London Northwestern refuse to accept Avanti ticket when passenger otherwise has delay of over 3 hours

[MKB]

I was on the 08:13 Crewe to Euston train today operated by London Northwester Railway (LM). During a ticket check, the LM guard made a solo female traveller who had boarded at Tamworth buy a new ticket to Euston. I overheard her tell him that her booked Avanti train at 07:18 had been cancelled, but he insisted she could only travel with Avanti despite her extended delay.

I spoke to her afterwards and it seems she had eventually received advice (not sure from whom) to board an LM train, by which time she had missed the 07:56, and so waited and boarded our train, the 08:56.

Of note is that, when Avanti cancelled the 07:16, their next service for Euston is at 10:22, over three hours later.

It subsequently transpired that the 10:22 was also cancelled, meaning the next Avanti service (if it runs) will be at 22:24.

If a three-hour-plus delay does not count as serious disruption meaning that other train companies are obliged to help out disrupted passengers, then what does?

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Are ticket endorsements / authorisations to travel (issued by the Tamworth ticket office) still possible, which might have avoided the described scenario?

Otherwise, what could/should the passenger have done?

 

[tspaul26]

The passenger should request re-routeing from the TOC responsible for the cancellation given the anticipated delay of over one hour.

If this is not forthcoming a new ticket should be purchased and the cost reclaimed from the TOC in breach.

 

[Dave91131]

The passenger should request re-routeing from the TOC responsible for the cancellation given the anticipated delay of over one hour.

If this is not forthcoming a new ticket should be purchased and the cost reclaimed from the TOC in breach.

And if the passenger doesn't have a spare £100 or whatever the cost of a walk up ticket be?

Then what?

 

[Watershed]

Legally speaking, with the passenger not completely stranded (as there are further Avanti services, even if only much later in the day) sadly WMT are not obliged to let them travel for free. If they were given permission to board the WMT service they should not have been charged, and should complain to WMT about this.

In any event the passenger's main recourse here is likely to be with Avanti, as when asked (and really without even being asked, under the consumer rights obligation to use reasonable care and skill), they were obliged to arrange ticket acceptance with WMT once the anticipated delay exceeded 60 minutes.

It's perhaps unclear if WMT act as their representative at stations where Avanti don't have a staff presence, so if you ever find yourself in this position and JourneyCheck doesn't reveal any ticket acceptance, I'd get in touch with their social media team to request re-routing - this is the formal term under the PRO although I don't think it's strictly necessary to use it to invoke your rights. Should ticket acceptance (or equivalent) be refused despite being eligible, you'd be within your rights to buy new ticket(s) as required to complete your journey using the quickest available option and to recover the cost of this afterwards.

 

[allotments]

If a three-hour-plus delay does not count as serious disruption meaning that other train companies are obliged to help out disrupted passengers, then what does?

Travelling Crewe-Euston this evening with LNR only ticket. 18:13 19:13 20:13 departures all cancelled.

LNR responded promptly via X direct message: ticket acceptance with Avanti is in place. However there was no evidence of this to be found on X or LNR website. LNR no longer use journeycheck according to a scrolling message there.

Lack of goodwill earlier as reported by OP is truly shocking.

 

[yorkie]

If she received authorisation from a member of railway staff to travel on WMT, then WMT have no right to charge her.

As a semi-regular user of WMT's Trent Valley services, I rarely see Guards checking tickets on this route.

I have seen one or two act really militantly, though. Sadly, such individuals have no concept of the bigger picture; the rail industry would be better off without them.

Lack of goodwill earlier as reported by OP is truly shocking.

Shocking in terms of the moral position, yes. But shocking in terms of surprising? Not at all; a small but very noticeable proportion of rail staff act in this manner, and it no longer surprises me one bit. There are insufficient safeguards in place to ensure that only fit and proper people are placed in customer-facing roles within the rail industry.

 

[Watershed]

And if the passenger doesn't have a spare £100 or whatever the cost of a walk up ticket be?

Then what?

Well realistically speaking, either chance it and hope the guard doesn't try and charge them (or that RPIs issue a PF/MG11) - or wait. I mean, what other alternatives are there if you don't have the money?

This is why having access to a credit card in order to defray temporary travel expenses can be very valuable. Of course, not everyone has the luxury of being able to easily access credit (e.g. under 18s, those who are bankrupt, have an IVA, simply have bad credit or whose identified can't be verified), and some may also have moral or religious issues with it. But that's probably the easiest option for those who don't necessarily have the 'cash'.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

And if the passenger doesn't have a spare £100 or whatever the cost of a walk up ticket be?

The walk up fare is £39.40

Well realistically speaking, either chance it and hope the guard doesn't try and charge them (or that RPIs issue a PF/MG11) - or wait.

