Updated National Rail Conditions of Travel (NRCoT) - Effective from 6th February 2022

[CyrusWuff]

Mod Note: A copy of the new NRCoT can be found in this post.

Rail Delivery Group sent out a staff brief yesterday to advise of an updated version of the National Rail Conditions of Travel that's effective from 6th February 2022.

Unfortunately they haven't uploaded it to either the public NRE website or KnowledgeBase as yet, but the preamble states "This edition of the NRCoT contains a number of amendments to existing Conditions that train operating companies have proposed which provide additional clarity for passengers."

 

[Starmill]

How interesting.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Would it be cynical of me to suggest that the changes are unlikely to be in the passengers' favour? (As an aside, it's slightly noteworthy that RDG have chosen to call them passengers rather than customers for a change.)

 

[yorkie]

They are eroding our rights in terms of Delay Repay; more to follow in due course.

 

[STINT47]

I doubt this will be beneficial to customers.

With the rise in split ticketing by ordinary passengers (not just enthusiasts) It wouldn't surprise me if break of journey and split ticketing are banned to make people pay more.

It would please TOCs and the goverment who want to reduce subsidies.

 

[yorkie]

I doubt this will be beneficial to customers.

With the rise in split ticketing by ordinary passengers (not just enthusiasts) It wouldn't surprise me if break of journey and split ticketing are banned to make people pay more.

It would please TOCs and the goverment who want to reduce subsidies.

No, they are not going to do that.

 

[robbeech]

We could all guess the things that might be on it.
2200 the day before is the contracted timetable / delay repay capped at 100% of the single ticket cost / alsorts but we would risk having to move the thread to speculative ideas so it’s best to just wait and see how the value of our tickets will be decimated this time.

The clue is “that the train operating companies have proposed” so we can all guess which way it will go. Made up rules disguised as ‘clarity’.

 

[furlong]

The rationale and who wanted what changed and why tend to get released after the event anyway these days via FOI requests, so why don't they just deal with this up-front and publish drafts of the proposed changes with reasoning so that the public can provide their input into the process too? More people reviewing it before it's finally set in stone ought to lead to a better document for all in the end. The way Delay Repay has been rolled out is unforgivable. It needed a documented national approach so everyone knew where they stood, instead of all the contradictions we have today, where one TOC can treat a refund for cancellation as a Delay Repay claim while another can treat the same claim as an attempted fraud etc.

 

[robbeech]

The rationale and who wanted what changed and why tend to get released after the event anyway these days via FOI requests, so why don't they just deal with this up-front and publish drafts of the proposed changes with reasoning so that the public can provide their input into the process too? More people reviewing it before it's finally set in stone ought to lead to a better document for all in the end. The way Delay Repay has been rolled out is unforgivable. It needed a documented national approach so everyone knew where they stood, instead of all the contradictions we have today, where one TOC can treat a refund for cancellation as a Delay Repay claim while another can treat the same claim as an attempted fraud etc.

The more that read it and throw ideas around the more chance some of the crafty tricks to reduce flexibility will be brought into question. Can’t have that.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I doubt this will be beneficial to customers.

With the rise in split ticketing by ordinary passengers (not just enthusiasts) It wouldn't surprise me if break of journey and split ticketing are banned to make people pay more.

It would please TOCs and the goverment who want to reduce subsidies.

Legal precedent means splitting cannot be banned under English law. It is banned in Ireland, so I am sure if they could...

They are eroding our rights in terms of Delay Repay; more to follow in due course.

Bound to the ticket, perhaps, so a split is no longer DRable as one? That is the obvious one to do.

 

[RJ]

Delay Repay is a means for people to easily claim free money they're not entitled to. What are the odds the changes being made are designed to reduce fraudulent use of the scheme?

It's also a nice thing for passengers to be able to claim for a whole journey on split tickets given the way the term "journey" is defined in the CoT, but I've often wondered what business sense this makes allowing this. It creates situations where you're almost guaranteed to get 50-100% back on certain journeys, many of which are high ticket, in all legitimacy!

