Delay Repay Claim for Physically Impossible Journey on Brigg Line

[AlterEgo]

As a side note it’s not great exploit tickets like this. It might exist because other stations nearby don’t have day returns, and it is against policy for the pricing manager to add them, or it was just overlooked. But it’s fairly likely someone uses this fare from another station. The TOC probably doesn’t mind that too much because it doesn’t really under cut fares as it’s more restrictive. But if you start charging them taxis from all over the place that fare will disappear pretty quickly.

The buried lede is that the OP is agitating for better service on the Brigg line. They know full well there are no trains and the point of the letter is actually to show how ridiculous the line’s service is.

Unfortunately, this letter would be logged as a “fares issue” and will be answered by someone who will humourlessly use standard paragraphs, which may be a disappointment!

 

[Benjwri]

The buried lede is that the OP is agitating for better service on the Brigg line. They know full well there are no trains and the point of the letter is actually to show how ridiculous the line’s service is.

Unfortunately, this letter would be logged as a “fares issue” and will be answered by someone who will humourlessly use standard paragraphs, which may be a disappointment!

I’m aware they’re doing that, but it’s still counterproductive for other people. I would also suggest they have even less chance of that happening when they’re messaging TPE rather than Northern!

 

[Haywain]

The buried lede is that the OP is agitating for better service on the Brigg line.

Probably better off talking to their MP then.

 

[ThameslinkUser]

Although that journey you could still do by a short walk, 15 minutes according to Google.

I know, I commute it. It was also the cheapest GTR I could think of off the top of my head.

 

[ThrowAway10101]

Probably better enjoyed when you're not checking your phone every five minutes to find out whether you're going to be stranded, though ... "Phone us up" it said. Why it couldn't have said this six hours earlier, I don't know ... and after 15 minutes on hold I got through to someone

I'm not here to judge, and reading your letter and wanting the delay repay payment to be made to a charity I'm sure you are a good person, but why? Why would you purposefully inconvenience yourself to make a rudimentary point? It reminds me of a time when a customer was complaining to the cashier about a coke bottle being £1.09, despite it being price-marked, as the label on the shelf it was on was wrongly labelled £1.

I don't know the full ins and outs of what a contract means, but generally it's there to provide the necessary security to the client, not so it can be exploited. It's reasonable or even expected to check to see what trains you will take beforehand, and in case of cancellations to situations like this where there is no train you can take timetabled back.

I empathise with the bad train service the area has but some flexibility is necessary when it comes to public transport.

 

[tbtc]

It’s already going to be a horrible loss making line

The OP has contributed a situation where the TOC felt obliged to spend more on a taxi than the (total) ticket revenue will have been

Result is that the Brigg line looks even less viable, and is more likely to lose return tickets that may be of benefit to some passengers

I get it that the token service is pretty useless (and that Northern/OLR have somehow made things worse whilst also increasing the number of trains by 40%), but I don’t see this stunt as helping matters

If you explicitly mention a ticketing loophole on here (Or even just the possibility of one) then people are quick to jump down your throat and point out that “TOC staff read the Forum and are eager to find examples they can remove/ restrict”… so I feel that highlighting the obvious problems with return tickets on a line with minimal service , which the OP clearly knew about before purchasing a ticket) might cause some unwanted attention to other fares

 

[Falcon1200]

Surely when somebody has offered a service

But they have not 'offered a service', because there is no suitable service in the timetable! Surely with any form of public transport there is a degree of responsibility on the user to check whether the timetable suits their requirements?

 

[nickswift99]

But they have not 'offered a service', because there is no suitable service in the timetable! Surely with any form of public transport there is a degree of responsibility on the user to check whether the timetable suits their requirements?

Ah, but this is where the timetable of the day comes in. Passengers can no longer rely on printed timetable posters at stations. This means that you have to have an Internet connected device at the point of buying a ticket.

 

[Haywain]

Ah, but this is where the timetable of the day comes in. Passengers can no longer rely on printed timetable posters at stations.

I think you can rely on the lack of any sort of scheduled service other than one train a day not resulting in extra trains.

