First class TPE advance not valid in Avanti 1st due to disruption.

[Starmill]

The embarrassment was unnecessary - i.e. it seems they forgot to announce it. That would perhaps justify an apology for the failure to announce it.

Having read back, good customer service would, as the OP requested a reservation, have been to honour that reservation as it was the company's error, of course. However, that doesn't make the principle of TPE ticket acceptance being in SP wrong.

It's rare for information about ticket acceptance to be provided on screens or announcements though. It's usually only provided on National Rail Enquiries's disruption pages, or on the TOC's website or social media. The only other way it's common for the information to be provided is directly by the staff.

 

[Wolfie]

It can be argued that the OP would be entitled to a refund to (equivalent Standard TPE fare plus whatever Avanti charge for the SP supplement for their journey), IF lower than what they paid. It can't be argued that they had a right to sit in First with a ticket that, other than by specific agreement, was not valid on the Avanti train at all.

Excuse me, where exactly does Avanti's Standard Premium supplement come into any refund calculation? I see no mention of it in Para 31.2 of NRCOT and it therefore forms no part of the contract. Standard Premium is not First Class within the meaning of NRCOT therefore it is Standard class.

Your personal rewrite of NRCOT will be of zero interest to the Court.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It's rare for information about ticket acceptance to be provided on screens or announcements though. It's usually only provided on National Rail Enquiries's disruption pages, or on the TOC's website or social media. The only other way it's common for the information to be provided is directly by the staff.

It's very common round here. If the last LNR Crewe is cancelled, for instance, the scrolly bit at the bottom of the PIS at Euston usually says what to do (i.e. which Avanti to use), backed up by an announcement.

Excuse me, where exactly does Avanti's Standard Premium supplement come into any refund calculation? I see no mention of it in Para 31.2 and it therefore forms no part of the contract. Standard Premium is not First Class within the meaning of NRCOT therefore it is Standard class.

Your personal rewrite of NRCOT will be of zero interest to the Court.

If it's Standard Class, why can't I sit there with a Standard Class ticket?

Because it isn't Standard Class. It's a class on its own that is functionally equivalent to TPE's First give or take tea and a biscuit (which isn't even always provided).

 

[cf111]

The embarrassment was unnecessary - i.e. it seems they forgot to announce it. That would perhaps justify an apology for the failure to announce it. Or was the OP possibly not listening to announcements?

I was advised by a most polite member of catering staff checking tickets at the door that I was to use standard premium and it was thereafter announced on the tannoy. There was a lack of consistency as the Avanti twitter team advised my my ticket was valid in first class and booked me a first class seat on the Avanti service.

There was no mention of standard premium online or otherwise until I spoke to the catering staff at the door.

 

[Wolfie]

It's very common round here. If the last LNR Crewe is cancelled, for instance, the scrolly bit at the bottom of the PIS at Euston usually says what to do (i.e. which Avanti to use), backed up by an announcement.



If it's Standard Class, why can't I sit there with a Standard Class ticket?

Because it isn't Standard Class. It's a class on its own that is functionally equivalent to TPE's First give or take tea and a biscuit (which isn't even always provided).

You can talk about functionally equivalent all you want. That does NOT make it contractually equivalent though.

I was advised by a most polite member of catering staff checking tickets at the door that I was to use standard premium and it was thereafter announced on the tannoy. There was a lack of consistency as the Avanti twitter team advised my my ticket was valid in first class and booked me a first class seat on the Avanti service.

There was no mention of standard premium online or otherwise until I spoke to the catering staff at the door.

That is even worse. Avanti told you to use First Class and then backtracked. Their post facto attempts at justification are utter crap.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You can talk about functionally equivalent all you want. That does NOT make it contractually equivalent though.

The OP had no contractual entitlement to use any part of an Avanti train, not even the floor of a Standard Class vestibule. TPE could instead have put on a RRB.

Only if that would have caused a delay of over an hour would that EU law kick in, and I don't see how SP is not "comparable travelling conditions" based on the likely basis for this EU law of needing to compare between 3-class and 2-class trains (for example).

