If you are now putting forward your own definitions of words, rather than using the dictionary defintion which everyone has access to, there seems little point in debating the matter further. :cry:
-
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!
Travelled on the next available train (after cancellation) but being charged.
- Thread starter Prodigy
- Start date
- Status
If you are now putting forward your own definitions of words, rather than using the dictionary defintion which everyone has access to, there seems little point in debating the matter further. :cry:
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Worth noting that TOCs are always good at proposing that they are *not* an integral part of the fare when deciding what to do if they are not provided
100andthirty
Member
For what it's worth, my local TOC sends me an email twice a day on weekdays headed "No disruption....." or "Disruption found.....". Typical disruption is ONE train either with fewer carriages than usual or ONE train cancelled. Thus if a TOC states clearly that an issue affecting one train is "DISRUPTION", who are we to disagree?
I'm not. For legal reasons you aren't allowed to refer to 'inclusive' or 'complimentary' items as being 'free'. Hence why your mobile phone contract gives you 'inclusive' minutes, and you get 'complimentary' refreshments with your first class ticket.
Edit: Just to expand on my point above. A 'free' item is provided gratis and for nothing. That is clearly not the case with the refreshments that you get as a first class ticket holder. As Neil Williams points out, neither are they considered to be part of the ticket price (if they were 'inclusive' then the TOC would owe you money if they weren't provided). So they are 'complimentary' i.e. a benefit of having bought a first class ticket that is neither 'free' nor 'inclusive'.
Last edited:
Bus comparisons are only valid if the tickets are issued subject to a National Bus Conditions of Carriage, and the bus operators obliged to adhere to code of practice which states they must accept each others' tickets. If not, the comparison instantly falls down.
If train operators are so upset at the prospect of carrying passengers for whom they receive no revenue and want to get out of their obligations under the NRCoC, ticket T&Cs, ATOC and ORR documentation/policies, they must not bid for any franchises, and be completely 'open access' without accepting any ORCATS money, ie. like a railour operator.
https://www.virgintrainseastcoast.c...nce/first-class/complimentary-food-and-drink/
If train operators are so upset at the prospect of carrying passengers for whom they receive no revenue and want to get out of their obligations under the NRCoC, ticket T&Cs, ATOC and ORR documentation/policies, they must not bid for any franchises, and be completely 'open access' without accepting any ORCATS money, ie. like a railour operator.
Virgin disagree with you....
https://www.virgintrainseastcoast.c...nce/first-class/complimentary-food-and-drink/
...and, for what it's worth, so do I
Solent&Wessex
Established Member
- Joined
- 9 Jul 2009
- Messages
- 2,749
Ok, I'll give you that. BUT, the Code of Practice for Disruption says that operators must automatically accept each other's tickets once CSL2 is declared, which is up to each TOC to decide when to declare it, and when it is declared it is universally announced. Before that time operators can and might be expected to make one off arrangements locally, and advise passengers accordingly, but there is certainly no automatic trigger point until CSL2.
That's potentially risky, I wonder if their legal guys know that's what they've put on the website. The whole 'free' v 'complimentary' thing is something that sales people are specifically trained about as it can lead to expensive consequences. The reason being that if something is 'free' then you can get it without paying anything for it. I suppose they could get around it by saying that it's 'free if you can show a first class ticket that is valid for the train you're on' but it's a bit of a minefield.
As they've worded it, if you're *in* First Class you can dine - no requirement to hold a ticket.
Last edited:
This is all perfectly true but (perhaps as usual) you've failed to consider the problem from the customer's point of view. The different terms and restrictions come with the lower price, nobody questions this. But if the train company has actually cancelled their train then they have not held up their end of the bargain. It's ridiculous to suggest that they will then make things worse for their customers by imposing further restrictions on how they can complete the journey they've paid for, given you've already reneged on your part of the contract by cancelling the train. The ins and outs can be debated until the cows come home, but that's the way the customer sees it and that's the way the market 'feels'. Certainly in the case of an actual cancellation, if there is no ticket acceptance in place and people are expected to wait an hour then we should all expect the conflict between passengers and staff to continue all the greater, with the inevitable complaints that will ensue. It depends what your priorities are...
It's been on there for months now so they are probably pretty confident they know what they're talking about...
West Coast's website occasionally uses the term too and has done for quite some time:
Last edited:
Jonfun
Established Member
Yes, company A has cancelled their train. They've not fulfilled their side of the bargain, and it's their responsibility to get the passenger to their destination. They're not imposing any further restrictions on how the passenger can complete the journey - the restrictions were already there to begin with. Company B doesn't have any reason to be involved with the journey whatsoever. A ticket that has been issued to you is evidence of a contract between you and each train company who's trains you have the right to use. Clearly if the ticket is (for example) TPE only, then XC, or NT, or VTEC or whoever are not party to that contract and aren't responsible in any way for TPE's failings in providing a train.