 

[nickswift99]

I think you can rely on the lack of any sort of scheduled service other than one train a day not resulting in extra trains.

I was thinking more of examples where a return may have been valid but the return leg was removed/cancelled the day before.

However it’s equally valid if the only train was cancelled before the ticket was purchased too.

 

[Alex365Dash]

As someone else who bought a 25/12 ticket for collector purposes, I can confirm that even after collection from a TVM, GTR (without neither prompt, nor notification) refunded the ticket, presumably to absolve themselves of any such issues such as those proposed by forum members.

GTR had refunded my rail ticket but not my PlusBus addon, meaning I got to pay the PlusBus rate for my journeys on Christmas Day with Brighton & Hove Buses! (Or at least I would have if I didn't already have a valid ticket...)

 

[mocko]

I've been taking a harder look at this.

To focus on the facts here let's remember the case is an absolute. Instances where the railway sells a ticket for a journey that's possible at the time of sale but later disrupted by a cancellation, or possible but the passenger failed to catch the last available train, are different. Here the railway sold a ticket for a journey which it knew could not be completed by train at any time of day, for the foreseeable future. We're also not talking about the right to summon trains out of thin air - what rail companies sell is transportation, so it's about them getting you somewhere but not necessarily by train.

People have come up with reasons why the NRCoT effectively permits RSPs to sell tickets for journeys they know cannot possibly be completed, and that what the passenger buys there is simply an expensive bit of cardboard. If the passenger trusts the railway to do the thing the ticket says in the absence of a timetabled train, more fool them.

However...

First, as a minor sidetrack let's look at the established precedent of Newhaven Marine. In that case I understand the station had no timetabled passenger service yet the railway did sell tickets to get a passenger there and felt it had to honour them. As per this post return tickets were available and this reply says as of 2016 they were still being honoured (with a taxi ride). There is a precedent for RSPs honouring tickets for return journeys that cannot be made by a timetabled service, so a passenger might reasonably think it would happen again. And indeed in my case it did.

Secondly, the ticket I bought says "This ticket can only be used at certain times". That statement implies there must be time(s) when it can be used. For anyone about to say "you have to go forwards and backwards at once" note that the NRCoT says you must use the outbound portion of a return before the return one, so no.

Now for the main course. I present to you the Passengers Rights & Obligations regulations. It seems the people who drafted these had not anticipated the innovation of tickets for impossible journeys, so tickets are treated as entitling you to go somewhere.

The governement's guidelines for them say:

Article 4: transport contract

This article means that, except where overridden by the regulation itself, the transport contract, provision of information to passengers and the conditions associated with tickets will be governed by titles II and III of annex I to the regulation.

The regulation carves out a few places it is subject to the NRCoT but broadly it takes precedence (see "validity of the contract which shall remain subject to these Uniform Rules"). It says:

Article 6 (Contract of carriage)

1. By the contract of carriage the carrier shall undertake to carry the passenger ... to the place of destination
2. The contract of carriage must be confirmed by one or more tickets issued to the passenger. However, subject to Article 9 the absence, irregularity or loss of the ticket shall not affect the existence or validity of the contract which shall remain subject to these Uniform Rules.
3. The ticket shall be prima facie evidence of the conclusion and the contents of the contract of carriage.

That "The ticket shall be prima facie evidence of the conclusion and the contents of the contract of carriage" is unequivocal. It would seem there is no way you can buy a railway ticket and it not be a contract (surely that's what any reasonable person buying one would expect). The fact that @ThameslinkUser's novelty 25th December ticket got cancelled before they had a chance to use it suggests RSPs know this.

Having accepted some form of contract exists people have said "yes but it's a contract to do nothing". But it is a "contract of carriage", not a contract to give you a bit of orange card, so the passenger is entitled to carriage. Also see the "carrier shall undertake to carry the passenger ... to the place of destination".

Approached from a different angle, hundreds of years of contract law are very clear that a contract must result in a consideration.

