Court rules in favour of passenger using a permitted route

[Nym]

*coughs*

The ticket can still be baught from another local operator, and under NRCoC should still be valid as it's valid to Elstree and then from Elstree into London, and being zonal, the train doesn't need to stop there...?

I'd like to know what info would be needed to get past the barrier 'staff' at St Albans City

 

[bb21]

oh I hadn't realised he had sued FCC for not providing the cheapest ticket.

so I could can sue FCC for the fact that every ticket I've bought from Cambridge->London for the past 6 years (statute of limitations) hasn't been the cheapest possible (good old map WA)?

as could every commuter that's bought a season ticket?

I can imagine they're now literally ****ting themselves; time to talk to the Cambridge papers and see FCC go broke?

No. He bought a valid ticket and travelled over a permitted route. He sued FCC because they denied him travel over a permitted route.

Completely separate matter to not suggesting the absolute cheapest ticket including ones which allow you to take the p!ss which they are not obliged to do.

I have just looked at North camp to Guildford and it gives me the 0957 at £4.40.
When I put in via Woking it gives me NCM 0923, walk to Ash Vale 0939 and on to Woking for the same £4.40 so that says you can start with a walk, I am not sure if the stations are grouped for ticketing purposes.

Please note I apologise for sticking up for the passenger, normal service will resume shortly!

NRE is not always programmed in a consistent way with what the Routeing Guide says.

As I said before, if you wish to take advantage of what NRE says then feel free to proceed, but the usual health warnings apply.

This worries me in conjunction to the ticket I have bought and discussed here

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showthread.php?p=1541130#post1541130

I often walk to Cheshunt and start my journey there.

That is a separate matter.

What is being discussed here is starting a journey with a recognised walking interchange. Your situation is starting short on your ticket omitting part of your rail journey.

Completely different so don't worry.

 

[Paul Kelly]

He sued FCC because they denied him travel over a permitted route.

My understanding was that it was because they forced him to buy another ticket (the cost of which was a material loss to him and which he was able to seek to recover through the courts), rather than because they denied him travel on his existing ticket.

Completely separate matter to not suggesting the absolute cheapest ticket including ones which allow you to take the p!ss which they are not obliged to do.

But if you tried to use a ridiculously cheap but valid ticket, and they forced you to buy a more expensive one instead, it actually looks to me like a fairly similar situation to the one in the newspaper article?

 

[bb21]

My understanding was that it was because they forced him to buy another ticket (the cost of which was a material loss to him and which he was able to seek to recover through the courts), rather than because they denied him travel on his existing ticket.

Yes. That as well.

But if you tried to use a ridiculously cheap but valid ticket, and they forced you to buy a more expensive one instead, it actually looks to me like a fairly similar situation to the one in the newspaper article?

If you bought the ticket first then they should honour it.

They are just not obliged to offer it which is what cporter was on about.

 

[VauxhallandI]

No. He bought a valid ticket and travelled over a permitted route. He sued FCC because they denied him travel over a permitted route.

Completely separate matter to not suggesting the absolute cheapest ticket including ones which allow you to take the p!ss which they are not obliged to do.



NRE is not always programmed in a consistent way with what the Routeing Guide says.

As I said before, if you wish to take advantage of what NRE says then feel free to proceed, but the usual health warnings apply.



That is a separate matter.

What is being discussed here is starting a journey with a recognised walking interchange. Your situation is starting short on your ticket omitting part of your rail journey.

Completely different so don't worry.

Ah I understand now, thanks.

 

[Paul Kelly]

If you bought the ticket first then they should honour it.

...although if this doesn't happen and they make you buy a new ticket, then it seems you can seek to recover that cost.

They are just not obliged to offer it which is what cporter was on about.

Oh yes I see what you mean. Because he hasn't actually bought that cheapest ticket every day (it was his choice to buy a more straightforward one) he hasn't actually suffered a loss.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There was another thread linking to an article in the Daily Mail about this. A large chunk of it seems to be completely made-up (albeit an interesting read, including irrelevant Routeing Guide easements and so on), but there is one interesting new bit:

First Capital Connect said that Mr Myers had uncovered a 'previously unknown historic routing guide error', dating back to the days of British Rail.
The firm said the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC) was now taking steps to close the loophole.
The rail company's spokesman said : 'The Association of Train Operating Companies is closing this loophole on our behalf. We are not aware of any other anomaly and believe that this was an isolated case. '
A Department for Transport spokesman said it was still considering ATOC's request.
An ATOC spokesman said: 'This is an example of a very obscure error in a system that offers millions of tickets for travel between more than 2,500 stations.
'If other such errors are found, we will look to correct them to ensure that all passengers are treated fairly.'

Proof positive (if any were still needed for contributors to this thread) that FCC were lying when they said the "loophole" was already closed - how can it be closed if the DfT are still considering the request for a modification to the Routeing Guide?

 

[Mojo]

Proof positive (if any were still needed for contributors to this thread) that FCC were lying when they said the "loophole" was already closed - how can it be closed if the DfT are still considering the request for a modification to the Routeing Guide?

Yes - I was just about to post similar having read in tonight's Evening Standard something very similar: ''The Department for Transport said it was “currently assessing a request” by the Association of Train Operating Companies to close the loophole, meaning other commuters from St Albans could demand similar reductions.'' http://www.standard.co.uk/news/tran...l-connect-season-ticket-loophole-8866377.html

So it seems other contributors here were right; Capital Connect/Atoc have not yet closed this loophole!

 

[sheff1]

I love FCCs quote:

'The Association of Train Operating Companies is closing this loophole on our behalf. We are not aware of any other anomaly and believe that this was an isolated case.'

 

[CNash]

They're very adamant about labelling this as an "error" or "anomaly", aren't they? I don't see how it's an "error", just an uncommon use of the permitted walking interchange between the St Albans stations.

 

[bb21]

...although if this doesn't happen and they make you buy a new ticket, then it seems you can seek to recover that cost.

Absolutely.

I, too, don't see this as an anomaly.

I doubt this can be closed down easily for Travelcards, unless routing on the ticket itself is changed.

 

[yorkie]

I love FCCs quote:

'The Association of Train Operating Companies is closing this loophole on our behalf. We are not aware of any other anomaly and believe that this was an isolated case.'

They prosecuted someone for taking a route shown by their own booking engine, but when they realised that the passenger wasn't quite the easy pickings the prosecution manager and RPI thought, they caved in on the day, and had to pay all the defendant's costs.

They have threatened other people with prosecution under similar circumstances, but robust letters saw a similar, but earlier, climbdown. I'd prefer to see someone actually get a court victory though.

They issued, and pursued, a Penalty Fare for someone who had an online discount, claiming "DISC" was a Railcard discount (the Railcard being purely in the imagination of the RPIs, but the debt collection drones just went along with it), and it took a robust letter for them to finally back down.

They also lost in the Courts against a forum member who they alleged had altered a Carnet ticket. They had another extremely embarrassing climbdown with a Carnet but I am not allowed to talk about that!

And that's just a few incidents, out of many, that I've heard through this forum.

There are loads of instances of FCC acting in a disgraceful way. They will not change. There is no proper ombudsman to deal with them. There is no effective regulator. There is no knowledgeable passenger pressure group with sufficient resources to make a difference.

FCC will demand that the DfT closes loopholes because otherwise, they will threaten loss of revenue which means that the franchise would be worth less to bidders. The DfT will cave in to demands, and the DfT lacks people who care about passengers and, worryingly, lacks people who will enforce the rules.

We need more people to fight rogue TOCs such as FCC in the Courts, and it's about time some of the organisations that are supposedly there to stick up for passengers join in on the action.

 

[trevmonk]

As Roger Perkins seems to be the FCC expert on the validity of season tickets I have just sent him the following by email;

Dear Mr Perkins

Having seen your recent statements about the validity of certain season tickets I wonder if you could answer a quick question for me.

I live in St Albans and work in Borehamwood. I want to buy an annual season ticket to Elstree and Borehamwood valid via Thameslink services from St Albans City. After arriving at work in Borehamwood I often have to make other journeys around the London area by bus, tube and overground rail services. I notice that the cheapest ticket available which covers my requirements is the Watford North to Elstree and Borehamwood season with an added Zone 1 to 6 Travelcard for £3200. This ticket is helpfully suggested as an option by your online season ticket site.

I know that there has been publicity recently about a St Albans commuter travelling to London who bought the same Watford North ticket which First Capital Connect claim was invalid. However, your online season ticket site makes it clear that this ticket is perfectly valid for travel on trains from St Albans City to Elstree and Borehamwood, which makes sense as it is the obvious route from North Watford.

I understand the Travelcard element of the ticket is not regulated by First Capital Connect. But, before buying my season I just wanted your reassurance that I would not be prevented from using the North Watford ticket by your staff on my initial journey from St Albans City to Elstree and Borehamwood.

I hope you can give me your reassurance and look forward to travelling on First Capital Connect Thameslink services.

Regards.......