Neither company A nor company B are operating in isolation. They have both been granted the privilege of operating a part of the National rail network, and as such it should be made crystal clear to both of them that it is their absolute duty to work together to ensure that the passenger has as seamless a journey as possible during times of disruption.
Harpers Tate
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 May 2013
- Messages
- 2,057
^^ Exactly.
No they haven't. A train ticket is evidence of a contract to get the passenger from station A to station B - it is not time-bound. They would only be in breach of their side of the contract if they refused to carry the passenger on a later service or make other arrangements to get them to their destination.
Harpers Tate
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 May 2013
- Messages
- 2,057
That's an interesting observation. In the case of an Advance fare are you saying that it is only time-bound on the customer (to the extent that the contract is avoided by the TOC if the customer fails to board the nominated service), but not on the operator (if they fail to provide the nominated service)? And if it is - might that be construed as an "unfair contract term"?
Nope. It's no different to cheap airfares which are non-refundable, etc. if you miss your flight. The taxes are refundable, but train tickets aren't taxed so there's nothing to refund.
In both cases (rail and air) the passenger is potentially entitled to compensation for the delay, depending on how long it is.
Last edited:
I'm of the opinion that NRCoC condition 1 makes it clear that the contract is only with those TOCs the ticket would ordinarily be valid for. For TOC-only tickets, this is the TOC named on the ticket.
A more grey area is +CONNECTIONS tickets, as the contract here is with multiple TOCs, so my interpretation is you can take the next available train operated by any of the TOCs that run a service in the original itinerary of the AP, even its its the 'wrong' leg of the journey (though the journeys where this would result in a gain for the passenger are probably slim)
A more grey area is +CONNECTIONS tickets, as the contract here is with multiple TOCs, so my interpretation is you can take the next available train operated by any of the TOCs that run a service in the original itinerary of the AP, even its its the 'wrong' leg of the journey (though the journeys where this would result in a gain for the passenger are probably slim)
Last edited:
Expect to be flamed for holding such a heretical and anti-customer opinion. (Even though it's correct!)
Harpers Tate
Established Member
- Joined
- 10 May 2013
- Messages
- 2,057
It does highlight what (in my opinion) is precisely the main thing that is at fault with the Privatised Railway and that is Fragmentation.
I hesitate to draw an analogy with another industry but in many respects this one does work.
You purchase, say, an item of clothing from a branded store or from a Comapny website. (I like outdoor gear, so let's pick on Rohan for the sake of illustration). And later you have cause to return it. There is a satisfaction guarantee on all their stuff, and of course you have legal rights in the event of fault etc. So for either reason, you want to take issue with Rohan about it.
Many Rohan stores are NOT run by Rohan but by third parties under franchise. Thus, technically, any contract; any consumer liability; and so on, rests with the company with whom you originally did business, and not with the brand nor with any other supplier.
This is the same thing, then, as with the Railway and its various TOCs.
However, if you want to open a Rohan store, then you sign up to certain franchise commitments, one of which is that all of you act as if a single whole; you WILL attend to consumer matters even if the original purchase was made elsewhere.
And so it should be with the Railway. All talk of legal contract terms with any one TOC should be irrelevant as all participants should be participating in a whole.
The sooner DaFT (or whoever) gets this part right and places these responsibilities within every franchise contract, the sooner we will benefit from the best aspects of a privatised, integrated system.
I hesitate to draw an analogy with another industry but in many respects this one does work.
You purchase, say, an item of clothing from a branded store or from a Comapny website. (I like outdoor gear, so let's pick on Rohan for the sake of illustration). And later you have cause to return it. There is a satisfaction guarantee on all their stuff, and of course you have legal rights in the event of fault etc. So for either reason, you want to take issue with Rohan about it.
Many Rohan stores are NOT run by Rohan but by third parties under franchise. Thus, technically, any contract; any consumer liability; and so on, rests with the company with whom you originally did business, and not with the brand nor with any other supplier.
This is the same thing, then, as with the Railway and its various TOCs.
However, if you want to open a Rohan store, then you sign up to certain franchise commitments, one of which is that all of you act as if a single whole; you WILL attend to consumer matters even if the original purchase was made elsewhere.
And so it should be with the Railway. All talk of legal contract terms with any one TOC should be irrelevant as all participants should be participating in a whole.
The sooner DaFT (or whoever) gets this part right and places these responsibilities within every franchise contract, the sooner we will benefit from the best aspects of a privatised, integrated system.
The thing is, they do sell inter-available tickets that would give the customer exactly the kind of protections that you are talking about, Advance/TOC-only tickets are discounted precisely because they don't provide those protections. There's an easy way to ensure that all tickets have those protections: don't sell TOC-limited tickets at all.
Enjoy your higher average ticket prices.