A consideration must be something of value in the eyes of the law (Thomas v Thomas) (1842). A physical ticket or eTicket cannot be consideration because it's:

1. Impossible to attach any legal value to a ticket which entitles you to nothing
2. Not always yours to keep. In the case of a claim for compensation the railway may insist you hand it over or destroy it. NRCoT 18.2 says railway staff have the right to take if off you in some circumstances. At the end of the journey a barrier usually eats it.
3. In the case of eTickets not even a physical object - it's a few kilobytes of data on your own device which you must pay to provide (or print out). An eTicket that doesn't entitle you to anything therefore has a small negative value.

An effectively worthless physical or eTicket cannot, therefore, be valid consideration for the "contract of carriage" that has been established for a Day Return journey to somewhere. It's hard to imagine how there could be any other possible consideration for a contract of carriage than for some carriage to take place.

If anybody does want to challenge this, the only angle I can see would be that we have a "contract for carriage" for no carriage, but I don't see any carve-out in the PRO that would allow this. Since we know the ticket itself specifies the "contents of the contract of carriage" it's hard to see how a ticket saying "PNS-BGG" at the top in big letters would in fact represent a contract for "PNS-NOWHERE".



PS. I take the earlier point that it's unfair to bother TPE with this mess. I let them know this morning that no action is needed. The situation has, however, attracted the attention of the local MP.

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I've been taking a harder look at this.

To focus on the facts here let's remember the case is an absolute. Instances where the railway sells a ticket for a journey that's possible at the time of sale but later disrupted by a cancellation, or possible but the passenger failed to catch the last available train, are different. Here the railway sold a ticket for a journey which it knew could not be completed by train at any time of day, for the foreseeable future. We're also not talking about the right to summon trains out of thin air - what rail companies sell is transportation, so it's about them getting you somewhere but not necessarily by train.

People have come up with reasons why the NRCoT effectively permits RSPs to sell tickets for journeys they know cannot possibly be completed, and that what the passenger buys there is simply an expensive bit of cardboard. If the passenger trusts the railway to do the thing the ticket says in the absence of a timetabled train, more fool them.

However...

First, as a minor sidetrack let's look at the established precedent of Newhaven Marine. In that case I understand the station had no timetabled passenger service yet the railway did sell tickets to get a passenger there and felt it had to honour them. As per this post return tickets were available and this reply says as of 2016 they were still being honoured (with a taxi ride). There is a precedent for RSPs honouring tickets for return journeys that cannot be made by a timetabled service, so a passenger might reasonably think it would happen again. And indeed in my case it did.

Secondly, the ticket I bought says "This ticket can only be used at certain times". That statement implies there must be time(s) when it can be used. For anyone about to say "you have to go forwards and backwards at once" note that the NRCoT says you must use the outbound portion of a return before the return one, so no.

Now for the main course. I present to you the Passengers Rights & Obligations regulations. It seems the people who drafted these had not anticipated the innovation of tickets for impossible journeys, so tickets are treated as entitling you to go somewhere.

The governement's guidelines for them say:



The regulation carves out a few places it is subject to the NRCoT but broadly it takes precedence (see "validity of the contract which shall remain subject to these Uniform Rules"). It says:



That "The ticket shall be prima facie evidence of the conclusion and the contents of the contract of carriage" is unequivocal. It would seem there is no way you can buy a railway ticket and it not be a contract (surely that's what any reasonable person buying one would expect). The fact that @ThameslinkUser's novelty 25th December ticket got cancelled before they had a chance to use it suggests RSPs know this.

Having accepted some form of contract exists people have said "yes but it's a contract to do nothing". But it is a "contract of carriage", not a contract to give you a bit of orange card, so the passenger is entitled to carriage. Also see the "carrier shall undertake to carry the passenger ... to the place of destination".

Approached from a different angle, hundreds of years of contract law are very clear that a contract must result in a consideration.

