Your Ticket may show that it is valid only on certain train services, such as those of a particular Train Company, or on trains travelling via a certain route or routes" - for me, this does formalize the restriction of tickets by brand, as the example then seeks to clarify. I read the words "such as" and "via a certain route or routes" as allowing any feasible routing, TOC or brand restriction to be created if desired.
1. I agree that there are problems created by 'generally', 'usually', or 'may'.
2. In particular the new condition 16.4 and the wording "However, this [breaking a journey] may not be the case with some through services that take an indirect route" is a little baffling. HairyHandedFool outlines a number of the problems with it above. How is a passenger to know when and where this is not the case, particularly as the example has the 'not normally' in it, muddying the waters.
3. "Your Ticket may show that it is valid only on certain train services, such as those of a particular Train Company, or on trains travelling via a certain route or routes" - for me, this does formalize the restriction of tickets by brand, as the example then seeks to clarify. I read the words "such as" and "via a certain route or routes" as allowing any feasible routing, TOC or brand restriction to be created if desired.
MichaelAMW
Member
- Joined
- 18 Jun 2010
- Messages
- 1,021
I would prefer it to be included in the condition itself
I am against the information boxes attempting to impose additional conditions, but I am not necessarily opposed to all the content of them.
Some people made the false claim that the conditions stated you had to delay your journey, but nowhere was such a condition documented.
Indeed, but surely you must be pleased that the opposite is now confirmed, albeit by one of these pesky information boxes...
hairyhandedfool
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Apr 2008
- Messages
- 8,837
The NRCoC and the NRCoT both say that ending a journey at an intermediate station is fine. Intermediate station is not a defined term so I can only say that it is a station between the origin station and the destination station, Kirkcaldy would fit that description on a direct service that goes that way. It is therefore allowed on those direct trains.
There isn't a routed ticket in this example, I'd have paid the highest through fare available from Edinburgh to Rosyth.
What would you consider to be a valid Ticket for the journey taken? Bear in mind it would have to allow a break of journey at Kirkcaldy and, as I hold an Anytime fare, it would have to be valid at any time.
If you discount any direct trains via Kirkcaldy the part of the journey not covered is Inverkeithing to Rosyth, a through ticket for which would only be valid via Kirkcaldy on a direct service, which is the same as the ticket held.
Says you. The NRCoT and NRCoC states that I can use services which are direct from the origin to the destination (it does not say I must stay on one train) and that if I break and resume my journey, when I am not allowed to, I only need to pay for the difference in fare that allows me to break my journey at the station concerned.
The Routeing Guide will only tell me what the mapped routes are, it does not tell me which direct services I cannot break my journey on, nor does it say which I can.
I'm with hhf on this - there's too much wishful thinking instead of a focus on what the contract actually does say, and why it's so clumsy. It's as if there are certain things the TOCs would prefer people to think might not be allowed even though they are allowed - a situation outlawed by the consumer regulations.
Wholeheartedly agreed.
This iteration of the Conditions is just as woolly as the last, but for different reasons. It's a disappointment, considering they've really rejigged the document. I wonder if Transport Focus were consulted, or if the DfT/ATOC opened this out for wider consultation.
In writing government guidance, the following words have specific meanings'
* Must-a requirement set out in legislation or other legal requirement
* Should-Not a legal requirement, but set out as the expected approach to take. A court would usually expect that such guidance should be followed unless they are exceptional circumstances
* May-Good practice to consider, but not a requirement.
It might be helpful if consistent language such as this were used in the NRCoT.
* Must-a requirement set out in legislation or other legal requirement
* Should-Not a legal requirement, but set out as the expected approach to take. A court would usually expect that such guidance should be followed unless they are exceptional circumstances
* May-Good practice to consider, but not a requirement.
It might be helpful if consistent language such as this were used in the NRCoT.
Last edited:
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
The Scout Association's rule book, POR, has similar terminology.
Must: you absolutely have to do this, it is under no circumstances acceptable to do otherwise
Must not: under no circumstances is it acceptable to do this
Should: this should be the default option; do this unless you have a very good reason not to
Should not: this is to be avoided unless you have a very good reason to do it
Anything else: good practice
I agree something similar, with these terms probably capitalised and defined at the start, would be good here.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I don't think "route or routes" does that, but "such as" means they are only examples, and so that Condition allows *any* arbitrary restriction to be applied on the ticket. Because those are examples, the condition "Your Ticket may show that it is valid only on certain train services" may stand alone.
But ideally, to be clearer, what that condition should say is:
"Your Ticket may show that it is valid only on certain train services, such as those of a particular Train Company, on trains travelling via a certain route or routes, on trains you hold a seat reservation supplied with the Ticket, or on trains carrying a specific branding. These are only examples; other restrictions may apply at the option of the Train Company."
Then there is little doubt and no need for the information panel.
Must: you absolutely have to do this, it is under no circumstances acceptable to do otherwise
Must not: under no circumstances is it acceptable to do this
Should: this should be the default option; do this unless you have a very good reason not to
Should not: this is to be avoided unless you have a very good reason to do it
Anything else: good practice
I agree something similar, with these terms probably capitalised and defined at the start, would be good here.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I don't think "route or routes" does that, but "such as" means they are only examples, and so that Condition allows *any* arbitrary restriction to be applied on the ticket. Because those are examples, the condition "Your Ticket may show that it is valid only on certain train services" may stand alone.
But ideally, to be clearer, what that condition should say is:
"Your Ticket may show that it is valid only on certain train services, such as those of a particular Train Company, on trains travelling via a certain route or routes, on trains you hold a seat reservation supplied with the Ticket, or on trains carrying a specific branding. These are only examples; other restrictions may apply at the option of the Train Company."
Then there is little doubt and no need for the information panel.
Last edited:
- Status