All well and good if the said train actually runs. If not, the railway is just overcharging passengers to rectify the railways own shortcoming.
The presence of inter available tickets is of no relevance when the passenger has been prevented from catching his train because the railway hasn't run it.
Last edited:
You can look at it that way but the passenger who holds an inter-available ticket can take the next train without any need to seek permission, the passenger with the TOC-only one cannot.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
No they are not, that is simply a factor of how revenue is allocated. They are discounted because they restrict the passenger to travelling on the specified train (when it runs). That train is generally one containing capacity that might not be filled were the interavailable walk up ticket the only one on sale.
All that would be required to give inter availability in the event of cancellation would be for an agreement to be signed. The costs would even out.
That is true for most Advance tickets but not for TOC-limited peak/off-peak tickets.
Condition 43 of the National Rail Conditions Of Carriage is relevant to this discussion.
"...If disruption caused by circumstances within the control of a Train Company or a Rail Service Company leaves you stranded before you have reached your destination printed on or stored on your ticket, and the Train Company whose trains you are entitled to use is unable to get you to that destination by other means, any Train Company which is in a position to help will, if it reasonably can, either arrange to get you to that destination, or provide overnight accommodation for you...."
All tickets regardless of type are subject to the conditions of carriage, so a lot rests on the interpretation of the phrase "by any other means".
I take this to means that if there is another train to the same destination within a reasonable period of time, then the passenger should use that train, if not then the passenger should invoke condition 43 and get on the train of another TOC to the same destination.
I once had a London Midland only ticket from Nuneaton to London. The London Midland train was terminated at Rugby (due to "staff shortages" on a Sunday afternoon - sound familiar?) The next London Midland train to Euston was not for two hours, but there was a Virgin train in the next 10 minutes.
Passengers for London were advised to get on the Virgin train. I did so and they accepted my ticket without question. I would say that it is not reasonable to expect someone to wait for two hours for a train when there is one to your destination in 10 minutes, so condition 43 came into play here, and I would have argued this point had Virgin not accepted my ticket.
"...If disruption caused by circumstances within the control of a Train Company or a Rail Service Company leaves you stranded before you have reached your destination printed on or stored on your ticket, and the Train Company whose trains you are entitled to use is unable to get you to that destination by other means, any Train Company which is in a position to help will, if it reasonably can, either arrange to get you to that destination, or provide overnight accommodation for you...."
All tickets regardless of type are subject to the conditions of carriage, so a lot rests on the interpretation of the phrase "by any other means".
I take this to means that if there is another train to the same destination within a reasonable period of time, then the passenger should use that train, if not then the passenger should invoke condition 43 and get on the train of another TOC to the same destination.
I once had a London Midland only ticket from Nuneaton to London. The London Midland train was terminated at Rugby (due to "staff shortages" on a Sunday afternoon - sound familiar?) The next London Midland train to Euston was not for two hours, but there was a Virgin train in the next 10 minutes.
Passengers for London were advised to get on the Virgin train. I did so and they accepted my ticket without question. I would say that it is not reasonable to expect someone to wait for two hours for a train when there is one to your destination in 10 minutes, so condition 43 came into play here, and I would have argued this point had Virgin not accepted my ticket.
I say that it more depends on the meaning of "stranded".
Oh, don't get me wrong, I'm happy if customers get to travel without penalty. I think that they should (morally) be allowed to travel, I just don't see how under the current terms they have the right (legally) to expect to do so.And if there is doubt about the meaning of the term, the interpretation that favours the customer prevails.
Ergo, customers win. NajaB and JonFun lose
It also depends on the meaning of "position to help" and "if it reasonably can", but at least condition 43 gives passengers some justifiable grounds for using another TOCs trains on a TOC specific ticket.
I suppose if a train is cancelled, you should ask the staff at the origin station. If they say "get on train X" (operated by another TOC) then that constitutes authority to travel under condition 43.
Ultimately it depends on how a court would interpret the wording of condition 43 in the event of a dispute. But the train companies don't want a court to do the interpretation for them. They would prefer to interpret terms and conditions so that things always work in their favour.
I suppose if a train is cancelled, you should ask the staff at the origin station. If they say "get on train X" (operated by another TOC) then that constitutes authority to travel under condition 43.
Ultimately it depends on how a court would interpret the wording of condition 43 in the event of a dispute. But the train companies don't want a court to do the interpretation for them. They would prefer to interpret terms and conditions so that things always work in their favour.
Which all depends on exactly what question the passenger actually asks before receiving that answer!
Is this not similar to turning up at an Airport for a flight to Paris (Or anywhere) and this being cancelled, and you get the next available flight, I am sure they would not let you just jump on the next KLM or AIR FRANCE flight, you would wait for the next 'available' flight that the ticket was issued by, UNLESS you are told to use another operator.
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
- Status