A consideration must be something of value in the eyes of the law (Thomas v Thomas) (1842). A physical ticket or eTicket cannot be consideration because it's:

1. Impossible to attach any legal value to a ticket which entitles you to nothing
2. Not always yours to keep. In the case of a claim for compensation the railway may insist you hand it over or destroy it. NRCoT 18.2 says railway staff have the right to take if off you in some circumstances. At the end of the journey a barrier usually eats it.
3. In the case of eTickets not even a physical object - it's a few kilobytes of data on your own device which you must pay to provide (or print out). An eTicket that doesn't entitle you to anything therefore has a small negative value.

An effectively worthless physical or eTicket cannot, therefore, be valid consideration for the "contract of carriage" that has been established for a Day Return journey to somewhere. It's hard to imagine how there could be any other possible consideration for a contract of carriage than for some carriage to take place.

If anybody does want to challenge this, the only angle I can see would be that we have a "contract for carriage" for no carriage, but I don't see any carve-out in the PRO that would allow this. Since we know the ticket itself specifies the "contents of the contract of carriage" it's hard to see how a ticket saying "PNS-BGG" at the top in big letters would in fact represent a contract for "PNS-NOWHERE".



PS. I take the earlier point that it's unfair to bother TPE with this mess. I let them know this morning that no action is needed. The situation has, however, attracted the attention of the local MP.

If you keep on pushing this, don't be surprised if you find it impossible to buy tickets for this route, and if you're really lucky, attracting the attention of someone with a budget to cut, and you find proposals starting to appear for the entire line to be closed.

I'd quit whilst you're ahead and keep your head down.

 

[mocko]

If you keep on pushing this, don't be surprised if you find it impossible to buy tickets for this route, and if you're really lucky, attracting the attention of someone with a budget to cut, and you find proposals starting to appear for the entire line to be closed.

You're behind the times. See the DfT's response to a FOI request. Complete closure of the line has already been internally proposed - presumably by Northern. See pages 10, 17 and several others. Worst of all. Northern has been telling the public as recently as March that no changes were planned for the route.

 

[AlterEgo]

You're behind the times. See the DfT's response to a FOI request. Complete closure of the line has already been internally proposed - presumably by Northern. See pages 10, 17 and several others. Worst of all. Northern has been telling the public as recently as March that no changes were planned for the route.

So why are you sending a complaint to TPE which is wasting their time, instead of directly agitating against the closure?

Occupying the railway’s time with time consuming buried lede letters like the one in the OP only provides an incentive to do away with the service, not increase it.

They’re not going to put more trains on because you’ve raised (and in my view not especially good) issues around Day Return tickets. They’ll just stop selling those tickets and it’ll become more expensive. I don’t know what you expect the outcome of the complaint to be.

In short, I don’t think this is an effective way of bringing change and you’re always better off directly agitating and promoting the service.

 

[mocko]

So why are you sending a complaint to TPE which is wasting their time, instead of directly agitating against the closure?

Because it drew a great deal of attention to the situation, which was needed.

I and other supporters of the line have already been engaging with Northern directly. In the first instance (in March) it flatly denied any changes were planned to the timetable.

Later, when these became impossible to deny, it resorted to claiming Brigg's Saturday service will be replaced with a bus that only runs for six weeks in the summer and does not go to Brigg. When challenged about that, it deadlocked the complaint and refused to discuss it any further. It seems little has been gained by users of the line engaging directly with Northern. If it's already been asking the DfT to shut the route (do read the FOI response), that would explain why it was so reluctant to.

I also refer you to the post where I said I'd let TPE know not to progress it. Little, if any of TPE's time was wasted.

 

[skyhigh]

Because it drew a great deal of attention to the situation, which was needed.

I really don't think the case handler at TPE will care much about your complaint regarding a service they don't operate given the probable massive case backlog they're facing.

I don't see how your argument here is much different to buying a return ticket and using it on the last outward train of the night and then demanding a taxi home as you were sold a return ticket you couldn't use - which is clearly ridiculous.

 

[Benjwri]

First, as a minor sidetrack let's look at the established precedent of Newhaven Marine. In that case I understand the station had no timetabled passenger service yet the railway did sell tickets to get a passenger there and felt it had to honour them. As per this post return tickets were available and this reply says as of 2016 they were still being honoured (with a taxi ride). There is a precedent for RSPs honouring tickets for return journeys that cannot be made by a timetabled service, so a passenger might reasonably think it would happen again. And indeed in my case it did.