 

[plugwash]

It's also a nice thing for passengers to be able to claim for a whole journey on split tickets given the way the term "journey" is defined in the CoT, but I've often wondered what business sense this makes allowing this. It creates situations where you're almost guaranteed to get 50-100% back on certain journeys, many of which are high ticket, in all legitimacy!

You can probably achieve that without split ticketing, just look for a long journey with lots of tight interchanges and that ends with a service that only runs every 2 hours.

 

[Hadders]

Spilt ticketing won't be banned. Even the Governemnt operated LNER is selling split tickets now.

 

[Haywain]

Spilt ticketing won't be banned. Even the Governemnt operated LNER is selling split tickets now.

Strictly speaking, they’re not. They are selling a ticket at the split price.

 

[island]

I see no real way split ticketing on single/return tickets could be banned via the NRCoT, it would require legislation as was done in Ireland. They could change the rules on splits with a season ticket to require the train stop at the calling point but I see no reason why they would; that is a very minor use case and the TOCs generally try to avoid pissing off season ticket holders.

DelayRepay on split tickets could however be cut back, such as by limiting it to the leg on which the delay was incurred. There’s also the possibility that it could be clarified/amended to be based on the timetable as of the day before travel and not the timetable at the day of booking.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

Split ticketing is not banned in the new NRCOT. The brief says the wording has been amended, but I can't see any material change to the meaning.

We could all guess the things that might be on it.
2200 the day before is the contracted timetable /

This does now appear to be the case.

If I read it right then if the timetable which was published at the time you booked your ticket is changed then all you are entitled to is a fee free refund or to travel as per the new times.

It suggests compensation for delays is paid based on the timetable published at 2200 the night before.

 

[Class800]

Split ticketing is not banned in the new NRCOT. The brief says the wording has been amended, but I can't see any material change to the meaning.


This does now appear to be the case.

If I read it right then if the timetable which was published at the time you booked your ticket is changed then all you are entitled to is a fee free refund or to travel as per the new times.

It suggests compensation for delays is paid based on the timetable published at 2200 the night before.

Would that be compatible with contract law? I am no expert on contract law - just questioning whether this could be an issue

 

[AM9]

Would that be compatible with contract law? I am no expert on contract law - just questioning whether this could be an issue

That could be even more problematic if on a split journey, one of the early connections were missed following a late timetable tweak causing a ticket for a subsequent leg to be outside it's validity.

 

[island]

Would that be compatible with contract law? I am no expert on contract law - just questioning whether this could be an issue

Almost certainly. The law supports freedom of individuals and companies to contract or not in accordance with what terms they wish, subject to the protection against contracts that are manifestly unfair. This is a fairly high burden – see schedule 2 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

It should be noted that DelayRepay is merely one, (usually) low-friction, way of obtaining compensation when a consumer has been affected by a late running or cancelled train service. The consumer may seek redress under Part 1 Chapter 4 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 for failure to provide a service with reasonable care and skill, or damages under common law for breach of the contract. Naturally, a consumer may not receive compensation more than once for the same loss.

 

[Class800]

I had anticipated that the contract is made at the time of purchase based on the terms and timetable at the time - this is what appears problematic

That could be even more problematic if on a split journey, one of the early connections were missed following a late timetable tweak causing a ticket for a subsequent leg to be outside it's validity.

It would make advance split tickets very difficult to use

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

I had anticipated that the contract is made at the time of purchase based on the terms and timetable at the time - this is what appears problematic


It would make advance split tickets very difficult to use

The contract is indeed made made at time of purchase, which will now state that the timetable is taken as that of 22.00 the evening before the journey, so it doesn't matter when you purchase the ticket you would have agreed to that when purchasing.

 

[island]

What we have at the moment, de facto at any rate, is the railway saying that for an advance both a split ticket and a through ticket mean, for example:
"Assuming you get to Scarborough station in time, we will carry you on the 11:34 from Scarborough to York and the 12:32 from York to Kings Cross, and if you catch the first train but miss the second, we will carry you on a later train to Kings Cross, and pay you compensation if you arrive in Kings Cross 15 minutes late or more."