 

[Starmill]

If it's Standard Class, why can't I sit there with a Standard Class ticket?

Because it isn't Standard Class. It's a class on its own that is functionally equivalent to TPE's First give or take tea and a biscuit (which isn't even always provided).

I'm sorry to say this, but you have this terrible habit of claiming things outright when you simply haven't applied enough thought to the issue. It leads to your frequently making errors in your claims.

I don't mean to be nasty about people making mistakes. I make mistakes all the time. It happens. People see the new information and correct the record. This is honourable. However, unfortunately, you're wrong yet again on this.

The NRCoT are rather clear on this under Condition 31:

If you have a first class Ticket and the train service you use is shown as offering first
class accommodation at www.nationalrail.co.uk, but when you travel first class
accommodation is not provided or is otherwise fully occupied, you may claim a refund. The minimum refund to which you will be entitled will be the difference between the
price of the first class Ticket purchased and the cheapest valid standard class walk-up
fare available on the service you used.

Note the use of the expression 'minimum refund to which you will be entitled'.

 

[Bletchleyite]

OK, so the cheapest Standard class walk-up fare for Inverness to Liverpool is an Off Peak Single at £112.20.

OP, what did you pay? if it was less, then no refund is entitled by that Condition even if you do consider SP to be Standard Class.

If you had a split, what was the fare paid for the relevant section and what was that section so we can compare?

The highest 1st fare routed AP TPE & CONNECT appears to be £116.90, so if it was that then I suppose the OP would be due £4.70, which they could use to buy a cup of tea and some biscuits. But if it is a lower one, this Condition entitles nothing at all.

 

[Starmill]

The NRCoT is quite specific with this at 15.6 which provides for refunds when first class accommodation "has been declassified or you are unable to sit in it for all or part of your journey because it is full", neither of which were true on that day (emphasis mine). A grey area perhaps.

If you refer to the first part of Condition 31, I would describe it as clear:

If you have a first class Ticket and the train service you use is shown as offering first
class accommodation at www.nationalrail.co.uk, but when you travel first class
accommodation is not provided or is otherwise fully occupied, you may claim a refund.

The test to be applied is if First Class was "not provided". Therefore if, on balance, the facts of the matter meet this test, the refund of the difference is due.

I wouldn't like to say for certain that First Class is indeed "not provided" by accommodating customers in Standard Premium, but I would say for certain that this information absolutely must be provided before boarding, preferably at the same time and in the same places as the general ticket acceptance information.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suppose TPE/Avanti would argue that they didn't have a first class ticket with respect to that train as its validity was entirely defined by the acceptance agreement, as by default it had no validity at all.

 

[LowLevel]

Standard Premium is something Avanti have chosen to introduce recently. It is not first class. They still have first class. In the 10 years I've been managing service disruption on stations and trains it has always been a given, and also included in our disruption advice, that passengers are to be conveyed in the class of accommodation as indicated on their ticket, subject to room being available.

Whether the first class ticket is for an Intercity train or one with antimacassars on a standard class seat is an irrelevance. First class is first class. Standard class is standard class. Standard Premium is not defined in the NRCOT and is not first class.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I wouldn't like to say for certain that First Class is indeed "not provided" by accommodating customers in Standard Premium, but I would say for certain that this information absolutely must be provided before boarding, preferably at the same time and in the same places as the general ticket acceptance information.

I would agree with this. If SP was the arrangement, the Twitter person made an error reserving a seat in 1st, and good customer service would have been to allow that reserved seat to be occupied while directing others without a reservation to SP as they boarded.

 

[Starmill]

Standard Premium is something Avanti have chosen to introduce recently. It is not first class. They still have first class. In the 10 years I've been managing service disruption on stations and trains it has always been a given, and also included in our disruption advice, that passengers are to be conveyed in the class of accommodation as indicated on their ticket, subject to room being available.

Whether the first class ticket is for an Intercity train or one with antimacassars on a standard class seat is an irrelevance. First class is first class. Standard class is standard class. Standard Premium is not defined in the NRCOT and is not first class.