And for the cynics among you: I DO live in St Albans, DO work in Borehamwood and DO have to make journeys around London during the day!

 

[Paul Kelly]

I notice that the cheapest ticket available which covers my requirements is the Watford North to Elstree and Borehamwood season with an added Zone 1 to 6 Travelcard for £3200.

That's not actually true though - as pointed out earlier in the thread a Carpenders Park to Zones 1-6 annual season is only £2416 and is equally valid by the same logic - the shortest route from Carpenders Park to Elstree & Borehamwood is via St Albans.

 

[Haywain]

No. He bought a valid ticket and travelled over a permitted route. He sued FCC because they denied him travel over a permitted route.

Completely separate matter to not suggesting the absolute cheapest ticket including ones which allow you to take the p!ss which they are not obliged to do.

However, even Mr Myers doesn't fully understand the difference. He was on local radio this morning, and questioned why FCC doesn't sell the cheapest ticket for the journey.

 

[trevmonk]

In what way has the loophole been closed? Answers on a postcard please.

Just noticed a new line on the National Rail Enquiries routeing advice:

"The Routeing Guide is currently being updated. Please note that tickets and Travelcards from Watford North, Garston, Bricket Wood, How Wood and Park Street to London are not valid for travel via St Albans"

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types.aspx#routing

 

[thedbdiboy]

Proof positive (if any were still needed for contributors to this thread) that FCC were lying when they said the "loophole" was already closed - how can it be closed if the DfT are still considering the request for a modification to the Routeing Guide?

Why do you assume that FCC are wrong and the DfT are right?

In this case the DfT press office erroneously assumed that the DfT had to approve the change. They didn't, as it is an error correction, not a change to a historically permitted route. This route would never have been deemed 'reasonable' in BR days. So, to use your emotive language, it was the DfT that were lying.

 

[jb]

Why do you assume that FCC are wrong and the DfT are right?

Because it was reported in the bastion of accuracy that is the Mail?

 

[talltim]

Is it an error or an unforeseen consequence?

 

[soil]

In this case the DfT press office erroneously assumed that the DfT had to approve the change. They didn't, as it is an error correction, not a change to a historically permitted route. This route would never have been deemed 'reasonable' in BR days. So, to use your emotive language, it was the DfT that were lying.

Well that depends.

A Watford North - London Zones 5 & 6 season ticket is perfectly reasonable via St Albans, if you were travelling to say Mill Hill Broadway.

Also it's nonsense to say that it is an error. An error would be something like Rugeley to Wigan being routed LONDON. Clearly that was a mistake.

In this case there is no error, the rules are designed that the shortest route is valid. That cannot be an error.

 

[thedbdiboy]

Well that depends.

In this case there is no error, the rules are designed that the shortest route is valid. That cannot be an error.

It certainly isn't the shortest route if you are going from Watford North to anywhere in zone 1. Also St Albans - St Albans Abbey isn't a direct interchange so the strict 'shortest route' interpretation doesn't necessarily count even for Elstree.

In BR days you would have been judged solely on whether your route choice was reasonable for the actual journey being undertaken.

 

[Deerfold]

In BR days you would have been judged solely on whether your route choice was reasonable for the actual journey being undertaken.

Along with all the chance of different rail staff thinking different routes were reasonable.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Just noticed a new line on the National Rail Enquiries routeing advice:

"The Routeing Guide is currently being updated. Please note that tickets and Travelcards from Watford North, Garston, Bricket Wood, How Wood and Park Street to London are not valid for travel via St Albans"

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types.aspx#routing

Does that somehow override the routeing guide? And has this change been approved by the DfT?

 

[cjohnson]

It certainly isn't the shortest route if you are going from Watford North to anywhere in zone 1. Also St Albans - St Albans Abbey isn't a direct interchange so the strict 'shortest route' interpretation doesn't necessarily count even for Elstree.

In BR days you would have been judged solely on whether your route choice was reasonable for the actual journey being undertaken.

It's a 33-minute "fixed link" between St Albans and St Albans Abbey.

BRtimes also notes the following:

In many places there are stations on different lines within walking distance of each other, and it is permissible to make part of a journey on foot between such stations. However a journey may not start or end with a walking link.
Walking links are also important for the determination of permitted routes for a journey. The National Rail Conditions of Carriage defines the shortest route that can be used by scheduled passenger servies as a permitted route by default. If it is possible to shorten this route using recognised walking changes, resulting in a route shorter than the shortest route wholly by rail, then that is also a permitted route.

Although I'm not sure what the source of this is.

