Hull Trains not compensating on split tickets

[robbeech]

We don’t define journey. But we do define break of journey. If we are changing trains or using station facilities it’s not considered a break of journey so if you are changing at York between 2 cheap examples on advances (eg, 1108 from KGX then the 1406 tpe from YRK to NCL as these are often inexpensive) then I don’t see how you could argue its 2 journeys as the wait is only 35 minutes or so. There are earlier connections but they tend to be more expensive.

If however you decided to take the 1606 (if there is one) then I think this becomes a grey area. But isn’t this why these things can be referred to third parties for clarification? The very idea of their existence is to monitor slightly out of the ordinary cases and come to the best conclusion. I wouldn’t personally expect them to pay out in full with such s long gap, and I wouldn’t try to claim for it.

 

[Starmill]

But we do define break of journey.

Wait, we do??

 

[robbeech]

If you are using more than one ticket for your journey then you have defined a journey as using 2 (or more) tickets. That journey uses 2 ticket ls when you decide what the journey is. Therefore when your journey (same definition) is delayed you should be eligible for compensation for that journey (same definition).

 

[robbeech]

Wait, we do??

Ok. You’re right. But it’s understood as being changing trains or using station facilities from days of old, but you raise a very valid point.

 

[yorkie]

I still don't think that's a satisfactory enough definition for the purposes of this discussion, and people on this forum may find that a court could find in the TOC's favour.

If you travel from London to York and then from York to Newcastle, changing trains from VTEC to XC at York, most of us would agree that's one journey. But what if the trains had a three hour gap between the two? In the context of travelling "from one place to another" has the passenger travelled from London to York and then York to Newcastle?

Does what the traveller gets up to in York and their rationale impact on the definition as to whether that's "travelling on a journey from London to Newcastle", or "Travelling on a journey from London to York and then from York to Newcastle"?

What if the traveller:

1) Stays on the station for the whole time, never leaving the premises, taking some photos of trains and enjoying a pint in the station Pub. They have no real business in York. The reason they have two tickets is to save money and the 3 hour break between trains saves them £100.

2) Leaves the station and visits their girlfriend, who lives in York city centre, goes shopping with her, and then returns to the station three hours later to catch the XC train?

Split tickets where the passenger does not leave the train at all are unquestionably one journey in my mind.

It may not be in the customers interest to claim this is all one journey that merely had a break of journey (though for a break of journey to occur, the passenger does need to leave a station other than for the purposes of changing trains), but they could probably make that argument if they wanted to.

However if the first train was more than 3 hours late, and the onward connection was missed, it would not be dissimilar to purchasing Advance tickets to get to & from an event, and the first train being so delayed that you were unable to get to the event and had to go straight back again.

So treating it as two journeys, but a lengthy delay on the inward journey would still validate a later departure on the onward journey, would be a pragmatic way to view a scenario where someone travels from London to York to do sightseeing before continuing to Newcastle.

However the OP made a straightforward journey using a combination of tickets, and so this hypothetical discussion isn't relevant. Hull Trains should not be making any false claims that this was not one journey.

 

[AlterEgo]

However if the first train was more than 3 hours late, and the onward connection was missed, it would not be dissimilar to purchasing Advance tickets to get to & from an event, and the first train being so delayed that you were unable to get to the event and had to go straight back again.

I note there is no provision for this under the NRCoT, something else which isn't satisfactory in my view.

However the OP made a straightforward journey using a combination of tickets, and so this hypothetical discussion isn't relevant. Hull Trains should not be making any false claims that this was not one journey.

Agreed.

 

[robbeech]

With anything complicated there should be a procedure to discuss via one method or another things with the customer. This should settle matters quite quickly as to what their intentions are or were. Splitting a ticket between Doncaster and London at Grantham and staying on the same train should never be complicated and should not be declined though of course it appears this happens too.

 

[yorkie]

I note there is no provision for this under the NRCoT, something else which isn't satisfactory in my view.

Agreed.

However it would arguably be covered by consumer laws, and so train companies need to ensure that they do not go against the interests of customers if they are in any doubt as to how to treat such situations.

 

[Tetchytyke]

There are situations it's useful to claim you are making one journey and situations where it's useful to claim you're making two. The same goes for TOCs in reverse, e.g. where you override beyond an unstated station.

If you've a 3 hour gap between trains, but you arrive at the "break" 3 hours late, then you'll say you were making two journeys. Otherwise you'd have arrived on time. Similarly TOCs will claim you overrode if you stayed on a train beyond your destination, and prosecute accordingly, rather than treat each bit as a new journey.

That doesn't change the definition of journey though.

 

[robbeech]

If you've a 3 hour gap between trains, but you arrive at the "break" 3 hours late, then you'll say you were making two journeys. Otherwise you'd have arrived on time.