What they could decide to say, for those purchasing tickets after the new NRCoT come in, is that a through ticket from Scarborough to London Terminals retains the above meaning, and a split at York with separate advances will then mean:
"Assuming you get to Scarborough station in time, we will carry you on the 11:34 from Scarborough to York. If you get to York on time, we will carry you on the 12:32 from York to Kings Cross. If you don't, you will need to obtain a new ticket to continue your journey. We will pay you compensation based on the price of the ticket you were using at the time you incurred the delay if the train arrives at the destination printed on the ticket more than 15 minutes late."
Nothing stops the railway from changing the terms upon which it will offer tickets, and nothing forces customers to buy them on those terms or any terms at all. A customer wishing to be protected in the event of a missed connection retains the option to purchase a through ticket. To the extent this is at a higher cost, it is no different to goods and services purchased elsewhere, where one generally tends to pay a higher price for better quality.

In the (currently theoretical) scenario I've just described, a customer would retain the right to claim damages, including consequential losses such as the cost of a new LNER ticket, from TransPennine, though such a claim would likely require the passenger to prove that TransPennine were at fault for the delay.

In short, all these changes, which the railway is at liberty to make, would serve the purpose of discouraging the use of split ticketing, which is undoubtedly irksome and customer-unfriendly, but does not appear to me to be illegal.

 

[Class800]

The contract is indeed made made at time of purchase, which will now state that the timetable is taken as that of 22.00 the evening before the journey, so it doesn't matter when you purchase the ticket you would have agreed to that when purchasing.

But would it potentially mean the TOC has no responsibility to allow the journey to be completed? If so, it is a major unravelling of customer protection on the railways - and in my lay opinion would seem to fit the term 'manifestly unfair'.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

But would it potentially mean the TOC has no responsibility to allow the journey to be completed? If so, it is a major unravelling of customer protection on the railways - and in my lay opinion would seem to fit the term 'manifestly unfair'.

You would be entitled to a fee free change of journey time or travel at the new time. So yes there is always an option to complete the journey.

 

[Class800]

What we have at the moment, de facto at any rate, is the railway saying that for an advance both a split ticket and a through ticket mean, for example:
"Assuming you get to Scarborough station in time, we will carry you on the 11:34 from Scarborough to York and the 12:32 from York to Kings Cross, and if you catch the first train but miss the second, we will carry you on a later train to Kings Cross, and pay you compensation if you arrive in Kings Cross 15 minutes late or more."

What they could decide to say, for those purchasing tickets after the new NRCoT come in, is that a through ticket from Scarborough to London Terminals retains the above meaning, and a split at York with separate advances will then mean:
"Assuming you get to Scarborough station in time, we will carry you on the 11:34 from Scarborough to York. If you get to York on time, we will carry you on the 12:32 from York to Kings Cross. If you don't, you will need to obtain a new ticket to continue your journey. We will pay you compensation based on the price of the ticket you were using at the time you incurred the delay if the train arrives at the destination printed on the ticket more than 15 minutes late."
Nothing stops the railway from changing the terms upon which it will offer tickets, and nothing forces customers to buy them on those terms or any terms at all. A customer wishing to be protected in the event of a missed connection retains the option to purchase a through ticket. To the extent this is at a higher cost, it is no different to goods and services purchased elsewhere, where one generally tends to pay a higher price for better quality.

In the (currently theoretical) scenario I've just described, a customer would retain the right to claim damages, including consequential losses such as the cost of a new LNER ticket, from TransPennine, though such a claim would likely require the passenger to prove that TransPennine were at fault for the delay.

In short, all these changes, which the railway is at liberty to make, would serve the purpose of discouraging the use of split ticketing, which is undoubtedly irksome and customer-unfriendly, but does not appear to me to be illegal.

It would put me off travelling by train - we need courts to be much more pro-customer in their interpretations, but it is a long shot. I would definitely see the scenario you describe as 'manifestly unfair' - and think courts and government should do more to ensure customer protections are not eroded. It is manifestly unfair that you would need a new ticket if the train is late and it isn't your fault, surely?

You would be entitled to a fee free change of journey time or travel at the new time. So yes there is always an option to complete the journey.

