Trainline.com - Incorrect Train Information Complaint

NBLondon

yorkie2 wrote: »

Are you suggesting that a passenger travelling from Sheffield to London via Doncaster should purchase a Sheffield to Doncaster ticket from Northern, and a Doncaster to London ticket from LNER?

Buy both from LNER - if two tickets works out significantly cheaper than buying a through ticket from LNER. (I'd buy both from Hull Trains, personally.)

An itinerary and any further instructions issued in conjunction with the ticket, are all evidence of the contractual terms applicable to the fare held.

Wouldn't that depend on who the contract is with? An itinerary issued by Trainline (in this case) is part of the contract with Trainline - but it isn't necessarily part of the contract with the TOC. It goes the other way though - the contract with the TOC for supply of travel and ticket should ripple through.

I have no idea why you are bringing a suggestion of a break of journey to go shopping into this discussion; it's irrelevant and unwarranted.

It's an exploration of your use of the term "appropriate service" If it's an Advance Single tied to a specific seat and service on the DON to LKX leg then what is an "appropriate" service on the SHF to DON leg? The one that's on the itinerary? The one that connects 10 to 15 minutes before the next leg? Any Northern service that day? Any Northern or TPE service that day?

Hence the OP's question on 31st December whether the easement affected the first leg...

My recommendation, to avoid erroneous 'advice' posted on this forum, is to ask for advice on a dedicated rail fare advice & policy forum, where there are knowledgeable experts on hand to give correct and informed answers.

Well - yeah - you will get some more knowledgeable people - and some more argumentative people - and possibly a deeper digression into minutiae.

Me - well - I only make that trip Sheffield to London via Doncaster several times a year.

Kiko4564

Fully agreed yorkie. Or failing that the OP can always follow my advice above.

yorkie2

NBLondon wrote: »

Buy both from LNER - if two tickets works out significantly cheaper than buying a through ticket from LNER. (I'd buy both from Hull Trains, personally.)

So, like me, you disagree with the suggestion that the retailer has no "authority" and that you should book directly with the operator, as mentioned in the following post by Chino:

Chino wrote: »

The only "authority" that the OP had was from Trainline, not from the train operator. Presumably Trainline, as a mere ticket retailer, is not empowered to unilaterally provide such authorisation to travel on alternative services.

The moral is to never use a ticket retailer; always purchase tickets directly from the operator.

It is an absurd suggestion which would mean a passenger travelling from (say) St Ives to Tain would need to make at least four separate transactions to buy tickets directly from each operator. This would potentially weaken the contractual position, not strengthen it.

NBLondon wrote: »

Wouldn't that depend on who the contract is with?
An itinerary issued by Trainline (in this case) is part of the contract with Trainline - but it isn't necessarily part of the contract with the TOC. It goes the other way though - the contract with the TOC for supply of travel and ticket should ripple through.

When you buy a Ticket to travel on scheduled train services on the National Rail Network you enter into a binding contract with each of the Train Companies whose trains your Ticket allows you to use.

NBLondon wrote: »

It's an exploration of your use of the term "appropriate service" If it's an Advance Single tied to a specific seat and service on the DON to LKX leg then what is an "appropriate" service on the SHF to DON leg? The one that's on the itinerary? The one that connects 10 to 15 minutes before the next leg? Any Northern service that day? Any Northern or TPE service that day?

Hence the OP's question on 31st December whether the easement affected the first leg...

Are you trying to suggest that it would be correct to deny entry to an appropriate connecting train, and that a train that the passenger was authorised/instructed to catch from Doncaster could not be reached by connecting service from Sheffield, on the basis that it is somehow not "appropriate" for a passenger to take that connecting service?

NBLondon wrote: »

Well - yeah - you will get some more knowledgeable people - and some more argumentative people - and possibly a deeper digression into minutiae.

Me - well - I only make that trip Sheffield to London via Doncaster several times a year.

You will get people who actually work in the rail industry answering with knowledgeable, informed responses.


It sounds to me that you do not know the details of how contracts work on the railway, and therefore I would question whether you are in a position to provide accurate advice.


You have to consider not only the ticket T&Cs but also the National Rail Conditions of Travel, and overarching legislation such as consumer and contract laws.

NBLondon

yorkie2 wrote: »

So, like me, you disagree with the suggestion that the retailer has no "authority" and that you should book directly with the operator, as mentioned in the following post by Chino:

Nope. I am only agreeing with the principle of buying from the TOC directly rather than through the Trainline and suggesting that if it is financially efficient to buy separate tickets for each leg that should also be done with a TOC of choice. Remember what this site is called again?

It is an absurd suggestion which would mean a passenger travelling from (say) St Ives to Tain would need to make at least four separate transactions to buy tickets directly from each operator.

Of course it is absurd to say it is needed - but it may be financially more efficient than buying a through ticket.

This would potentially weaken the contractual position, not strengthen it.

Is it because you might be considered to have entered into multiple separate contracts? You could be right. So there's a trade-off between risk and cost.

When you buy a Ticket to travel on scheduled train services on the National Rail Network you enter into a binding contract with each of the Train Companies whose trains your Ticket allows you to use.

Indeed you do. And if you have bought your ticket through an agent or re-seller then the terms carry through. What exactly is this "itinerary" we speak of? It's the intended plan of travel and it summarises the services that have been contracted for with the TOC. However, if the agent then adds extra elements or information - how can that be binding on the TOC? Hence my question - did the Trainline give out wrong information (not part of the contract with LNER) or did LNER give wrong information to Trainline?

And how does the "itinerary" become an "authority"? The ticket(s) form the authority to travel surely? And additional authority (in the form of amendments) can be created by the TOCs not necessarily by the agent.

Are you trying to suggest that it would be correct to deny entry to an appropriate connecting train, and that a train that the passenger was authorised/instructed to catch from Doncaster could not be reached by connecting service from Sheffield, on the basis that it is somehow not "appropriate" for a passenger to take that connecting service?

I am not suggesting anything. I am trying to find out what the term "appropriate" means by using examples. You are now muddying the waters by arguing a self-contradicting scenario.

You will get people who actually work in the rail industry answering with knowledgeable, informed responses.

And maybe some who will explain things as opposed to pontificating and snorting?

It sounds to me that you do not know the details of how contracts work on the railway, and therefore I would question whether you are in a position to provide accurate advice.

I make no claims to do so. I haven't provided any actual advice beyond "Buy from your preferred TOC rather than from the Trainline" Kiko's advice to complain to both parties about the misleading information seems sound and I would agree with them.

You have to consider not only the ticket T&Cs but also the National Rail Conditions of Travel, and overarching legislation such as consumer and contract laws.

Quite so. Now if only there was someone knowledgeable around who could explain what element of these means that Northern must abide by an easement made by LNER or that LNER and Northern must abide by information unilaterally or even mistakenly given by Trainline.

Kiko4564

NBLondon wrote: »

Nope. I am only agreeing with the principle of buying from the TOC directly rather than through the Trainline and suggesting that if it is financially efficient to buy separate tickets for each leg that should also be done with a TOC of choice. Remember what this site is called again?
Of course it is absurd to say it is needed - but it may be financially more efficient than buying a through ticket. Is it because you might be considered to have entered into multiple separate contracts? You could be right. So there's a trade-off between risk and cost.
Indeed you do. And if you have bought your ticket through an agent or re-seller then the terms carry through. What exactly is this "itinerary" we speak of? It's the intended plan of travel and it summarises the services that have been contracted for with the TOC. However, if the agent then adds extra elements or information - how can that be binding on the TOC? Hence my question - did the Trainline give out wrong information (not part of the contract with LNER) or did LNER give wrong information to Trainline?

And how does the "itinerary" become an "authority"? The ticket(s) form the authority to travel surely? And additional authority (in the form of amendments) can be created by the TOCs not necessarily by the agent.
I am not suggesting anything. I am trying to find out what the term "appropriate" means by using examples. You are now muddying the waters by arguing a self-contradicting scenario.

And maybe some who will explain things as opposed to pontificating and snorting?

I make no claims to do so. I haven't provided any actual advice beyond "Buy from your preferred TOC rather than from the Trainline" Kiko's advice to complain to both parties about the misleading information seems sound and I would agree with them.
Quite so. Now if only there was someone knowledgeable around who could explain what element of these means that Northern must abide by an easement made by LNER or that LNER and Northern must abide by information unilaterally or even mistakenly given by Trainline.

