What legislation requires that the DfT approve NRG changes?

[mikeg]

It seems to be common knowledge that the Department for Transport is required to approve the removal of a permitted route and that it often isn't consulted, but where in law is it required to be thus?

 

[Merseysider]

The Ticketing Settlement Agreement is a 400-page document to which all TOCs are party to, and must comply with.

10-6 CHANGING THE PERMITTED ROUTES

(1) Agreement to make a change
The Routeing Guide may, with the consent of the Authority [Strategic Rail Authority], be altered from time to time by a resolution of the Ticketing and Settlement Scheme Council, passed by a 75 per cent. majority. Before giving his consent, the Authority will consult with any relevant RPCs [Rail Passenger Councils].

(2) Requirement to notify the RSP [Rail Settlement Plan]

(a) If such a resolution is passed the Operators must ensure that its terms are notified to the RSP as soon as reasonably practicable after the consent of the Authority has been obtained, in the format and in accordance with the procedure specified by the RSP from time to time.

(b) The alteration will take effect immediately after the first Fares Setting Round to start after the RSP receives this notification has been completed.

In addition to this, under the TSA, ATOC must consult with, and gain permission of, the Secretary of State before making changes to permitted routes.

Changing permitted routes without following the procedure detailed within the TSA is a breach thereof.

Page 358 onwards of the TSA (Chapter 14) describes the procedures when a breach of the TSA has occurred (or is suspected).

Disputes can be handed to the Ticketing Settlement Scheme Council which can in turn, result in the operator in breach of the TSA having financial penalties imposed upon it; the power is also there to terminate an Operator's rights under the TSA (effectively ending its operation of the franchise). The provision is also there for court action in the event of serious or repeated breaches of the TSA.

Unfortunately, whenever a change to the NRG is made illegally, it is often put down to "maintenance" or a "mistake". Neither of which remove the liability for the correct procedure to be followed.

Theoretically, a FOI request could be made for each change we have observed to the NRG, to request confirmation the correct paperwork has been submitted every time. I highly doubt anyone would come out smelling like roses.

 

[mikeg]

Ah, so it's purely a civil arrangement? I assume public/administrative law would then have no place in the matter of the DfT approving the removal of permitted routes?

What I was hoping to argue was that the requirement to use NRE has unlawfully (sub)delegated responsibility for checking permitted routes from the DfT to ATOC. If each route is required to be approved and ATOC are able to hack away at the NRG at will by changing the code of NRE then even though the DfT has approved this one en-masse change of the rules, surely it hasn't approved each and every change and isn't playing by the rules?

 

[RJ]

What I was hoping to argue was that the requirement to use NRE has unlawfully (sub)delegated responsibility for checking permitted routes from the DfT to ATOC. If each route is required to be approved and ATOC are able to hack away at the NRG at will by changing the code of NRE then even though the DfT has approved this one en-masse change of the rules, surely it hasn't approved each and every change and isn't playing by the rules?

The ENRG/NRE Journey Planner is riddled with more holes than a Desiro sized block of Swiss cheese - and these days they seem to be filtering through to some of the other booking websites. For this reason alone, I think it might have been something of a faux pas to have introduced this validation requirement at this stage.

Is there any particular reason you're looking into this?