In the first case, the passenger obtained permission before boarding, but nevertheless had their details taken by the RPI.Two of those cases are examples of the passenger not contacting the operator for advice on what to do, one of which involved trying to claim a train over 12 hours later was the next available service, and then claiming that the PRO rules mean they could unilaterally change which train they wanted to catch. The other was someone trying to use a LNER only ticket on a Lumo service, which escalated to the point of being kicked off the train at an unscheduled stop.
The final example was of someone rushing on to the first train they saw as they believed it to be theirs, only to find out it was a delayed service that happened to be in the station at the time the other train was due to depart.
In the second case, the passenger could quite legitimately say they were relying on the Advance ticket terms and conditions, which entitle them to take "the next available service(s) to complete your journey". In any event, only their first ticket, which was for a tiny proportion of their overall journey, was actually LNER only - the second two tickets were LNER & connections, which doesn't exclude the use of Lumo services.
In the third case, the passenger boarded a train that said it was going to their destination, at the time their booked train was due to depart. And again, they could say they were relying on the Advance ticket T&Cs.
Of course, in each of the three cases you could try to level criticism at the passengers by saying that they could have obtained written permission to board another train to minimise the chances of prosecution. But why should they be forced to do this, when in each case the situation arose through failings on the part of the railway, and there was no guarantee that such written permission would be forthcoming or easily obtained?
I'm not saying you are necessarily making this argument, but it seems little more than victim blaming to me; I'm sure one can imagine other contexts where such victim blaming would be abhorred (e.g. if a passenger killed by a train accident didn't hold a valid ticket).
Ultimately, in each of the above cases the passenger was morally and legally in the right, but that did not prevent them from encountering threats of prosecution. I don't think there is much mileage in trying to defend the TOCs here.
Last edited: