Exchange of correspondence between Transport Focus and other organisations regarding the NRCoT

Sent to ATOC 23/10/2015

xxx,

In advance of next week’s meeting, please find our comments on the NRCoT draft and a few other related matters.

Kind regards,

xxxTransport Focus

Similar message to DfT same day:

Dear xxx,

In advance of next week’s meeting, our thoughts on NRCoT.

Kind regards,

xxxTransport Focus

with 2 documents attached to each e-mail: marked-up comments on the draft NRCoT - document A [separate

attachment] Transport Focus’s comments on the existing NRCoC and amendments

sought [Document B]

Document B

Transport Focus’s comments on the existing NRCoC and amendments sought

Review of the National Rail Conditions of Carriage

Introduction

The comments below reflect the areas of concern from the edition of the National Rail Conditions of Carriage valid from 19th July 2015.

The matters below are those which have not been covered to our satisfaction by the revised National Rail Conditions of Travel.

Your Rights – a summary (pa ge 4) The final bullet point of ‘You can’ on page 4: compensation must also apply to a delay on reaching an intermediate station if the passenger is breaking his journey.

Your obligations (pa ge 4 )

Our concernsIn the 1st bullet point: a passenger must either have a valid ticket or authority to board a train without a ticket. We are unhappy that the new version does not make the concept of ‘authority to travel’ as clear as it might be.

NRCoC 1 – clause (d) (page 5)“...the Conditions set out in the notices and other publications issued by another person if the ticket enables you to use any of their goods or services. Train Companies will ensure that you can be provided with or have access to the conditions applying to any ticket you buy, as well as the Byelaws, before you buy your ticket”.

Our concernsPassengers should have access to the details of such “notices and other publications” before they select which ticket to buy. Where can passengers reasonably and conveniently find out about such matters, especially when purchasing from a ticket machine and especially at an unstaffed station?

Non-provision of this information might well be deemed a failure to comply with the consumer protection aspects of the unfair trading regulations.

NRCoT proposes further “hidden clauses” which we oppose.

NRCoC 14 – Railcards (pa ge 11)

A Railcard-reduced ticket is valid only if the Railcard is produced en route to prove entitlement.

Our concernsIf a passenger is not carrying the Railcard when travelling he should be allowed to produce it for verification of validity within a specified time and thus avoid paying an excess/penalty fare.

Provision of a database of current Railcard validities would provide for this. It remains to be seen how much the recently-announced Railcard App will help resolve this problem.

NRCoC 16 – Starting, breaking or ending a journey at intermediatestations (pa ge 11)

Our concerns:Relevant break-of-journey conditions must be made clear to passengers for whom it is counterintuitive to be prohibited from ending their journey before the destination shown on the ticket or breaking their journey. Similarly, many passengers cannot appreciate the reason preventing them from boarding their specified train at a station after the starting point shown on the ticket. It would be more helpful if the first two bullet points under the “Your Rights” section at the start of the NRCoC were repeated here.

NRCoC 19 – Usin g a combination of tickets (pa ge 12) Use of a permitted combination of tickets for making a through journey.

Our concerns1. It is unclear whether a ticket from outside a zonal area to a point within a zonal

area (e.g. Cheshunt to London zones 5-6, counts as a “zonal ticket” in its own right, enabling it to be combined with a second zonal ticket, to permit through journeys without the requirement of trains to stop at the change-over point between tickets [NRCoC 19 (a)] required.

2. Equally unclear is whether TfL Oyster products count as a “season ticket or travel pass issued on behalf of a passenger transport executive or local authority” as no

definition of what constitutes such a ticket is given; different rules apply about the use of combinations of tickets involving certain local-authority travel documents.

NRCoC 23 – If a ticket is dama ged or altered (pa ge 13)“Damaged tickets” – [except season tickets, which are covered by NRCoC 33].

Our concernsThe procedure for dealing with damaged tickets (other than seasons), i.e. tickets upon which the relevant validity and journey details are no longer discernible, perhaps due to becoming wet or scratched etc., is ambiguous as the definition is unclear. 1. Are tickets whose details are illegible “damaged” (NRCoC 23) or “lost” (NRCoC

24)? 2. What is the procedure for their refund/replacement? 3. Do different arrangements apply in the case of paper versus electronic tickets? 4. How is NRCoC 9 affected in the case of damage to the electronic device storing

the electronic ticket being so extensive that the ticket element cannot be discerned?

NRCoC 26 – Refunds on tickets that have not been used (pa ge 14)

Ticket refund conditions

Our concerns1. How will passengers holding “Electronic tickets” or print-at-home tickets or

tickets purchased online be refunded? 2. It is unclear why Advance ticket holders should be treated differently from

holders of other tickets when the same circumstance of train delay or cancellation befalls them. In such cases, any return-leg Advance ticket should be fully refunded, if the passenger requires.

3. Refund administration fees should be based on “per transaction” not “per ticket” where tickets for the same journey by the same route are being refunded (e.g. where child and adult tickets for an identical journey are tendered for refund).

4. Given the increase of single-leg pricing, any two-leg journey (outwards from and back to the same point - should be considered as a single transaction for refund purposes, as would be the case for an equivalent “traditional” Return ticket.

5. A clear definition is needed on the status of online booking channels, e.g. The Trainline:

are they deemed to be “travel agencies”?; and how should refunds (immediate or otherwise) be handled?

6. We are concerned that passengers aboard a delayed train, not entitled by right to a full refund if the delay vitiates the purpose of their journey, are treated

differently to those who have not boarded a train and who are entitled to 100% refund.

NRCoC 27 – Method of refund (pa ge 15)

Our concernProvision should be made for train companies to provide cash refunds direct into the account of the person seeking the refund to reduce bureaucracy. At least one operator (HT) has begun such an operation.

NRCoC 36 – Season Ticket refunds (pa ge 17)

Conditions relating to season tickets

Our concernApproaches to us consistently show that passengers are not fully advised of the terms and conditions relating to refunds of (and other aspects of travel using) season tickets and the method of calculating refunds when season tickets are no longer required during their validity. To fulfil the requirements of the first and second bullet points on page 3 (“Your rights”) we have long recommended that train operators should issue details relating to season ticket validity alongside the ticket and with each renewal.

Similarly, greater detail should be given on the options to the holder if non-use due to longer-term illness occurs.

NRCoC 42 – Compensation for delays (pa ge 20)

Compensation for season-ticket holders whose journeys involve more than one operator’s trains.

Our concernWhere Delay Repay compensation does not apply, passengers using the services of an operator other than that which sold the ticket have been refused performance-related compensation. A season-ticket holder who experiences delay on his journey should be entitled to compensation from any operator running any service on which he has travelled and was delayed, regardless of “ownership” of the sales outlet where he bought the ticket.

O t h e r m a t t e r s(a) Advance tickets: severed connections

Our concernExplicit authority is needed to enable a passenger to travel by the next available train, when disruption/delay has caused him to miss a connecting train if adequate interchange time had been allowed for had the incoming service arrived punctually. The provision must ensure that any such delayed passenger may travel by the next available service, to minimise delay, regardless of the operator. We are concerned that operators may not always co-operate in reducing the level of disruption to the passenger who has fulfilled as far as he can the condition required of him to arrive at the departure station in time to travel by a specific train.(b) Outward journey delayed

Our concernA passenger holding an Advance or Off-peak ticket who is significantly delayed on the outward leg should be able to return by a later train to enable him to spend the same length of intended stay at his destination if he wishes – especially in the case of a same-day return – so that the visit is not curtailed as a result. (An Off-peak should be revalidated, if necessary, for return/onward travel in the peak under these circumstances.)

If a passenger holds an Advance ticket and his booked train is delayed, he should not have to wait a specified period before being permitted to travel by a different train. No such requirement is made if the intended train is cancelled.

A passenger holding an Advance ticket should not have to wait for the next train operated by the same company as this could delay his journey considerably, especially if that company’s service is infrequent. It is impossible to comply with the requirement if the cancelled train is that operator’s last train of the day.

Overall validity of non-Advance tickets should not be curtailed as a result of delay. A passenger’s right to break his journey should still be permitted if his journey has been disrupted.

(c) Purpose of journey vitiated

Our concernIf a journey is vitiated en route and the passenger abandons it, even though part has been made, he should be entitled to a full refund as if the ticket were wholly unused. For instance: a passenger from Stamford to York on reaching Peterborough finds that northbound services are drastically delayed and others cancelled due to overhead-wire problems and he returns immediately to Stamford by the next train; or, the train comes to an unscheduled stop and remains stationary for a long time following an incident so that by the time the train restarts, continuing the journey is pointless as the appointment has been missed.

Passengers who have not yet begun their journey are permitted – under NRCoC 26 (a) – to an immediate full refund of their ticket; worse conditions should not apply to passengers whose journey is underway when significant disruption occurs. EU legislation, not yet enacted in this country, intends this to be the case.

Initially created: Summer 2012. Last amended: October 2015

E-mail to ATOC, 30 Oct 2015

Dear xxx,

I’ve just seen xxx’s e-mail which has prompted me to write.

I’m grateful for the diversion via Pret a Manger on Tuesday to avoid me having to xxx.