This isn’t because they are obligated to fulfil tickets, they could easily take them off sale. They are obligated to run a service, but that service can be rail replacement. This doesn’t apply to Brigg because they do run a service.

As for the rest of your points, I refer you to my below statement and ask whether you believe that it also applies in this case. I would also point out timetables are readily available, and there is the idea of due care from the consumer in consumer rights.

If this were the case, surely it follows this precedent that if I want to get home from Reading at 2am, when there are no trains to my home till well after 4:29, I can just buy a £5.30 Off Peak Single, and suddenly since my ticket is not valid on any train services GWR must provide me with a taxi home which would've cost me £80.

That's an extreme example but there are lots of examples where services finish fairly early, it's up to the passenger to check the timetable, otherwise it would be up to the TOC to get all these people home via taxi.

 

[zwk500]

First, as a minor sidetrack let's look at the established precedent of Newhaven Marine. In that case I understand the station had no timetabled passenger service yet the railway did sell tickets to get a passenger there and felt it had to honour them. As per this post return tickets were available and this reply says as of 2016 they were still being honoured (with a taxi ride). There is a precedent for RSPs honouring tickets for return journeys that cannot be made by a timetabled service, so a passenger might reasonably think it would happen again. And indeed in my case it did.

The issues at Newhaven Marine are not directly comparable. The most important reason is that the reason giving for closing Newhaven Marine was the condition of the station building. It was not a formal withdrawal of service nor was any alternative service offered to the station (as it is in the Brigg case, by the service in one direction). As the station was neither formally closed nor able to be served by train, a taxi was the only option to serve it. However for the TOC it was a bit of a joke, because Newhaven Harbour to Newhaven Marine is all of 3 minutes drive and the only people who had any interest in doing the route were journalists looking into wasteful parliamentary services or enthusiasts. The Taxi service stopped being offered at some point when the port security was tightened up and it became impossible to actually reach the station (the formal closure followed later, not sure exactly how long).

As Brigg station buildings/structures are still open to passengers, and a train still calls there, the comparison with Newhaven Marine falls down.

 

[mocko]

I'm struggling to see why the Newhaven Marine example is all that different. The salient points are that:

1. Southern was selling tickets to Newhaven Marine and needed to somehow honour them.
2. It could no longer do this by train
3. It found a way to bring the reality of the situation into line with its obligations, by sticking passengers in taxis

The reason why it was selling the tickets (I assume because its franchise said it had to) doesn't appear to be relevant . Nor does the fact that it wanted to close the station, although if it did, see the DfT's FOI response for proof that closure has recently been discused for Brigg.

The case with Brigg/Kirton at the moment is that:

1. Northern has a legal requirement (see notes on PRO above) to honour tickets it issues
2. In the case of returns it can no longer do this by train (singles it can)
3. It would need a way to bring the reality of the situation into line with its obligations

There are two ways it could accomplish (3): stop issuing tickets for impossible journeys (note I didn't say all returns - just any it thinks don't make sense), or somehow render the journeys possible - for example the Newhaven solution (taxis on request from a nearby station with more comprehensive service) or a single, nightly minibus that means the journey is now technically possible.

 

[RJ]

There’s no advertised service. How can you be delayed when there is no itinerary that can be offered?

The Conditions of Travel make it clear the railway is obligated to offer information to help plan a journey. In this case I think the solution is to take the railway up on that so an informed decision can be made when buying a ticket.

It doesn’t say anything about being obligated to do anything where a ticket has been bought with no scheduled services to allow the journey to be made in full.

 

[AlterEgo]

Because it drew a great deal of attention to the situation, which was needed.

I and other supporters of the line have already been engaging with Northern directly. In the first instance (in March) it flatly denied any changes were planned to the timetable.

