"Forced to pay twice for a rail ticket" - one passenger travels with 2 Two Together tickets

[Bantamzen]

Maybe the railcard should include a one-off discretionary 'pass' for this kind of happening, e.g. a box a guard stamps/punches once it has been used once with the second person missing. Surely its unlikely there will be a sudden illness or unavailability to travel twice in one year between the same two people.

Just looking at my 2T card, its a plastic card so stamping wouldn't work as any stamp would quickly rub off, and punching it would require a little bit of force. My preference would be to use some smartcard technology, with any such pass loaded onto the card from a guard's card reader. But of course that would require a network-wide software patch to allow the card readers to transmit the data to a smartcard, so until a standard in that field is agreed its simply not possible.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just looking at my 2T card, its a plastic card so stamping wouldn't work as any stamp would quickly rub off, and punching it would require a little bit of force. My preference would be to use some smartcard technology, with any such pass loaded onto the card from a guard's card reader. But of course that would require a network-wide software patch to allow the card readers to transmit the data to a smartcard, so until a standard in that field is agreed its simply not possible.

It's an awful lot more complex and expensive than just allowing people to travel with both sets of tickets anyway, and accepting the very small loss from the very small number of people who would think to use the "two returns" trick when engaging in the relatively rare practice (Railcard or not) of picking another adult up by train.

 

[Bantamzen]

It's an awful lot more complex and expensive than just allowing people to travel with both sets of tickets anyway, and accepting the very small loss from the very small number of people who would think to use the "two returns" trick when engaging in the relatively rare practice (Railcard or not) of picking another adult up by train.

Not if it was part of a wider move to smart-card ticketing, but that's for another time & another thread.

 

[some bloke]

AC 1 and I travelled on Friday morning...On Monday evening both offspring had to return for work next morning...I...travelled on Tuesday.
So if no.1 had access to two railcards for whatever reason, each of us would have benefited from the discount, and I think this is allowed by condition 2.3.

Can't see the need to buy singles, unless the 2T tickets carry "only valid with card 123456."

Tickets aren't transferable between people.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Tickets aren't transferable between people.

Officially, but passing on return halves (rather than selling) is a very common practice and is near enough unenforceable.

If the railway was serious about non-transfer (just as if the music industry was serious about stopping touting), tickets would have names on them.

 

[Be3G]

OPINION: The rule that an entire batch of 2TR or group tickets become invalid if one of the pair/party can't travel is barmy.

FACT: The above rule has, on at least one occasion, put me off pre-booking tickets.

OUTCOME: Everyone's annoyed because we don't have reserved seats.

HYPOTHESIS: The rule exists to encourage purchase of more expensive walk-up tickets on the day?

 

[etr221]

One thing I am wondering (because I don't know) ... with Two Together, what is actually being sold (and hence what the underlying contracts are) by 'the railway' - is it one ticket, for one fare, for two people; or two tickets, for two separate fares, one for each person? And if the latter, does that mean that railway is selling tickets that are - as and of themselves - not valid for travel? And what - legally - are the implications of that?

And - as a separate thought - wondering what the position would be if the reason one of the passengers was missing was action by 'the railway'? (though I must admit to struggling to work out a set of circumstances which might cause this)

 

[sheff1]

And - as a separate thought - wondering what the position would be if the reason one of the passengers was missing was action by 'the railway'? (though I must admit to struggling to work out a set of circumstances which might cause this)

An interesting question.

A case could be two people travelling to a major station on different connecting trains to then travel on a Two Together Advance. e.g. One from Rotherham who buys a single to Sheffield and one coming from Kiveton Park whose train is cancelled. The intention was then to travel to London. If the Rotherham passenger joins the booked London train alone they are invalid, but if they wait for the next Kiveton Park train to arrive they have willingly let the connection go and so, on the face of it, would also be invalid on the next London train. If they were both travelling from Kiveton Park then they would obviously be OK on the next London train due to the cancellation.

Does anyone have the official line on this ?

 

[Haywain]

An interesting question.

A case could be two people travelling to a major station on different connecting trains to then travel on a Two Together Advance. e.g. One from Rotherham who buys a single to Sheffield and one coming from Kiveton Park whose train is cancelled. The intention was then to travel to London. If the Rotherham passenger joins the booked London train alone they are invalid, but if they wait for the next Kiveton Park train to arrive they have willingly let the connection go and so, on the face of it, would also be invalid on the next London train. If they were both travelling from Kiveton Park then they would obviously be OK on the next London train due to the cancellation.

Does anyone have the official line on this ?

I've encountered this sort of situation when a customer has approached me prior to the departure of the booked train to explain that the other passenger has been delayed. I had always passed them to travel on a later train as I believe that is the appropriate course of action - they are, after all, supposed to be travelling together. If this has been refused on the basis of "I must get that train" then the response has been that a new ticket or excess must be purchased as the railcard isn't valid.