Thank you very much, good to know. As for information given by the Trainline, when you purchase from them you are legally entering into a contract with the Train Operating Companies (or Company) that operates the service(s) you travel on, not necessarily with the Retailer. Therefore information given by the Trainline is contractually binding regardless. As for Northern being obliged to abide by an easement made by LNER, it would depend on the circumstances. If the two companies formally agreed to it, or if you bought your tickets from LNER and that was put on the itinerary then yes, Northern must abide by whatever is on it. Whilst you legally need a ticket to travel, and it is indeed evidence of your contract, which expressly requires that you must purchase, carry, and produce a ticket, an itinerary can grant additional validity to a ticket which would not otherwise be valid on the services of a specified company, or on a specific route, etc.

yorkie2

NBLondon wrote: »

Nope. I am only agreeing with the principle of buying from the TOC directly rather than through the Trainline and suggesting that if it is financially efficient to buy separate tickets for each leg that should also be done with a TOC of choice. Remember what this site is called again?

How is booking a Northern service on the LNER website booking "from the TOC directly"?



The question is whether or not the passenger is allowed to take an earlier/later Northern service (between Sheffield and Doncaster) ; another user suggested that people should book a ticket directly with the operator of the service (ie. Northern in this case), which is nonsense.


I don't really understand what you are trying to say; your points appear to be muddled.

NBLondon wrote: »

Of course it is absurd to say it is needed - but it may be financially more efficient than buying a through ticket.

Yes, it may be. But it equally may not be. But that isn't the question that was asked. The question was whether or not it would be appropriate to take a Northern train between Sheffield and Doncaster to the one on the original itinerary. The answer to that is clearly yes, it would be appropriate to take a connecting train at a time that connects with the train from Doncaster to London.

NBLondon wrote: »

Is it because you might be considered to have entered into multiple separate contracts? You could be right. So there's a trade-off between risk and cost.

There is a right to using two or more tickets for one journey; that is isn't in dispute. However this journey uses multiple operators; it is not possible to purchase "directly" from each operator without purchasing the tickets for the journey from multiple retailers. This doesn't necessarily reduce rights but it makes the position less clear and means that if one operator/retailer was to grant you additional rights to take an alternative service, it is far less clear what the position is regrading the connecting leg.


But this isn't really the question at all; it was another user complicating the matter by suggesting that you should book directly from the operator concerned. I was pointing out that this was flawed.

NBLondon wrote: »

Indeed you do. And if you have bought your ticket through an agent or re-seller then the terms carry through. What exactly is this "itinerary" we speak of? It's the intended plan of travel and it summarises the services that have been contracted for with the TOC. However, if the agent then adds extra elements or information - how can that be binding on the TOC? Hence my question - did the Trainline give out wrong information (not part of the contract with LNER) or did LNER give wrong information to Trainline?

I would argue that this is an internal rail industry dispute that the customer doesn't need to worry about.



The customer should adhere to any advice from the retailer, which was in written form so could easily be referred to.


It is my understanding that the question is whether or not Northern would be bound to allow travel on an alternative service, and I am absolutely certain that there would have been no problems whatsoever in taking an alternative Northern service in order to connect.


The chances of Northern staff querying this are remote; if shown the advice from the retailer then I can almost guarantee that would have been the end of the matter. In the incredibly unlikely event that Northern disagreed with the advice, that's up to them to contact the retailer and/or other TOC, as appropriate. It's not the customers' concern.

NBLondon wrote: »

And how does the "itinerary" become an "authority"? The ticket(s) form the authority to travel surely? And additional authority (in the form of amendments) can be created by the TOCs not necessarily by the agent.

The itinerary contains evidence of the terms of the contract; any further guidance regarding alternative provision is also evidence.

NBLondon wrote: »

I am not suggesting anything. I am trying to find out what the term "appropriate" means by using examples. You are now muddying the waters by arguing a self-contradicting scenario.

If there is any doubt about the meaning of a term, then the interpretation that favours the customer is that which must prevail.

NBLondon wrote: »

And maybe some who will explain things as opposed to pontificating and snorting?


I make no claims to do so. I haven't provided any actual advice beyond "Buy from your preferred TOC rather than from the Trainline"

The question here was whether or not Northern would accept this ticket; I don't understand how it makes a difference if the ticket was purchased from a "preferred TOC rather than from the Trainline"?

NBLondon wrote: »

Kiko's advice to complain to both parties about the misleading information seems sound and I would agree with them.
Quite so. Now if only there was someone knowledgeable around who could explain what element of these means that Northern must abide by an easement made by LNER or that LNER and Northern must abide by information unilaterally or even mistakenly given by Trainline.

It's pretty clear that the ticket was valid on alternative Northern services in order to comply with any instructions given by LNER/Trainline; any suggestion that it was not valid on alternative Northern services in accordance with this is clearly false.

NBLondon

You're now being obtuse yorkie. Possibly as a way of avoiding the questions...