Later, when these became impossible to deny, it resorted to claiming Brigg's Saturday service will be replaced with a bus that only runs for six weeks in the summer and does not go to Brigg. When challenged about that, it deadlocked the complaint and refused to discuss it any further. It seems little has been gained by users of the line engaging directly with Northern. If it's already been asking the DfT to shut the route (do read the FOI response), that would explain why it was so reluctant to.

I also refer you to the post where I said I'd let TPE know not to progress it. Little, if any of TPE's time was wasted.

You are vastly overestimating how much the case handler will care about the case. Standard paragraphs, logged as a fares issue. It’s a time waster letter I’m afraid and I’ve seen loads in my time.

Northern is already asking to close the route and filing arcane and esoteric complaints after booking a journey you know to be impossible is not going to help that one but.

I'm struggling to see why the Newhaven Marine example is all that different. The salient points are that:

1. Southern was selling tickets to Newhaven Marine and needed to somehow honour them.
2. It could no longer do this by train
3. It found a way to bring the reality of the situation into line with its obligations, by sticking passengers in taxis

No. Newhaven Marine was under a formal closure process at the time due to the dodgy roof, and the position was that the station was very much open. Critically, the station remained open *only* because of a road replacement service, which was advertised as being available.

The order is:
1) Newhaven Marine was under closure due to redundancy and unsafe station environment
2) Under the formal closure arrangement they had to legally provide some sort of service
3) It was most efficient to do this by on-demand taxi, or advising passengers to walk a few hundred yards

The tickets were sold to it because it had a service, advertised publicly - just by road. This is chicken and egg rather than egg and chicken, if you get my drift.

The reason why it was selling the tickets (I assume because its franchise said it had to) doesn't appear to be relevant . Nor does the fact that it wanted to close the station, although if it did, see the DfT's FOI response for proof that closure has recently been discused for Brigg.

The case with Brigg/Kirton at the moment is that:

1. Northern has a legal requirement (see notes on PRO above) to honour tickets it issues

…in line with its timetable. Teesside Airport used to be Sundays only - you could buy open returns to it. You wouldn’t have any case at all to turn up on a Wednesday and demand a taxi.

1. In the case of returns it can no longer do this by train (singles it can)
2. It would need a way to bring the reality of the situation into line with its obligations

There are two ways it could accomplish (3): stop issuing tickets for impossible journeys (note I didn't say all returns - just any it thinks don't make sense)

So no Day Returns and you’re going to sell either singles only or period returns, making the fares more expensive…right…what about a third, much neater way for the railway to accomplish it:

to make it so that a day return, if it is not possible to complete the return journey through a lack of service to a station, is valid for that return journey on the next day that scheduled services run? That would be neater and smarter as a solution.

, or somehow render the journeys possible - for example the Newhaven solution (taxis on request from a nearby station with more comprehensive service) or a single, nightly minibus that means the journey is now technically possible.

How do you think this is helpful to preserving the line’s use?? You want them to go to the expense of buses or taxis. You do realise Northern, in pursuit of their endeavour to close the line, may well use your correspondence (if the TPE handler is keen enough to OTOC it to them for their comments) and pretend to agree with it. “See look, we think this guy has a point, and you know it’s bloody expensive, the minibus would cost £xxxxx a year to run, that’s bad politics and to be honest the line should be mothballed, don’t you agree?”

I honestly don’t know what your strategy is here but it really does strike me as being a bit too clever for your own good. Keeping a line open is simple - you heavily promote it, you politically militate against closure, and you demonstrate the worth of the service as a public good.

The only way that buying a ticket you know to be “impossible” works as a strategy is if you do a blog, newspaper article or YouTube video about it, where the buried lede is “well actually this station has no service today, shock! Let’s look at why this is, the history of Brigg station and its current neglect, and what the authorities could do about it…etc etc”

Brigg does deserve a better service and I wish you the best of luck with it!

 

[tbtc]

it drew a great deal of attention to the situation, which was needed

Has it actually improved anything though?

Or is this just another one if these daft stunts that makes “activists” feel better about themselves, looks silly in the eyes of the general public and makes no difference to how The Powers That Be handle things?

“Increasing awareness” and “effectively campaigning” are two very different things, but we live in an era where people seem to have given up on the latter and instead prefer petulant/ performative gimmicks - e.g. throwing powder on a snooker table didn’t “Stop Oil”, it just annoyed a lot of people without making any difference to the behaviour of the oil industry, but who cares how ineffectual it was because the numpties involved get to self-identify as Good People, even if they are a terrible advertisement for their cause

All that’s happened here is that you’ve cost the railway some unnecessary expenses (at a time when budgets are tight) and created some more caseload for the people who write generic letters. I don’t see it as being “helpful” in any way, you’ve not convinced anyone on this thread, but you probably had a bit of fun at the time

 

[mocko]

You are vastly overestimating how much the case handler will care about the case. Standard paragraphs, logged as a fares issue. It’s a time waster letter I’m afraid and I’ve seen loads in my time.

Here I'm afraid we're getting to one of the more hypocritical attitudes one sees in railway staff - that while passengers must follow all the rules, the operator need not behave in accordance with them.

The Complaints Handling Procedures TOCs have to publish as a part of their franchise agreements say that complaints must be dealt with conscientiously. The railway does not have a right to give misleading responses, or ignore parts of a complaint because it does not "care about the case". If that's business-as-usual, it must mean that the company routinely breaches the terms of its franchise agreement.

Regarding Newhaven Marine, I still don't see how the points you've made are relevant to the terms of the Passengers Rights & Obligations regulations. They are very clear that a ticket forms a contract for carriage. I can't see any carve-out in the PRO for dodgy roofs.

…in line with its timetable

Can you show me where the PRO regulations say that? A ticket is a contract to supply the journey.

How do you think this is helpful to preserving the line’s use?? You want them to go to the expense of buses or taxis

This is an appeal to consequences. Whether or not you like the outcome of a line of thinking does not affect its correctness. It's also a strawman argument because you're putting words in my mouth so you can disagree with them. It is hardly unreasonable for the passenger to expect a rail company to operate its service in in a manner consistent with the regulations.

 

[Watershed]

If that's business-as-usual, it must mean that the company routinely breaches the terms of its franchise agreement.

Of course they do! They, along with most other TOCs, do so on a daily basis. In principle, it's no different to how the water companies routinely discharge sewage illegally - it happens, but there's no realistic way to stop it.

So whilst Northern have clearly acted in a dishonest and dishonourable way about the whole Brigg line affair, that's nothing new I'm afraid. It's not as controversial as you might think.

 

[InkyScrolls]

There are two sides to this increasingly heated argument. Which takes precedence, the regulations or the timetable? The simple answer it 'both, depending on the situation'. No two situations will be identical, though there may be a lot of crossover.

Perhaps time to drop the quarrelling?

 

[Benjwri]

Can you show me where the PRO regulations say that? A ticket is a contract to supply the journey.

No a ticket entitled you to travel on services. You seem to have conveniently ignored my example about someone buying a single after the last train of the day.

As a side note is the ticket definite impossible to use, would it be valid for an overnightBoJ because it is impossible to complete it, as is the case on some off peak returns.

 

[mocko]

So whilst Northern have clearly acted in a dishonest and dishonourable way about the whole Brigg line affair, that's nothing new I'm afraid. It's not as controversial as you might think.

Sad but true. I'll spare you the rant about the evils of neoliberal capitalism.

Perhaps time to drop the quarrelling?

Agreed, the perspectives are a million miles apart and there's little more to add. I'm going to unfollow the thread.

 

[AlterEgo]

Here I'm afraid we're getting to one of the more hypocritical attitudes one sees in railway staff - that while passengers must follow all the rules, the operator need not behave in accordance with them.

The Complaints Handling Procedures TOCs have to publish as a part of their franchise agreements say that complaints must be dealt with conscientiously. The railway does not have a right to give misleading responses, or ignore parts of a complaint because it does not "care about the case". If that's business-as-usual, it must mean that the company routinely breaches the terms of its franchise agreement.