 

[michael769]

Any idea if criminal prosecutions could be brought for such behaviour?

Unlikely. I guess you could try for a malicious prosecution suit but I think that is a civil thing.

But the bench will recall their behavior, and their prosecutors can expect a rough ride in future cases at this court. Prosecutors antagonist courts at their peril!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Does that somehow override the routeing guide? And has this change been approved by the DfT?

What does the contract (aka the NCoC) have to say on ad hoc modifications like this? If it is silent on the matter then ToCs are free to agree additional conditions at the time the contract is made. But the restriction would need to be notified to customers before payment is concluded for it to be binding. And you could certainly not "back-fit" the restrictions to season ticket holders without their consent as their tickets will be subject to the T&Cs as they were at the time of purchase.

The DfT question is probably more APT.

 

[furlong]

Indeed, not an error. An anomaly, perhaps, but one that the routeing guide has always allowed intentionally.

While I do believe there are some mistakes in the current version of the guidance notes accompanying the Routeing Guide, on this particular point there is no inconsistency and they couldn't be clearer:

No other intermediate fares are compared. Even if another
intermediate fare (A–F) is higher than the fare for the whole journey, it does not forbid the route.

(And I struggle to see how anyone could claim successfully that the spur to Watford Junction appeared on map LB in error.)

 

[maniacmartin]

The Routeing Guide has now been updated to include a negative easement on this

 

[furlong]

What does the contract (aka the NCoC) have to say on ad hoc modifications like this?

This?

58. Limitation of authority of a Train Company’s staff or agents
A Train Company’s staff or agents have no authority to waive or change these Conditions.

 

[Paul Kelly]

Why do you assume that FCC are wrong and the DfT are right?

Hmm, I guess I saw the DfT saying they were assessing a proposed change to the Routeing Guide as additional circumstantial evidence supporting the more incontrovertible evidence that (until 20 minutes ago, at least!) no changes to the Routeing Guide had actually been reported by the eagle-eyed members of this forum.

In this case the DfT press office erroneously assumed that the DfT had to approve the change. They didn't, as it is an error correction, not a change to a historically permitted route. This route would never have been deemed 'reasonable' in BR days. So, to use your emotive language, it was the DfT that were lying.

I'm afraid I have to say that I don't agree with this. Watford North to Elstree & Borehamwood via St Albans does not seem like an error, nor an unreasonable route, to me. If anything, the error is in the way permitted routes for out-boundary Travelcards are derived from the permitted routes to boundary zone stations, rather than to London Terminals.

 

[LexyBoy]

Just noticed a new line on the National Rail Enquiries routeing advice:

"The Routeing Guide is currently being updated. Please note that tickets and Travelcards from Watford North, Garston, Bricket Wood, How Wood and Park Street to London are not valid for travel via St Albans"

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types.aspx#routing

Blimey! FCC must be really narked! It is clearly a ludicrous statement though, when the journey planner still shows these routes as valid (also: "tickets" - what, all tickets?).

This reminds me of an occasion when, shortly before the Latitude festival (railhead: Ipswich), it was publicised that Cambridge-London was valid via Ipswich into Liverpool St - which was true. NXEA responded by putting posters at Ipswich station denying this and stating that anyone using such a ticket would be Penalty Fared or reported for prosecution.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If anything, the error is in the way permitted routes for out-boundary Travelcards are derived from the permitted routes to boundary zone stations, rather than to London Terminals.

The current way seems to be the correct way to me. Not everyone who uses a Travelcard travels to central London, and limiting the outboundary section to routes to London Terminals will render these tickets less useful for some passengers.

I would expect before long for the routeing to be changed as you describe though :cry:

 

[Deerfold]

The Routeing Guide has now been updated to include a negative easement on this

Of course if the argument is that it's valid as it's the shortest route the instructions at the start of the routeing guide tell you there's no requirement to use the routeing guide so you'd never see that "easement".

 

[Paul Kelly]

Further to my comments about FCC "lying", I'm sorry if it offended anybody. But they certainly weren't telling the truth either, because the Watford North Travelcard was still (and perhaps is yet) valid via St Albans. I found it hard to believe that they weren't sure about whether the validity has been changed or not, and jumped to the conclusion that since they hoped it would be changed soon, they would just lie and say it had already been changed.

But it has since emerged that almost no one seems to understand the precise reasons why the ticket was valid. So I realise now that it is not beyond the bounds of probability that the FCC spokesperson did genuinely believe the validity to have been changed and the anomaly removed, and hence technically wasn't lying. So I'd like to apologise for jumping to conclusions.