West Yorkshire split tickets

[neilmc]

Just read this on the cross-boundary travel section of the WYPTE website:

"Please note that on trains, fares may be combined only to and from a station at which your train makes a scheduled stop. Where a passenger holds two or more zonal tickets in combination or one is a rail season ticket and one is not, then the train does not need to call at the station where they change from one ticket to the other. Please note that these combinations of tickets do not apply to services operated by CrossCountry, East Midlands Trains or East Coast."

Sorry if this has been brought up previously, but how exactly can these three TOCs refuse to apply a ruling which I thought was in the National Conditions of Carriage?

 

[185143]

You could argue that you can use VTEC as East Coast Trains no longer exists...

 

[clagmonster]

These conditions apply only to certain PTE set tickets. As such, part of the tickets conditions of issue are both these special conditions and the NRCoC.

Normal point to point tickets are not affected by these special conditions.

 

[34D]

Link to the OP http://www.wymetro.com/TicketsAndPasses/CrossBoundary/

These conditions apply only to certain PTE set tickets. As such, part of the tickets conditions of issue are both these special conditions and the NRCoC.

Normal point to point tickets are not affected by these special conditions.

I do agree with you, however don't forget that point to point tickets within WY are priced by WYPTE.

 

[jkdd77]

The information the OP refers to is contained in a general generic advice leaflet, but, as far as I can tell, does not appear in the actual published T & Cs for travel for Mcards or Metrocards and, if so, would not form part of the contract for travel and hence would not be enforceable.

It is possible that the leaflet is itself a badly-worded attempt to set out the Condition of travel relating to the use of a combination of tickets as contained in the NRCoC. A Metrocard' is not a "season ticket" within the meaning of the NRCoC, and hence a 'Metrocard 'season'/ non-season split would not actually be valid unless Condition 19(b) was complied with, but a 'Metrocard 'season'/ conventional season (or leisure travel pass) split would, on the face of it, be valid under Condition 19(c).

The general question of whether TOCs may deny passengers rights guaranteed in the NRCoC has been discussed at length previously: http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1965771; no definite conclusion was reached, although my own view is that they cannot do so.

It is worth noting that Condition 19(a) does expressly permit operators to attach 'special conditions' to zonal tickets to prohibit their use as part of a combination of tickets, so any such restriction relating only to 19(a) splits would not be in breach of the NRCoC, but, in my view, an attempt to restrict an otherwise valid 19(b) or 19(c) split would be.

 

[thedbdiboy]

TOCs cannot vary NRCoC conditions in respect of their own tickets but PTE-set fares are entitled to have their own conditions, as it is a third party creating the product within a contractual arrangement fulfilled by the relevant TOCs.

 

[jkdd77]

When conveying passengers by rail, TOCs are absolutely bound by the NRCoC as a condition of their franchise agreements.

My view is that PTEs are entitled, in principle, to set their own conditions, but that any conditions relating to rail travel are always subject to the overriding authority of the NRCoC, and hence may not contradict the NRCoC, nor remove or deny passenger rights expressly guaranteed by the NRCoC, including Condition 10 as well as Condition 19. It follows that I believe that any PTE-published conditions that purport to deny such rights in relation to rail travel are null, void and of no legal effect.

This assumes that a single paragraph in a generic, badly worded, leaflet, which does not purport to be a contract for travel or T & Cs for travel, not issued to the passenger nor drawn to the passenger's attention at or before the time the contract for travel was entered into, is enforceable, which I gravely doubt.

However, this was all discussed at great length in the previous multi-page thread, and I am disinclined to regurgitate all of the arguments contained therein.

 

[yorkie]

but how exactly can these three TOCs refuse to apply a ruling which I thought was in the National Conditions of Carriage?

I don't think they can. However not all the people who set conditions are familiar with contract law, it's not unknown for illegal or non-binding conditions to be set.

I concur with jkdd77 on this matter, but we'll never get concensus on this.

I doubt any of the TOCs would want a case to go to court (at least not if they think the other party has proper legal representation) though nothing can be guaranteed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are the WY tickets not just operator-specific - i.e. because the IC operators mentioned don't have two stops within the zones, they are not valid on them, just like any other TOC specific ticket?

Operator specific tickets are perfectly allowed within the NRCoC.

 

[yorkie]

Are the WY tickets not just operator-specific - i.e. because the IC operators mentioned don't have two stops within the zones, they are not valid on them, just like any other TOC specific ticket?

Operator specific tickets are perfectly allowed within the NRCoC.

I refer you to NRCoC Condition 10.

There is no such restriction shown on the ticket, so travel is not restricted to, nor prohibited on, any particular TOC(s).

 

[34D]

Are the WY tickets not just operator-specific - i.e. because the IC operators mentioned don't have two stops within the zones, they are not valid on them, just like any other TOC specific ticket?

Operator specific tickets are perfectly allowed within the NRCoC.

Leeds City and Wakefield Westgate..... or in the case of Grand Central Pontefract M to Bradford I inc.

 

[pdq]

There must be some reason why TPE have no problem accepting the 19c split with a Metrocard plus a season ticket, but other operators don't like it.

 

[34D]

There must be some reason why TPE have no problem accepting the 19c split with a Metrocard plus a season ticket, but other operators don't like it.

Purely that Leeds to Doncaster is cheaper (or was) using a pte ticket and a non pte ticket I believe.

 

[thedbdiboy]

When conveying passengers by rail, TOCs are absolutely bound by the NRCoC as a condition of their franchise agreements.

My view is that PTEs are entitled, in principle, to set their own conditions, but that any conditions relating to rail travel are always subject to the overriding authority of the NRCoC, and hence may not contradict the NRCoC, nor remove or deny passenger rights expressly guaranteed by the NRCoC, including Condition 10 as well as Condition 19. It follows that I believe that any PTE-published conditions that purport to deny such rights in relation to rail travel are null, void and of no legal effect.