You’ve submitted a delay repay claim, not actually made a direct complaint though. The delay repay claim is easily dealt with by awarding the full amount on the outbound journey because of the significant delay you faced there. None of the Brigg or fares issues are TPE’s concern. It’s not their issue to solve. They can OTOC it, but you’ll get a technical response from Northern related to the actual points made, and it won’t be logged anywhere as “service request”.

The thrust of the complaint is really that Brigg is badly served.

I cannot imagine the thrust of your complaint is really that the train company should be subject to additional, significant expense to serve the one or two activists a year who want to buy a “deliberately impossible journey”, or that the company ought to remove fares - a fare that nobody would buy anyway as the single is 10p cheaper. This isn’t what you want, surely?

In any case you didn’t respond to the third, neater option I gave which would make the ticket valid for the next return journey whenever that is, much as you’ve not responded to the majority of the post.

Regarding Newhaven Marine, I still don't see how the points you've made are relevant to the terms of the Passengers Rights & Obligations regulations. They are very clear that a ticket forms a contract for carriage. I can't see any carve-out in the PRO for dodgy roofs.

I don’t agree that your interpretation of the PRO means that a company has to provide a service on every calendar day.

Can you show me where the PRO regulations say that? A ticket is a contract to supply the journey.

Not on demand though. It can only be in line with the timetable. If they simply remove the Day Return tickets, or change their conditions with an easement, would that make you happy and satisfy the issue raised in your letter?

This is an appeal to consequences. Whether or not you like the outcome of a line of thinking does not affect its correctness.

Of course it’s an appeal to consequences, but I thought you wanted the line to remain open and I don’t see how your actions here don’t simply add to Northern’s case to reduce service or close the station altogether. Or are the consequences secondary to making an esoteric complaint? It’s hard to tell to be honest.

It's also a strawman argument because you're putting words in my mouth so you can disagree with them. It is hardly unreasonable for the passenger to expect a rail company to operate its service in in a manner consistent with the regulations.

You have found you aren’t operating in an environment which is reasonable.

It’s directly paraphrasing a suggestion in your letter. That the train company must provide transport at significant expense, on every calendar day, in case someone has bought the ticket you have.

In any case, if you’re dealing with straw men and “words in one’s mouth so you can disagree with them” - you open your reply to me with a perfect strawman - that I apparently think passengers should fulfil all their obligations while the train company ignores theirs. My position is quite clear - that TPE doesn’t have the obligation you think it has to supply you with delay repay compensation for the return journey as stated, made entirely out with a timetable, and Northern doesn’t have the obligation you think it has to supply daily service on that line owing to the fares structure. And that any solution to the latter issue if it was found to have merit is easy and neat, and wouldn’t result in a better train service (you yourself have said in another thread you suspect Northern will remove the fare!). And, that I would agree with you that the service is wholly inadequate, and care a lot about rural railways, and want to see them thrive and expand and serve more communities. And lastly that your correspondence is actually unhelpful to your desired cause of keeping the line open and extending its use, given the political machinations behind the scenes. Northern don’t want to keep the line open and have built a “too difficult, too expensive” case which your letter is helping to build.

I’m not railway staff any more and haven’t been for a while, but I used to answer complaints like this and I know exactly how the railway treats these matters. I’m simply suggesting that this isn’t a good strategy for fulfilling the central desire - better service on the Brigg line.

 

[tspaul26]

There are two sides to this increasingly heated argument. Which takes precedence, the regulations or the timetable? The simple answer it 'both, depending on the situation'. No two situations will be identical, though there may be a lot of crossover.

Perhaps time to drop the quarrelling?

Indeed.

I infer that the OP is not a qualified lawyer either due to the manner in which this argument has been presented.

Quite frankly, if the OP was to litigate this then his position is really rather unattractive to a judge given that he knew there were no return trains available when he purchased that ticket.

In those circumstances, I would not be surprised if a judge concluded that there was no contract of carriage for the return leg (insofar as travel back from Brigg was impossible) due to a lack of the necessary consensus ad idem between the contracting parties on that element.