Not really - complete the journey to me means complete the journey at the time you booked that fits with your plans you made around your ticket. Where is the rail minister in all this - if he cared about customers he would stop this now, but he doesn't care at all

 

[Bletchleyite]

It would put me off travelling by train - we need courts to be much more pro-customer in their interpretations, but it is a long shot. I would definitely see the scenario you describe as 'manifestly unfair' - and think courts and government should do more to ensure customer protections are not eroded. It is manifestly unfair that you would need a new ticket if the train is late and it isn't your fault, surely?

Yes, I have a problem with this. I also have a problem with the idea that the railway can randomly remove late night trains without providing alternative transport/hotel accommodation provided they do it by 2200 the day before, with people potentially only finding out when they arrive at the station and are stranded.

We actually need to go further on this in my view, and allow people flexibility on Advance tickets if any public transport to the station (bus, Tube, tram etc) is delayed, provided a specified connection time is allowed. This is necessary to encourage bus+train+bus type journeys which are presently discouraged by the risk they pose of having to buy a new ticket.

What I don't have a problem with is restriction in Delay Repay, even more substantially than they are proposing. My personal take is that were it not for EU law (codified in UK law) I would abolish it and reinvest the money and costs of operating it in service improvements, though that's obviously one for another thread which I think we've had before.

As a question to those who have seen the new document, do these reduced rights specifically refer to Delay Repay (in which case my view is "whatever", because I'd rather all my trains were on time than any Delay Repay was ever paid to me, and indeed most of the time they are give or take the odd bit of 5 minute sloppiness which doesn't entitle me to any anyway), or do they also refer to your rights in the event of a missed connection or cancellation, e.g. the South Western Railway thread going on at the moment?

 

[Class800]

I will need to go to do other things but I feel a bit like 'we're doomed' (Baldrick) - this sort of thing is such a major change it is shocking to me that it isn't going through a 6 to 12 month public consultation with ultimately customers' wishes being number 1. What's being proposed doesn't fit with the GBR model of bringing back British rail - to me at least

 

[Bletchleyite]

I will need to go to do other things but I feel a bit like 'we're doomed' (Baldrick) - this sort of thing is such a major change it is shocking to me that it isn't going through a 6 to 12 month public consultation with ultimately customers' wishes being number 1.

It depends exactly what it is.

If this refers only to Delay Repay, then it's the policy many TOCs have been using anyway, though many haven't (e.g. Virgin West Coast used the timetable at purchase), and as such it genuinely is a clarification, a bit like the whole debate about whether you can claim 200% Delay Repay if delayed 2+ hours both ways or not which could also do with being clarified one way or the other in writing. In some contexts it might actually improve rights, as some TOCs were only paying out on the timetable published at the time of the incident, so if e.g. you had a derailment at 6am on the WCML and the emergency 2 track timetable was put in place, they'd not count the missing Brum, Manc and Trings as cancellations.

If this refers to rights when stranded, whether on split tickets or not, this is completely unacceptable, and it needs to e.g. be all over the Press to scandalise it and make them back down. Anything involving vulnerable people* being stranded, or poor people being unable to feed themselves for a week due to having to buy an Anytime ticket a bonus.

Can anyone who has a copy clarify what the exact scope of this is? Which of those it means will depend on where it appears in the document and what the exact wording is.

* This is a time when the "RailUK standard minority" needs to be invoked - the more protected characteristics/vulnerabilities the stranded person in the newspaper article has, the better!

 

[island]

It would put me off travelling by train - we need courts to be much more pro-customer in their interpretations, but it is a long shot. I would definitely see the scenario you describe as 'manifestly unfair' - and think courts and government should do more to ensure customer protections are not eroded. It is manifestly unfair that you would need a new ticket if the train is late and it isn't your fault, surely?

If you want to make a through journey and have all the protections you wish to have, you always retain the option to simply buy a through ticket.

 

[Haywain]

A couple of quick points:

The only notable change to split ticketing is an information box stating that tickets cannot be split at a pick-up only or set-down only station because one will not be valid to leave/join the train at that station.

The other changes under discussion here, revolving around what is termed in NRCoT as the "Published Timetable of the Day" are to be found with reference to compensation and refunds. However, there would seem to be an implied responsibility to check the timetable before travelling - in my view.