I agree that a definition for class comparison purposes should have been added to the NRCoT before anyone was permitted to use different names for it really. However, without a definition in the terms we can only go by the ordinary meaning of the words.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree that a definition for class comparison purposes should have been added to the NRCoT before anyone was permitted to use different names for it really. However, without a definition in the terms we can only go by the ordinary meaning of the words.

FWIW I think there's a fairly high chance that the man on the Clapham omnibus might call upgrading to SP "upgrading to First Class" on the "looks like, quacks like" basis. It's basically just a slightly messed-about-with weekday copy of the old Weekend First offered by BR in a dedicated coach. What it says on the tickets is just a sneaky Eurostar-like attempt to work around expenses rules to encourage business travellers to upgrade.

I do agree that the NRCoT should have been changed and I've proposed such a change above.

 

[Starmill]

FWIW I think there's a fairly high chance that the man on the Clapham omnibus might call upgrading to SP "upgrading to First Class" on the "looks like, quacks like" basis. It's basically just a slightly messed-about-with weekday copy of the old Weekend First offered by BR in a dedicated coach.

I do agree that the NRCoT should have been changed and I've proposed such a change above.

I would agree with you if First Class weren't still called First Class. If the names were Standard Class, Premium Class and Executive Class, for example then there would be a clear argument to make there. However, those aren't the names. Therefore, since you invoke the "man on the Clapham omnibus", I think they'd prefer the idea that one which is called First Class is comparable with the other thing that's called First Class. It is far more logical.

Of course, you may be about to argue that First Class on LNER and First Class on Southeastern are entirely unlike one another and thus this sets some kind of precedent. If so, I would argue it doesn't do anything of the sort because if it were going to be different on a fundamental level, they should have called it by a different name!

 

[Bletchleyite]

I would agree with you if First Class weren't still called First Class. If the names were Standard Class, Premium Class and Executive Class, for example then there would be a clear argument to make there. However, those aren't the names. Therefore, since you invoke the "man on the Clapham omnibus", I think they'd prefer the idea that one which is called First Class is comparable with the other thing that's called First Class. It is far more logical.

Of course, you may be about to argue that First Class on LNER and First Class on Southeastern are entirely unlike one another and thus this sets some kind of precedent. If so, I would argue it doesn't do anything of the sort because if it were going to be different on a fundamental level, they should have called it by a different name!

I was actually going to bring up what Midland Mainline did for a bit as a comparison. They basically offered the same three classes as Avanti, but the "top" one in a dedicated coach with full food service was called "Executive" or something like that, and First Class was the middle one. Perhaps Avanti made a mistake by not doing it that way, though it wouldn't have offered the "expenses fraud" sales pitch. But that's why I think what the accommodation physically is is more important than what the name of it is.

I'd agree there is a fairly solid argument that LNR 1st should be considered Standard were an Avanti ticketholder to be re-routed onto it, as it neither offers a First Class standard of comfort nor any form of catering. Or that LNR shouldn't be allowed to call it First Class but something like "commuter premium" instead. But that's another debate entirely - look at Indian Railways who have 20-odd classes because they are very consistent about what you get for each.

 

[Starmill]

I think that it would actually improve the reputation of the industry if GTR, West Midlands Trains and South Western Railway reclassified their 'First Class' to Standard Premium, given they are apparently intent on keeping it permanently for some reason. Then this would be added to the fares database as a separate class, and defined as such in the NRCoT.

It would require absolutely loads of new fares to be created though, so it's just not going to happen.

if it was less, then no refund is entitled by that Condition even if you do consider SP to be Standard Class.

It says "minimum" refund. You're reading it as if it says 'maximum' refund when it doesn't.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It says "minimum" refund. You're reading it as if it says 'maximum' refund when it doesn't.

"Minimum" means a TOC can offer more but doesn't have to.

 

[Starmill]

"Minimum" means a TOC can offer more but doesn't have to.

No it doesn't. It means that you may be entitled to more in accordance with the conditions in the round, but you may never be entitled to less.

 

[Bletchleyite]

No it doesn't. It means that you may be entitled to more in accordance with the conditions in the round, but you may never be entitled to less.

Which conditions entitle the OP to more, if we consider that SP is Standard (which I don't, but let's consider that for the purposes of this part)?

 

[Starmill]

Which conditions entitle the OP to more, if we consider that SP is Standard (which I don't, but let's consider that for the purposes of this part)?

Merely by relying on your various statutory rights to receive the service for which you actually paid. These do not need to be imported into the Conditions specifically, because they must be treated as part of the Conditions regardless of whether they're mentioned, however the newer drafting now does specifically mention that they apply in Condition 32.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Merely by relying on your various statutory rights to receive the service for which you actually paid.

Which the OP has. The name of the service is of no real relevance, the actual service is of more relevance. The only thing they haven't received is a cup of tea and a biscuit. De minimis non curat lex.

Under no circumstances would the OP be entitled to the free food and alcohol offered by Avanti as that was not part of the service for which they paid, unless Avanti unilaterally decided to give them that.

I bet the OP had a better journey in SP than they'd have had in cramped Coach K.

 

[Starmill]

Which the OP has. The name of the service is of no real relevance, the actual service is of more relevance. The only thing they haven't received is a cup of tea and a biscuit. De minimis non curat lex.

Under no circumstances would the OP be entitled to the free food and alcohol offered by Avanti as that was not part of the service for which they paid, unless Avanti unilaterally decided to give them that.

I bet the OP had a better journey in SP than they'd have had in cramped Coach K.

That's mainly for the OP to decide for themselves. They've indicated that they aren't enormously concerned about the specific values in this case but that they take the view that First Class should be according to the product known by the name First Class. If we were to understand it as something different logically it would have been called something different.

Catering for First Class passengers has long been more than merely cups of tea or coffee and a biscuit on this TPE route, however I don't think this is at all necessary in order to prove the point. Using Latin phrases doesn't make you less wrong I'm afraid. In addition I'm absolutely not convinced that food and drink which might cost £5 - 10 to replace is actually "de minimis".

Finally the OP doesn't seem to have clarified the precise restrictions of the ticket. Apologies if I've missed it. If it is AP TPE & Connections or "reserved TransPennine Express trains and connections" then it would have been valid on Avanti regardless of the ticket acceptance if the original train was disrupted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That's mainly for the OP to decide for themselves. They've indicated that they aren't enormously concerned about the specific values in this case but that they take the view that First Class should be according to the product known by the name First Class. If we were to understand it as something different logically it would have been called something different.

Catering for First Class passengers has long been more than merely cups of tea or coffee and a biscuit on this TPE route, however I don't think this is at all necessary in order to prove the point. Using Latin phrases doesn't make you less wrong I'm afraid. In addition I'm absolutely not convinced that food and drink which might cost £5 - 10 to replace is actually "de minimis".

We clearly are not going to agree on this, so I suggest we end the discussion for now. If the OP does take legal action against TPE and/or Avanti I would be interested to know the outcome.

Finally the OP doesn't seem to have clarified the precise restrictions of the ticket. Apologies if I've missed it. If it is AP TPE & Connections or "reserved TransPennine Express trains and connections" then it would have been valid on Avanti regardless of the ticket acceptance if the original train was disrupted.

If it's a through ticket it will be that, yes. Is that validity defined anywhere? I was of the impression that the "any permitted" validity was ONLY on the unreserved section(s), if any.

If a split it may be a TPE Only ticket.

 

[Watershed]

Which the OP has. The name of the service is of no real relevance, the actual service is of more relevance. The only thing they haven't received is a cup of tea and a biscuit. De minimis non curat lex.

Oh right, in that case I'm sure the OP is entitled to help themselves to a cup of tea and a biscuit from the Shop? And Avanti couldn't do anything about it, after all de minimis non curat lex, right?

It would be one thing if this were a one-off case but it is clear that it is the standard procedure whenever this situation arises (which is quite frequently at the moment). So there will be thousands of people who will find themselves in the OP's position.