 

[sheff1]

I've encountered this sort of situation when a customer has approached me prior to the departure of the booked train to explain that the other passenger has been delayed. I had always passed them to travel on a later train as I believe that is the appropriate course of action - they are, after all, supposed to be travelling together. If this has been refused on the basis of "I must get that train" then the response has been that a new ticket or excess must be purchased as the railcard isn't valid.

In the latter case, what is the situation with the passenger delayed due to the cancellation, when their "companion" has already gone ahead ?

As an aside, with the Two Together Railcard is one card issued or two ? Can both people have a digital version stored on their phone etc ?

 

[najaB]

As an aside, with the Two Together Railcard is one card issued or two ? Can both people have a digital version stored on their phone etc ?

One card when bought at the station, not sure about online.

 

[FQTV]

I've encountered this sort of situation when a customer has approached me prior to the departure of the booked train to explain that the other passenger has been delayed. I had always passed them to travel on a later train as I believe that is the appropriate course of action - they are, after all, supposed to be travelling together. If this has been refused on the basis of "I must get that train" then the response has been that a new ticket or excess must be purchased as the railcard isn't valid.

I’ve been the delayed party in this kind of scenario, and my Two Together companion was similarly permitted to travel on the later service which we were able to then proceed on together.

One card when bought at the station, not sure about online.

When issued physically, online or at a station, there is just one card. The only difference is that an online issue has the two photographs printed on the card, while a station-bought one is accompanied by a traditional photo card with two photos on it.

Digital Two Together cards can be saved to two separate devices, one for each party named on the card.

 

[some bloke]

the £150 wasn’t a penalty for not following the terms of the railcard. It was the price of a (valid) ticket that they didn’t have.
...legally it was two separate transactions that are only related by being between the same parties.

Is a general rule (here, that an invalid ticket makes the passenger liable for a full fare) not challengeable in court on the grounds that

a) the rule was applied unreasonably in the specific circumstances
and/or
b) the terms and conditions which the consumer is required to sign do not adequately spell out consequences of the breach?

 

[Dai Corner]

Going back to the first post for a moment, it appears the guard on the first train allowed the passenger to travel without his companion, giving no indication that his ticket was invalid and that he was making a concession.

Should that be a robust defence to a charge of travelling without a valid ticket on the second train?

 

[najaB]

Is a general rule (here, that an invalid ticket makes the passenger liable for a full fare) not challengeable in court if the rule is applied in circumstances which the court may consider unreasonable, and/or where the terms and conditions which the consumer is required to sign do not adequately spell out the consequences of the breach?

I don't think so. The principle that someone who is found on board without a valid ticket is liable to a full-fare ticket isn't in itself unreasonable. The fact that a railcard-discounted is invalid if the T&Cs are not complied with is, in itself, not unreasonable.

 

[najaB]

Should that be a robust defence to a charge of travelling without a valid ticket on the second train?

I don't know about robust defence (in the legal sense), but it does give weight to a customer services case.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The point you seem to have missed is that the £150 wasn’t a penalty for not following the terms of the railcard. It was the price of a (valid) ticket that they didn’t have.
Whether that is right morally is a different matter, but legally it was two separate transactions that are only related by being between the same parties.
An actual ‘penalty’ on the first transaction could be an excess, a penalty fare or prosecution depending on circumstances.

I think it would be very difficult for the TOC to claim that these two things - which are so inexorably linked - are separate legal transactions. One is clearly the result of the other and hence they must be treated in the same context.

Even if we assume that the argument that "they are not linked" somehow succeeds - there are still two further hurdles to pass for the TOC. Firstly, as no prior price has been agreed for carriage from Carlisle to London, only such a price as is reasonable may be charged (as per S51 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015). Is £150 a reasonable price for that journey? I would suggest no, it is not - especially in view of the fact that normal ticket prices are much lower.

The second hurdle that arises from the severing of the two transactions is that, looking just at the original Railcard discounted tickets, we are proposing that they have no validity whatsoever if one passenger doesn't turn up. In other words they become void. In my mind, given the circumstances, this is again a penalty for breaching the contract.

As we know, penalties for breaches are subject to regulations. The one in question here cannot in any way be considered to be an enforceable or fair one, because it means that one party (the TOC) can simply decide not to provide any consideration whatsoever if the other party commits a "breach" by not making full use of his contractual rights. That is surely contradictory with the fundamental principles of contract law, that one party has provided consideration (the passenger pays) but then receives nothing in return!

 

[some bloke]

I don't think so. The principle that someone who is found on board without a valid ticket is liable to a full-fare ticket isn't in itself unreasonable. The fact that a railcard-discounted is invalid if the T&Cs are not complied with is, in itself, not unreasonable.

A principle or a strict rule?

 

[some bloke]

Going back to the first post for a moment, it appears the guard on the first train allowed the passenger to travel without his companion, giving no indication that his ticket was invalid and that he was making a concession.

Should that be a robust defence to a charge of travelling without a valid ticket on the second train?

