Should anyone have helped me? If so, who?

[nanstallon]

Okay, suppose the TOC-restricted tickets were replaced with route-restricted tickets (and I think it would take a rule change to enable through tickets to exist where the route restriction requires that the train must call at specific stations, but let's assume that's what happens).

In that case, in circumstances like the OP's, the passenger would be able to board the train that doesn't comply with the routing restriction on his ticket knowing the jeopardy is that he may be asked to pay an excess fare. That is much better than a situation where the jeopardy is being told your ticket is invalid and worthless, being made to buy a new ticket and possibly being threatened in various ways if you won't or can't pay.

Agreed. Much fairer than the heavy handed behaviour of TOCs these days.

 

[EMB]

I’ve sent a message to Avanti to clarify the train manager and supervisor’s ”discretionary” approach to their obligations, will post any response I might get.

Karen from Avanti responds:
“Whilst you are correct the National Rail Conditions of Travel does advise passengers their Train Operating Company will do their best to get you to your destination, this does not mean passengers can travel on any service.

If your ticket is valid only on West Midlands and Northern Services only, you can travel only on those services. If you travel on another Train Operator's service you may be charged and it is at the Train Manager's discretion whether to do so.

We do, on occasion, arrange for other Train Operator's tickets to be accepted on our services and usually because there are serious disruptions across the network. This is called ticket easement and is agreed between Train Operators and agreed in advance.

The Train Manager was willing to make a call to see if your ticket could be accepted and this was agreed.

Please rest assured feedback will be discussed and appropriate steps to improve things will be taken. Whether that’s by way of individual coaching, training, or other more formal methods.

Avanti West Coast will carry on investing in our people, to help them develop and enhance all of the skills needed to make our customers’ service and experience go smoothly. I am confident this will be reflected in the experience that you have next time you travel with us.

For your future reference, Crewe station has Help points. So, if you have difficulties travelling from there and there are no staff available, from any company, you can use these to call for assistance.”

Am mildly confused - if they feel the TM’s response was all good, then what improvement would they be briefing?
Coincidentally enough, my very next journey required me to hop on an Avanti with an LNR only ticket last Thursday, due to a sad incident at Bushey, but I think easement was in place by then.

 

[redreni]

Am mildly confused

Not as confused as Karen from Avanti, I'd say.

 

[gray1404]

Total misuse of the term easement

 

[redreni]

Total misuse of the term easement

Spot the difference.


The slight of hand that gets us from "any Train Company" to only the TOC(s) that receive revenue from the fare paid is not, in fairness to Avanti customer services, a concept unique to them. We have regular posters on this forum who appear to want the NRCoT to say this so much that they are able to make this almost superhuman interpretative leap.

"Any Train Company" is crystal clear.

 

[185]

Karen from Avanti responds:
“Whilst you are correct the National Rail Conditions of Travel does advise passengers their Train Operating Company will do their best to get you to your destination, this does not mean passengers can travel on any service.

Bothers me more that Karen from (Firstgroup plc) Avanti fails to acknowledge that (Firstgroup plc) SWR were the operator whose service disruption created the situation.

 

[AdamWW]

View attachment 166440
Spot the difference.

View attachment 166443
The slight of hand that gets us from "any Train Company" to only the TOC(s) that receive revenue from the fare paid is not, in fairness to Avanti customer services, a concept unique to them. We have regular posters on this forum who appear to want the NRCoT to say this so much that they are able to make this almost superhuman interpretative leap.

"Any Train Company" is crystal clear.

It's interesting - the intention of 28.2 was presumably to place an obligation on train companies, though they way its phrased does look as if it's advising passengers of what should happen rather than instructing the train companies to do anything.

 

[redreni]

It's interesting - the intention of 28.2 was presumably to place an obligation on train companies, though they way its phrased does look as if it's advising passengers of what should happen rather than instructing the train companies to do anything.

My attitude is if I buy a ticket expressly under the terms of the NRCoT then I consider I have every contractual right to expect and require the other parties to the contract to do what the contract says they will do.