Only if I was making 2 journeys.
If I was planning on hanging around to get the other train because it was cheaper then I’d be making 1 journey and I’d be on time. I appreciate some may take advantage of it but that will be a Small Number in comparison to genuine claims.

 

[IanXC]

Exactly. This is about them offering this minimum contractual level of compensation. If they don't, it could be breach of contract. I shan't get worked up about their own compensation scheme not having as good terms as that because it's still a much better compensation scheme than (say) Chiltern or Grand Central offer.

Exactly.

There is a difference between them offering the contractual level of compensation, and them not offering the same conditions as other operators who are obliged by their franchise conditions to offer "Delay Repay". Hull Trains choose to offer a hybrid option which covers the minimum requirements and actually goes further, but does not include everything a franchised TOC would be obliged to include.

 

[Albion91]

The BoJ also provides an interesting scenario.

Suppose I had a number of period returns on which, due to previous breaks of journey, I had the following remaining travel still valid:
(Birmingham to Coventry, Coventry to Northampton, Northampton to MKC, MKC to Watford, Watford to Euston)
If I decide to use them as split tickets and am delayed by two hours, am I entitled to the full price of all five period returns in delay repay?

 

[AlterEgo]

The BoJ also provides an interesting scenario.

Suppose I had a number of period returns on which, due to previous breaks of journey, I had the following remaining travel still valid:
(Birmingham to Coventry, Coventry to Northampton, Northampton to MKC, MKC to Watford, Watford to Euston)
If I decide to use them as split tickets and am delayed by two hours, am I entitled to the full price of all five period returns in delay repay?

It depends how you define “journey”.

The concept of Break of Journey applies specifically to your ticket. In that context, “journey” means solely the travel you can make on that one ticket. “Journey” therefore has more than one definition in the NRCoT and there is as a result no clear answer.

 

[yorkie]

The BoJ also provides an interesting scenario.

Suppose I had a number of period returns on which, due to previous breaks of journey, I had the following remaining travel still valid:
(Birmingham to Coventry, Coventry to Northampton, Northampton to MKC, MKC to Watford, Watford to Euston)
If I decide to use them as split tickets and am delayed by two hours, am I entitled to the full price of all five period returns in delay repay?

You may use this combination of tickets for a journey from Birmingham to Euston.

If your journey is delayed by 120+ minutes, you are entitled to the journey being compensated to the full value of the journey, with the total value of a return ticket being compensated, ie. covering both portions of a return.

No consideration is given as to whether or not the other portion of your return was broken, delayed, or even made, or any other factor, whatsoever.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It depends how you define “journey”.

The dictionary definition is usually the best one to go with, though.

If you're travelling from Birmingham to London then your journey is from Birmingham to London.

 

[cuccir]

The dictionary definition is usually the best one to go with, though.

Dictionaries aren't really set up for this purpose though. They're concise summaries, they're not designed to be rigorous enough for contractual purposes. This is why contracts such as the NRCoT have appendices full of definitions. In the absence of a definition in the contract, we have to look at how it's used in the contract and we have to be prepared to argue a case and hear counter arguments. Common sense use has some value, but a claim to the authority of 'the dictionary' (which?!?) will not get us very far.

What the NRCoT does say about a journey is that:

• A journey can be broken, over multiple days if required (16.1)
• A journey can involve multiple tickets (2.4, 14.1)
• A ticket can be valid for multiple journeys (29.2)

While this might well leave journey undefined, and while it's possible that there are situations in which these conditions are contradictory, I also think that they are clear enough to reject Hull Trains's assertion split tickets constitute multiple journeys. I don't think we need to have established a fixed definition of journey to offer a rebuttal to that.

 

[yorkie]

... I also think that they are clear enough to reject Hull Trains's assertion split tickets constitute multiple journeys. I don't think we need to have established a fixed definition of journey to offer a rebuttal to that.

I don't see how anyone can disagree with that!

 

[Tetchytyke]

Dictionaries aren't really set up for this purpose though. They're concise summaries, they're not designed to be rigorous enough for contractual purposes.

Undefined words will, as a general rule, take their "usual and ordinary meaning".

 

[AlterEgo]

The dictionary definition is usually the best one to go with, though.

If you're travelling from Birmingham to London then your journey is from Birmingham to London.

And someone travelling from Milton Keynes to Milton Keynes on a day out, bashing continuously, by going to up Glasgow, across to Edinburgh, down to London and back to Milton Keynes hasn’t made a journey at all?

 

[yorkie]

And someone travelling from Milton Keynes to Milton Keynes on a day out, bashing continuously, by going to up Glasgow, across to Edinburgh, down to London and back to Milton Keynes hasn’t made a journey at all?

They've made a journey from MKC to MKC! But this does bring us back to the advice I mentioned in my previous post, and anyone who wishes to consider making such a journey may wish to consider my advice.