This assumes that a single paragraph in a generic, badly worded, leaflet, which does not purport to be a contract for travel or T & Cs for travel, not issued to the passenger nor drawn to the passenger's attention at or before the time the contract for travel was entered into, is enforceable, which I gravely doubt.

However, this was all discussed at great length in the previous multi-page thread, and I am disinclined to regurgitate all of the arguments contained therein.

The key issue is intent. Are the PTE tickets intended to be used in tandem with NR tickets to undercut through fares? No. Therefore any inadequacy in the wording is down to poor attention to detail. Whilst we can expect this to be clarified in the future (the PTEs firmly do not want their zonal tickets to be used for split ticketing, and the DfT will not stand in their way on this matter), creating a song and dance about it will just be likely to bring such clarification forward.

 

[jkdd77]

The key issue is intent. Are the PTE tickets intended to be used in tandem with NR tickets to undercut through fares? No. Therefore any inadequacy in the wording is down to poor attention to detail. Whilst we can expect this to be clarified in the future (the PTEs firmly do not want their zonal tickets to be used for split ticketing, and the DfT will not stand in their way on this matter), creating a song and dance about it will just be likely to bring such clarification forward.

It's not a matter of inadequacy in the leaflet wording at all- since tickets for travel by rail within the UK are sold subject to the NRCoC, it follows that any 'clarification' to remove this existing validity would require a major amendment to the NRCoC, and, at present, supposed prohibitions contained in leaflets must be NRCoC-compliant in order to be enforceable.

As for intent, I'm sure XC and other TOCs don't want people using a combination of tickets on their trains to undercut their through fares either, but, nonetheless, they are obliged to accept them where Condition 19 applies, whether a split is inside of or outside of a PTE area, and certainly this nebulous 'intent' cannot remove contractual validity guaranteed by the NRCoC. ATOC have been unsuccessful so far in persuading the DfT to remove or reduce the scope of Condition 19, so I don't see why the PTEs would necessarily be any more successful.

Stating that a valid ticket is valid does not constitute 'making a song and dance about it'- it is simply stating a fact.

 

[thedbdiboy]

It's not a matter of inadequacy in the leaflet wording at all- since tickets for travel by rail within the UK are sold subject to the NRCoC,

But this statement is not true. A journey between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Rickmansworth on a met line Underground train is subject to TfL's conditions of carriage, not the NRCoC, and that is a rail journey.

The problem with PTE tickets arises from the conflict between PTEs who contract services through NR TOCs and wish to apply their own conditions to the products they create, and tickets created by the NR operator in their own right, and it is this that will benefit from clarification.

 

[Bletchleyite]

the PTEs firmly do not want their zonal tickets to be used for split ticketing

I really don't see why the PTEs would give a monkey's about it. The organisations that care will be the TOCs who get no (or very little) money from them.

 

[Wolfie]

TOCs cannot vary NRCoC conditions in respect of their own tickets but PTE-set fares are entitled to have their own conditions, as it is a third party creating the product within a contractual arrangement fulfilled by the relevant TOCs.

In my view your argument would be valid if and only if a TOC was operating a service specifically for a PTE. OF course the TOC can have a contractual relationship with a PTE. However, if tTOC is operating a service under franchise from DfT the contractual relationship between DfT and the TOC (which includes adherence to NRCOC) MUST take precedence. A secondary contract, relating to a subset of ticketing,cannot undermine the primary contract relating to provision of the service subject to certain rules.

The problem with PTE tickets arises from the conflict between PTEs who contract services through NR TOCs and wish to apply their own conditions to the products they create, and tickets created by the NR operator in their own right, and it is this that will benefit from clarification.

But the PTE sponsored services piggyback upon DfT's primary contract with a TOC (unless of course you are aware of any PTE-sponsored Open Access Operator services). It would be the tail wagging the dog for the PTE to be able to supercede or modify that primary contract....

 

[lejog]

But this statement is not true. A journey between Harrow-on-the-Hill and Rickmansworth on a met line Underground train is subject to TfL's conditions of carriage, not the NRCoC, and that is a rail journey.

The problem with PTE tickets arises from the conflict between PTEs who contract services through NR TOCs and wish to apply their own conditions to the products they create, and tickets created by the NR operator in their own right, and it is this that will benefit from clarification.

No clarification needed whatsoever, the first two lines of the NRCoC say:

"When you buy a ticket to travel on scheduled services on the National Rail Network you make an agreement with the Train Companies whose trains the ticket allows you to use."

It is a matter of complete indifference to the passenger who issues the ticket, if a ticket allows you to use a train the NRCoC applies between you and the TOC on which you are travelling. While this makes it difficult for PTEs to impose conditions that are contrary to the NRCoC, in cases such as this PTEs may easily just ensure that the ticket is not allowed for use simply by saying so! However WYMetro claim in pamphlets and on their website that Metrocards provide:

"Unlimited travel on train services within the zones chosen"

Absolutely no qualification, all train services in a defined geographic area. If they stated upfront that the tickets are not allowed for use for cross border travel on certain TOCS, perhaps even just in a footnote, then I'd agree the NRCoC would not apply. However hiding exclusions away in an obscure Cross Boundary Travel document - and even worse exclusions which plainly contradict the conditions stated at a higher level, IMO isn't good enough.

I understand from previous discussions that WYMetro don't pay anything from Metrocard income to TOCs who e.g. run fast from Leeds to York, Wakefield to Doncaster, so reasonably wish to disallow split ticketing at the boundary on those services. But the remedy is in their hands, just ensure upfront in the conditions that the ticket isn't valid.