How is booking a Northern service on the LNER website booking "from the TOC directly"?

In the sense of not using the Trainline.... I said I would prefer to use Hull Trains (because I like their website better and to earn Nectar points). I'm sure you are well aware that any TOC will sell you tickets on any other TOC's services.

The question was whether or not it would be appropriate to take a Northern train between Sheffield and Doncaster to the one on the original itinerary.

Assuming the word you have missed out is "different" - yes it was.

The answer to that is clearly yes, it would be appropriate to take a connecting train at a time that connects with the train from Doncaster to London.

Now this is different to what you said earlier - you said an "appropriate train". And I'm asking what that phrase means... One that connects 10 to 15 minutes before the scheduled departure from Doncaster would be appropriate in most people's view - but not necessarily one that connects 2 and a half hours before. Is there an actual definition of appropriate in any of the regulations etc.?

If there is any doubt about the meaning of a term, then the interpretation that favours the customer is that which must prevail.

Is that in any regulation etc. or just your opinion?

I would argue that this is an internal rail industry dispute that the customer doesn't need to worry about.

I thoroughly disagree. Who has the contract been formed with - the TOC or with Trainline - is crucial.

The itinerary contains evidence of the terms of the contract; any further guidance regarding alternative provision is also evidence.

Contract with whom?

This doesn't necessarily reduce rights but it makes the position less clear and means that if one operator/retailer was to grant you additional rights to take an alternative service, it is far less clear what the position is regrading the connecting leg

Exactly! If you are suggesting that buying from one retailer makes it clearer - then surely it must be because there is a contract with that retailer.

It's pretty clear that the ticket was valid on alternative Northern services in order to comply with any instructions given by LNER/Trainline; any suggestion that it was not valid on alternative Northern services in accordance with this is clearly false.

No it isn't. If it was a booking on a specific Northern service - then why would it magically become valid on any Northern service because of a change in a later leg run by another TOC? Particularly when the later leg was still scheduled and on time and it was the OP's (quite reasonable) choice to alter the itinerary. I don't doubt that most Northern staff wouldn't have an issue. Is there an agreement between TOCs to honour each other's easements?

NBLondon

Kiko4564 wrote: »

Thank you very much, good to know. As for information given by the Trainline, when you purchase from them you are legally entering into a contract with the Train Operating Companies (or Company) that operates the service(s) you travel on, not necessarily with the Retailer.

At last an answer - the contract is with the TOC rather than Trainline - who acts as an agent or a reseller.

Therefore information given by the Trainline is contractually binding regardless.

How come? You've just said the contract is with the TOC... information supplied from the TOC via Trainline to the customer forms part of the contract but are the TOC bound by any mistakes or extra information arising only from Trainline? Doesn't sound like a good agreement for the TOC.

As for Northern being obliged to abide by an easement made by LNER, it would depend on the circumstances. If the two companies formally agreed to it, or if you bought your tickets from LNER and that was put on the itinerary then yes, Northern must abide by whatever is on it.

If the easement was in place at the time of booking, then it's presumably part of the contract. If it was added later? Can one party to the contract make a change that binds the other? Depends if there's an existing agreement to cover the possibility I guess.

Whilst you legally need a ticket to travel, and it is indeed evidence of your contract, which expressly requires that you must purchase, carry, and produce a ticket, an itinerary can grant additional validity to a ticket which would not otherwise be valid on the services of a specified company, or on a specific route, etc.

Again - at time of booking - the itinerary forms part of the contract with the TOC. Can one party change the itinerary and have it be binding on the others? And in this case - can the agent/ reseller do that and when as you suggest before - they don't have a contract with the customer?

yorkie2

There is no point engaging in a circular argument; the ticket was valid on appropriate Northern services.


I'm telling you that a Northern service that connected into the revised timing of the LNER train is an appropriate service.


If you don't want to believe me that the OP's ticket was valid on such services, that is your choice, but I have no interest in arguing with you further.



https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/2/enacted?view=plain



"If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail."

Kiko4564

yorkie2 wrote: »

There is no point engaging in a circular argument; the ticket was valid on appropriate Northern services.


I'm telling you that a Northern service that connected into the revised timing of the LNER train is an appropriate service.


If you don't want to believe me that the OP's ticket was valid on such services, that is your choice, but I have no interest in arguing with you further.



https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2015/15/part/2/enacted?view=plain



"If a term in a consumer contract, or a consumer notice, could have different meanings, the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer is to prevail."

Well said yorkie. It is up to the OP what they wish to do.