Travelling on a train without a valid ticket and without the ability to pay really isn't any more advisable than stealing some money to pay for a ticket.

This is why having access to a credit card in order to defray temporary travel expenses can be very valuable.

I agree. When travelling it's not just poor service from the likes of Avanti that can put you in a difficult circumstance if you have no cash or payment card to hand. Relying on the goodwill of bystanders or employees of organisations which have no contractual obligations toward you is to travel in hope, rather than expectation.

I can understand why the LM guard insisted a new ticket was required. What's not clear from the OP's account is whether the guard advised the passenger that she should retain the ticket on arrival at Euston and seek to claim the cost from Avanti.

 

[Watershed]

Travelling on a train without a valid ticket and without the ability to pay really isn't any more advisable than stealing some money to pay for a ticket.

Well, quite. But the odds of being treated more leniently if you already have a ticket, even if one that's invalid (by virtue of the operator failing to arrange ticket acceptance), are probably slightly higher than if you're just chancing it without any ticket at all.

I can understand why the LM guard insisted a new ticket was required.

I've often enough seen the mindset that results in guards selling new tickets in circumstances such as these. But I can't understand it on a level of common sense, let alone simply human decency.

Any guard worth their salt will know the industry has to act together if it's to have a positive future, rather than 15 different companies pulling in different directions and each pretending to run their own fiefdoms.

 

[AlbertBeale]

This is why having access to a credit card in order to defray temporary travel expenses can be very valuable. Of course, not everyone has the luxury of being able to easily access credit (e.g. under 18s, those who are bankrupt, have an IVA, simply have bad credit or whose identified can't be verified), and some may also have moral or religious issues with it. But that's probably the easiest option for those who don't necessarily have the 'cash'.

Even if you have any (or enough) credit available, you might not have enough slack to be able to afford an expensive ticket if there's a risk that you won't get a speedy reimbursement. (I recently had to battle for months to get back money I'd spent on an alternative ticket; luckily I was able to cover the difference during that period.)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Even if you have any (or enough) credit available, you might not have enough slack to be able to afford an expensive ticket if there's a risk that you won't get a speedy reimbursement. (I recently had to battle for months to get back money I'd spent on an alternative ticket; luckily I was able to cover the difference during that period.)

You can leave the balance on the card and pay minimum payment and interest on it. If you can't even afford that, you probably shouldn't be making a long distance journey (see also that thread about sitting on a bench in Liverpool all night a while back).

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Any guard worth their salt will know the industry has to act together if it's to have a positive future, rather than 15 different companies pulling in different directions and each pretending to run their own fiefdoms.

Individuals implementing their own rules about ticket acceptance (or train dispatch or maintaining systems or any other things that aren't working quite as well as those individuals think they should) don't really help. At best they obscure the real issues and/or lead to an inconsistent approach. They may, even unintentionally, generate higher costs or loss of revenue within the industry. At worst they can be unsafe.

The industry's future will be decided by those who create its high level organisational, ownership, funding, investment and risk/reward structures, and by how well executives and senior managers operate within those structures to design rules and procedures which work and then make sure they're followed.

The primary failure here was that Avanti didn't follow its own procedures to arrange ticket acceptance and communicate with its customer. However it's structured, an industry which routinely fails in that way doesn't have a positive future.

 

[northwichcat]

solo female traveller who had boarded at Tamworth

Her gender and the fact she was by herself isn't relevant. It might be rail staff are more likely to make an exception for a vulnerable person, but being female and unaccompanied doesn't automatically mean she's vulnerable.

 

[MKB]

Her gender and the fact she was by herself isn't relevant. It might be rail staff are more likely to make an exception for a vulnerable person, but being female and unaccompanied doesn't automatically mean she's vulnerable.

...which is why I never said she was vulnerable. However, a male using his position of authority over a woman in ways that are entirely unwarranted is something that, rightly or wrongly, many women find intimidating and stressful.

 

[northwichcat]

...which is why I never said she was vulnerable. However, a male using his position of authority over a woman in ways that are entirely unwarranted is something that, rightly or wrongly, many women find intimidating and stressful.

But it remains something irrelevant and adding the word woman or female to a sentence (when it's not required) is something that annoys many independent women.

 

[nw1]

Well realistically speaking, either chance it and hope the guard doesn't try and charge them (or that RPIs issue a PF/MG11) - or wait. I mean, what other alternatives are there if you don't have the money?

It seems extraordinarily unreasonable in this case, given that it would be a three hour wait (and actually, a 15-hour wait given the 1022 was also cancelled).

It seems extraordinary that the common-sense approach of letting the passenger travel on the next train was not allowed in this case, especially given the next Avanti train was in three hours and especially as the passenger boarded a Regional Express type train which could perhaps be seen as a "downgrade" from an IC - so it's not like the German situation in which tickets for RE trains cannot be used on IC/ICE.