It's weakened by his admission:

"The first conductor did indicate that I would have a problem with the next conductor".

 

[Haywain]

Going back to the first post for a moment, it appears the guard on the first train allowed the passenger to travel without his companion, giving no indication that his ticket was invalid and that he was making a concession.

Should that be a robust defence to a charge of travelling without a valid ticket on the second train?

It is perfectly clear that the guard on the first train gave an indication of the ticket being invalid. To quote from the Times article (that forms the quote in the opening post of this thread):

Mr Dunne has been trying to get an answer as to the rules, but he says: “It seems to depend on the rail company and the conductor. The first conductor did indicate that I would have a problem with the next conductor, but he didn’t charge me.”

 

[Dai Corner]

It's weakened by his admission:

"The first conductor did indicate that I would have a problem with the next conductor".

Ah I missed that bit

 

[K.o.R]

Yes, technically, you were in breach. GroupSave presents exactly the same issue in terms of numbers travelling (or not).

Personally, I consider the TwoTogether and the GroupSave requirement for the booked party to travel or all tickets become invalid to be idiotic, indefensible and probably the worst example of the rail industry actively seeking to make customers feel like criminals purely for their temerity to be unwell. Or to have to prioritise something else in their lives other than that particular journey.

If it went that far, I suspect that it would be deeemed in (non small-claims) court to be an ‘unfair term’ in contract law, and the court would be helped in reaching that conclusion very quickly given the fact that the purchaser could not possibly have achieved any financial benefit in purchasing two (or more) discounted tickets over the fewer number of tickets which would otherwise have been required for the lower number of passengers that actually travelled.

If the defendant in any case could further show that the non-present passengers had bought additional standalone tickets for the same, but perhaps earlier or later journey, knowing that the original ticket
(s) would not be valid for them separately, then the court may also take into account that the plaintiff had additionally received further sums from the original party-as-a-whole and had already materially benefited even more from the overall situation and their position would be weakened yet further.

I think GroupSave is somewhat muddier as they don't specify the number of group members (they used to say GPS-3 or GPS-4); as long as there are at least 3 people present the "group" is there.

 

[The Ham]

I think GroupSave is somewhat muddier as they don't specify the number of group members (they used to say GPS-3 or GPS-4); as long as there are at least 3 people present the "group" is there.

Quite, previously you could only get a discount if you were a group of 3, 4, 6, 7, 8 or 9. Meaning a group of 5 had to have one person paying full price or needing a rail card.

At least that had been fixed by the change to the current system.

I would suggest that the number of people who would buy two returns to pick up someone from somewhere would be relatively low.

The result of blocking this under the current rules probably results in either the journey being done by some other mode (i.e. by car or coach) or by the person traveling on their own (at least most of the way).

As such the impact on the rail industry's income by changing the rules to allow one person to travel with both tickets would likely be a positive one.

 

[Haywain]

Meaning a group of 5 had to have one person paying full price or needing a rail card.

At least that had been fixed by the change to the current system.

The current system results in the 5 people paying more than the old system. It used to be 60% of the full fares and is now 66%, assuming the 5th person did not have a railcard.

 

[island]

Whether or not the charge for non-compliance with the contract is reasonable, failing to pay it is a criminal matter (if we assume that the ticket is not valid).

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Whether or not the charge for non-compliance with the contract is reasonable, failing to pay it is a criminal matter (if we assume that the ticket is not valid).

Is it though? Byelaw 18 is ultra vires itself - so can failing to pay the unlawful/unenforceable charge constitute a RoRA offence?

It would take a brave TOC to prosecute a passenger for failing to pay an unlawful/unenforceable penalty. Imagine the media stories!

 

[najaB]

It would take a brave TOC to prosecute a passenger for failing to pay an unlawful/unenforceable penalty.

I agree, but I'm not sure what the relevance is to this discussion since no penalty has been applied.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I agree, but I'm not sure what the relevance is to this discussion since no penalty has been applied.

I agree, but I was responding to island's comment!

 

[island]

Is it though? Byelaw 18 is ultra vires itself

Says who?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Says who?

A mountain of case law. For example:

• The London and Brighton Railway Company v Watson 3 C.P.D. 429
• Saunders v The South Eastern Railway Company 5 Q.B.D. 456
• Lowe v Volp [1896] 1 Q.B. 256
  
• Bentham v Hoyle 3 Q.B.D. 289
  
• Huffam v The North Staffordshire Railway Company [1894] 2 Q.B. 821

I could go on but I think the point is made. Secondary legislation cannot overrule or modify primary legislation; Byelaw 18 attempts to do so (by removing the requirement for intent to be proven for a RoRA Sec. 5(3)(a) offence to be proven) but cannot do so and is therefore ultra vires.

BR recognised this throughout their existence and it was only in 2005 that the Byelaws were modified to make Byelaw 18 a punishable offence again (previously the only 'penalty' was forceable removal from the railway).