 

[robbeech]

And someone travelling from Milton Keynes to Milton Keynes on a day out, bashing continuously, by going to up Glasgow, across to Edinburgh, down to London and back to Milton Keynes hasn’t made a journey at all?

If they haven’t made a journey they’re not going to be delayed and as such are not eligible for delay repay.
Said in jest of course.

 

[Tetchytyke]

someone travelling from Milton Keynes to Milton Keynes on a day out, bashing continuously

...has made a journey from MK to MK! A circular journey is still a journey.

 

[Starmill]

Dictionaries aren't really set up for this purpose though.

Actually, they are. If a contract fails to define the terms used therein, a dictionary is pretty much the only source of a definition everyone an agree on.

 

[ainsworth74]

Actually, they are. If a contract fails to define the terms used therein, a dictionary is pretty much the only source of a definition everyone an agree on.

In my line of work I've seen more than a few Upper Tribunal decisions where they've used a dictionary definition because a term wasn't defined by the regulations made by the Department for Work and Pensions. It's well established that absent specific definition words should be given their ordinary meaning. In which case you refer to a dictionary in the event of dispute.

 

[westv]

Maybe HTs are trying this scam to save money after the recent rolling stock shambles.

 

[Clip]

Maybe HTs are trying this scam to save money after the recent rolling stock shambles.

It' not a scam in the slightest so maybe we should try the dictionary to clarify?

What I will say is that transport focus have now ruled in vtwc in at two or three cases we have seen on this forum and I'm guessing ht are going down this route also.


On a bigger scale we must also have in mind in that constant pressuring on this issue may have an end result that is bad all round especially as some tocs still work oupside of delay repay and there is a chance that split ticketing refunding may become even more defined as 'per leg' or per 'toc' where a change is made.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

It' not a scam in the slightest so maybe we should try the dictionary to clarify?

What I will say is that transport focus have now ruled in vtwc in at two or three cases we have seen on this forum and I'm guessing ht are going down this route also.


On a bigger scale we must also have in mind in that constant pressuring on this issue may have an end result that is bad all round especially as some tocs still work oupside of delay repay and there is a chance that split ticketing refunding may become even more defined as 'per leg' or per 'toc' where a change is made.

Although I would of course prefer that TOCs didn't increase the price of through tickets so much that I have no realistic alternative but to split, I would at least welcome some clarity as to whether or not TOCs will pay out on split ticket delays. At the moment it seems that they should in most cases, but clearly there are a number which are not cooperating, and so having a level industry-wide policy would be advantageous IMO.

Not to mention that Delay Repay policies should become level in terms of the minimum qualifying delay length, payment method, any exceptions etc. Perhaps an industry-wide Delay Repay portal... no, that would be too much cooperation to expect!

 

[Starmill]

Although I would of course prefer that TOCs didn't increase the price of through tickets so much that I have no realistic alternative but to split, I would at least welcome some clarity as to whether or not TOCs will pay out on split ticket delays. At the moment it seems that they should in most cases, but clearly there are a number which are not cooperating, and so having a level industry-wide policy would be advantageous IMO.

Not to mention that Delay Repay policies should become level in terms of the minimum qualifying delay length, payment method, any exceptions etc. Perhaps an industry-wide Delay Repay portal... no, that would be too much cooperation to expect!

I hate to quote the same document to you twice in two days, but according to the SWR passenger charter...

If you have a combination of tickets for your journey,
we will compensate you for your whole journey.

They at least then do share our interpretation of the meaning of the word journey. Other train companies may choose to disagree with SWR.

Although, SWR only give 100% of the 'base rate' for a season ticket for delays of 2 hours or more, whereas Southeastern give 200%. Southeastern's policy is a more consistent treatment of season ticket holders, as all TOCs on 'Delay Repay' compensate based on both directions for return ticket holders where the delay is 2 hours or more.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I hate to quote the same document to you twice in two days, but according to the SWR passenger charter...


They at least then do share our interpretation of the meaning of the word journey. Other train companies may choose to disagree with SWR.

Although, SWR only give 100% of the 'base rate' for a season ticket for delays of 2 hours or more, whereas Southeastern give 200%. Southeastern's policy is a more consistent treatment of season ticket holders, as all TOCs on 'Delay Repay' compensate based on both directions for return ticket holders where the delay is 2 hours or more.

I think it's great that SWR have that policy. Unfortunately, their next door neighbours GWR, who are owned by the same parent company, have a very different policy and pay out less money for the same ticket, as well as on a considerably lower percentage of delays, I would have thought. What I think is needed is a nationwide unification of Delay Repay in terms of the rules and their implementation. Hence my suggestion of a single claim portal.

 

[Starmill]

I completely agree. But the preference at the DfT appears to be for each company almost to have its own unique terms, rates of compensation and methods of compensation.