Commuter wins legal battle against FCC

[whole diary]

[adc82140]

There is one route in FGW^▸ (First Great Western) land which is just 45 chains over being valid according to the 3 mile rule:

Overton to London Terminals first class- ^6752 per year

Reading to London Terminals first class- ^8756 per year

Looking at the distances, Overton to Paddington via Reading is 59 miles 10 chains

Overton to Waterloo is 55 miles 45 chains.

So sadly Overton to Paddington ("breaking the journey at Reading") is not valid. Shame 

Edit:  However, Bramley or Mortimer to Paddington (specific validity via Reading) on a First Class annual is a good couple of hundred quid cheaper than the Reading ticket

[thetrout]

OVR (Overton) - PAD^» (Paddington (London) - next trains) (London Paddington) Tickets route: ANY PERMITTED are valid via Reading

IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion), unless and until the rule on 'shortest route' is changed, a Watford North - Zones 1-6 fare will continue to be valid via St Albans. The NRCoC^▸ (National Rail Conditions of Carriage) refer to the Routeing Guide, and the Routeing Guide says you only need to consult the maps and easements if you are not travelling on a direct train nor via the shortest route.

If I had the minerals I'd buy such a ticket and let myself be taken to court by FCC^▸ (First Capital Connect).

I agree on both counts BNM. It's a contradictory rule and the blanket "Shortest Route" rule surely must override any such restriction.

During CrossCountry diversions via Westbury, tickets that ordinary would not be valid via Westbury become automatically valid because of the "Through Train" rule, so no easements need to be made for those diversions.

Similarly during the Reading Blockade in December 2010 The "through train" rule meant that tickets from London Waterloo - Basingstoke and beyond were valid via Virginia Water on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) Services.

It's fair to say I'm ******* spitting feathers over this. I fully intend to join those from other forums who are planning to head to Watford North, buy a Watford North - Zones 1-6 Travelcard and travel to Elstree & Borehamwood via St Albans.

I'm not exactly happy about it either. For someone such as myself with Autism, this is giving me a severe headache (let alone everyone else with it!). The new rule insists that journeys must be cross checked via the Journey Planner. Except the journey planner isn't exactly known for accuracy is it?

So we now have a ticket system with rules that contradict each other. I've checked the easements I use and they are still there and do not appear in the journey planner still. So I'm going to continue to use them. If I find myself with RPI^▸ (Revenue Protection Inspector (or Retail Price Index, depending on the context)) interruptions then I will comply of course, but will take it to court.

How can you impose a restriction against passengers to use a journey planner which is not fit for purpose, gives incorrect information and ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here) vs. NRCoC contradict each other?

Assuming hypothetically that ATOC win a new case against a Watford North - Z1-6 Ticket Revolt does that mean I can breach any article in the NRCoC?? No. But that is the message it will send out...

I think the ATOC rule stinks and is going to cause far more problems than were there previously.

Things are about to get interesting... *gets popcorn*

[bobm]

Similarly during the Reading Blockade in December 2010 The "through train" rule meant that tickets from London Waterloo - Basingstoke and beyond were valid via Virginia Water on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) Services.

I guess that is that why they made the Basingstoke stop pick up only to prevent people using FGW services ahead of SWT^▸ (South West Trains) ones.

[Chris from Nailsea]

From the original reporting of this particular incident, and in a rather less ... erm, hyperbolic manner than the Daily Mail article quoted in the original post in this topic - from the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page):

FCC^▸ (First Capital Connect) offered to settle out of court on a non-disclosure basis but Mr Myers said there was "a public interest in the claim being heard".

At St Albans County Court, Mr Myers showed, through emails obtained under the Data Protection Act, that the company had continued to fight his claim, despite being told by the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here)) that the route was valid.

A judge awarded him ^2,193, which included his court costs and ^288 for hours he spent on the case, and ruled FCC's behaviour in continuing to fight his claim "unreasonable".

"Sometimes you have to fight, the small man fought and the small man won," Mr Myers said.

Afterwards, FCC said Mr Myers had uncovered a "previously unknown apparent historic routing guide anomaly", which dated back to the days of British Rail.

A spokesman said the company had "queried the issue with ATOC... they subsequently advised us that they had rectified the apparent anomaly but that turns out not to have been the case".

"Clearly we will evaluate carefully what the court has said."

An ATOC statement said it was an "error that has been corrected".

"Tickets and travelcards from Watford North to London are not valid via St Albans," it said.

"Information systems are being updated as quickly as possible to ensure all prices are accurately displayed."