In my view, the OP would probably have greater recourse if they had paid any "first class upgrade" that the TM had demanded. They would be entitled to be reimbursed this by TPE, as SP is clearly not "comparable transport conditions" to First Class, and accordingly arranging ticket acceptance in SP is not in compliance with Article 16.

You will recall the Interpretive Guidelines:

In accordance with Article 16(b) and (c) of the Regulation, when passengers are offered the option of a continuation or re-routing of a journey, due to a delay of more than 60 minutes, this must be ‘under comparable transport conditions’. Whether transport conditions are comparable can depend on a number of factors and must be decided on a case-by-case basis. Depending on the circumstances, the following good practices are recommended:

—if possible, passengers are not downgraded to transport facilities of a lower class (where this occurs, passengers such as first class ticket holders should receive reimbursement of the difference of the ticket price);

And of course this is all assuming that the OP's ticket was routed TPE only. If it was Any Permitted or TPE & Connections then Avanti are in the wrong as no acceptance was required for there to be validity on Avanti.

 

[Bletchleyite]

In my view, the OP would probably have greater recourse if they had paid any "first class upgrade" that the TM had demanded. They would be entitled to be reimbursed this by TPE, as SP is clearly not "comparable transport conditions" to First Class, and accordingly arranging ticket acceptance in SP is not in compliance with Article 16.

It clearly is.

Actually, if you take that literally, the transport conditions are near identical - 2+1 seating with extra legroom. Catering isn't transport.

Anyway I think we have done this to death; certainly my position will not change, and nor I suspect will that of TPE and Avanti unless the OP decides to take them to court (and probably even then they'll settle out of Court). Perhaps this thread should be closed until the OP wishes to post the outcome of this if they intend to do so.

The only thing that could convince me would be if someone can produce something which states that an &Connections has validity by default on another TOC on the reserved section, which I was always under the impression it did not, i.e. an &Connections Advance is basically a combination of a TOC specific Advance on the reserved sections plus Any Permitted Anytime Day Singles with no BoJ allowed for the non-reserved sections. (Clearly it'd have validity in First Class on Avanti on any non-reserved section, subject to any such section existing).

 

[Wolfie]

It clearly is.

Actually, if you take that literally, the transport conditions are near identical - 2+1 seating with extra legroom. Catering isn't transport.

You, because of your own regularly expressed desire for Avanti to do away with First Class as currently constituted and replace it with the current Standard Premium, are obviously determined to argue that black equals white despite Avanti themselves clearly describing the products as different and what NRCOT has to say.

You really need to get it through your head is that all you are offering is your opinion. That won't matter in the slightest in any legal action where the Court, quite rightly, will look at what the contract says not what some random bloke on the internet deems to be equivalent.

 

[Watershed]

It clearly is.

Actually, if you take that literally, the transport conditions are near identical - 2+1 seating with extra legroom. Catering isn't transport.

Oh dear. Here we go again with a pointless attempt at literal interpretation...!

Transport conditions comprise many factors. That includes journey time, comfort but also the presence of other factors such as catering. TOCs don't offer free catering because they like giving away food, there is clearly commercial value to it and accordingly it forms part of the transport conditions.

See also the Interpretive Guidelines cited above, which explicitly reference a change of class.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You, because of your own desire for Avanti to do away with First Class as currently constituted, are obviously determined to argue that black equals white despite Avanti themselves clearly describing the products as different and what NRCOT has to say.

You really need to get it through your head is that all you are offering is your opinion. That won't matter in the slightest in any legal action where the Court, quite rightly, will look at what the contract says not what some random bloke on the internet deems to be equivalent.

And you're offering yours. And as I said I disagree with it. And Avanti and TPE do, too, which gives it more than a little credibility.

I'd suggest we draw this to a close pending the OP actually bringing a Court case against one or both TOCs, if they are minded to do so. A judgment in the OP's favour (or binding precedent for the same situation) would change my mind, but not a set of opinions.

 

[Watershed]

And you're offering yours. And as I said I disagree with it. And Avanti and TPE do, too, which gives it more than a little credibility.

It's hardly surprising that they adopt whatever position best covers their backsides!