 

[AdamWW]

My attitude is if I buy a ticket expressly under the terms of the NRCoT then I consider I have every contractual right to expect and require the other parties to the contract to do what the contract says they will do.

I agree completely. If the NRCoT tells you that the railway will do something, it should do so. And under consumer law I think it has an obligation to.

But as it says "any train company will" rather than "any train company must", I can see why someone might view it as merely advising passengers what companies will do.

In any case I don't actually know what the NRCOT is.

It purports to be a contract that comes into place when you purchase a ticket, but if that were really the case the terms on when one can board a train without a ticket would have no meaning.

 

[redreni]

I agree completely. If the NRCoT tells you that the railway will do something, it should do so. And under consumer law I think it has an obligation to.

But as it says "any train company will" rather than "any train company must", I can see why someone might view it as merely advising passengers what companies will do.

In any case I don't actually know what the NRCOT is.

It purports to be a contract that comes into place when you purchase a ticket, but if that were really the case the terms on when one can board a train without a ticket would have no meaning.

Throughout the document, for passengers it is 'may', 'should' or 'must' as appropriate, but lots of "the TOC may" and "the TOC will".

I expect the difference in language is merely because the TOCs are, through the RDG, in effect the drafting party, so it's not for the drafting party to tell itself what it must do. Rather it sets out what it will do so that the consumer can decide on that basis whether to enter into the contract. I don't think it is intended to create an unfair asymmetry in the contract and, if it is, consumers have some legal protection from contracts that purport to do that.

I'm not sure if I follow your point about the terms that allow a ticket to be purchased after a journey has been started? If a passenger travels without buying a ticket at any stage, I agree the NRCoT would not come into effect, but of course the passenger may in that case commit a criminal offence and/or leave themselves open to a claim for damages. It's quite normal for a consumer contract in standard form to set out the circumstances in which the drafting party will or won't enter into the contract with a consumer. Aren't the provisions you're referring to simply establishing that if you want to enter into the contract with the TOCs by buying a ticket, you can do so by buying a ticket before you travel or, in the specified circumstances, by buying a ticket during or at the end of your journey?

 

[AdamWW]

Throughout the document, for passengers it is 'may', 'should' or 'must' as appropriate, but lots of "the TOC may" and "the TOC will".

I expect the difference in language is merely because the TOCs are, through the RDG, in effect the drafting party, so it's not for the drafting party to tell itself what it must do. Rather it sets out what it will do so that the consumer can decide on that basis whether to enter into the contract. I don't think it is intended to create an unfair asymmetry in the contract and,

I imagine that's the intention. But in practise it does sometimes seem that the NRCoT is something that constrains railway companies in ways they'd prefer that it didn't and sometimes have to be reminded of.

Aren't the provisions you're referring to simply establishing that if you want to enter into the contract with the TOCs by buying a ticket, you can do so by buying a ticket before you travel or, in the specified circumstances, by buying a ticket during or at the end of your journey?

I'm not sure how on topic this is and I know I started it, but briefly I don't think so.

The NRCoT gives circumstances under which the railway won't penalise you for boarding without a ticket. I can't see how that protection could come from a contract you haven't entered into. Or how a contract can override the law.

 

[redreni]

I'm not sure how on topic this is and I know I started it, but briefly I don't think so.

The NRCoT gives circumstances under which the railway won't penalise you for boarding without a ticket. I can't see how that protection could come from a contract you haven't entered into. Or how a contract can override the law.

Perhaps we need a new thread. I don't see how the NRCoT is inconsistent with or seeking to override the law, at least not in the way you're describing.

It seems clear enough to me: if you don't buy a ticket you won't benefit from any terms in the NRCoT that might have been favourable to you, but the terms that describe what type of fare you will be charged if you do want to buy a ticket will apply should you wish to buy a ticket and thus enter into the contract. In some circumstances you might only be able to do that by paying a higher fare (which might be a penalty fare) than you'd have had to pay if you bought a ticket before boarding - in other circumstances not.