I agree with xxx that the order needs looking at again.  I am relatively unbothered as to the actual order so long as it is easy to follow.

The Condition/compensation I was referring to at the meeting is in current Condition 41.  […] If the Train Company is unable to provide alternative equivalent accommodation for you or your cycle, you will be compensated for the inconvenience.  The value of the compensation will be no more than the price of the full single fare for the journey.  […]

Kind regards,

xxx

E-mail to ATOC 17 Sep 2015

Dear xxx,

Good to see you the other day.

We have received from xxx a PDF of the proposed NRCoT.  I’d be grateful if you could let us have a Word version of it.

Thanks and kind regards,

XxxTransport Focus

Response from ATOC, 17 Sep 2015

Sent: 17 September 2015 16:06Subject: RE: NRCoT

Hi xxx,

Here you go,

Kind regards

xxx

E-mail to ATOC, 9 November 2015

Dear xxx,

My apologies for not getting back to you sooner.  I was out of the office for most of last week.

It was a useful first meeting and covered a lot of ground.  I am sorry that we had to start off in Pret due to my xxx!  

I agree with xxx’s point that clarity is necessary over the subsidiarity or primacy of these conditions over contradictory or other conditions applied by operators such as TfL.

Some of our concerns about the apparent loosening of existing national conditions (e.g. over luggage or the carriage of domestic animals) were soothed by the confirmation that absolute clarity about them must be available at all points of purchase but we still remain wary that some operators may seek to reinterpret the intention.   Is the intention that passengers are informed only if they ask specifically?  It is not clear how this can be achieved given the dwindling number of staffed booking offices.

We appreciate the desire to reduce the number of appendices.  To achieve this, a wider use of URLs and pop-up information panels would be welcome.

Kind regards,

Xxx

Email from ATOC 22 July

Sent: 22 July 2016 17:18Subject: NRCOT draft with proposed revisions post-DfT review

Dear all

In preparation for the final review meeting scheduled to take place at the DfT next Wednesday 27th July, I attach a marked up and annotated draft of the NRCoT incorporating comments on all the points raised and (where appropriate) proposed revisions. 

This document uses a basis the annotated draft supplied by the DfT on 15 July, incorporating ATOC’s own responses and the final DfT response provided today (22 July).

I look forward to meeting with you next Wednesday where the intention is to confirm a final draft that will then need to be shared with the TOCs, subject to which it will then be submitted unaltered to the Minister.

Kind regards

xxx Association of Train Operating Companies

From ATOC:  

Sent: 20 July 2016 13:00Subject: RE: NRCOT Condition 33 and other changes

xxx

Thank you for this further update. We have already worked through the comments provided and in the majority of cases are willing to make changes as they do not materially affect the intent of the conditions. Provided you have sent all comments to us by Friday morning (22nd) we intend to circulate a draft to all parties by the end of the day on Friday 22nd, in advance of the meeting next Wednesday 27th July.

In the case of the revised Compensation paragraph we will recommend this to our members given the circumstances set out on xxx’s email (which we will share with members). We will however need their approval for this and all changes before the document can be passed to the Minister. On that basis I have set out the timetable below: 

w/e 22nd July (subject to receipt of DfT additional comments as noted below): Updated draft sent to all parties by ATOC

27th July – all parties present to agree finalised draft

27th July – draft circulated to ATOC Customer Experience Board to confirm agreement to final draft

5th August - deadline for agreement

8th August – subject to above, ATOC will confirm agreed draft for submission to the Minister

Please note that to have the Conditions in place on 1 October 2016 we will need to mobilise a MINIMUM of two weeks in advance. It will not be possible to commence the new Conditions on 1 October if notice of approval arrives closer to this date, as the mechanics of providing briefing and supporting material to TOCs and the training they need to provide to their staff (particularly Revenue Protection staff) means that some time is required to have the correct procedures in place.

We will be able to do a degree of advance briefing if we can be given confidence that formal approval will be forthcoming in time and we encourage the DfT to work with us to manage this process.  

xxx Association of Train Operating Companies

Sent: 19 July 2016 18:24Subject: RE: NRCOT Condition 33

xxx

Thank you for making yourself available for the meeting on 27/7/16, 1200-1400.

I will send a meeting invite on 20/7/16. 

 I will invite the ORR, Transport Focus and London TravelWatch.  

I confirm that the DfT has completed its review of the NRCoT and we have no additional comments on conditions which we have not previously commented on (except possibly the odd typo).

We have reviewed the comments which we have made previously and will be making additional comments on some of these on 21/7/16, possibly 22/7/16, to explain further why these points need to be taken on board, or in some cases do not need to be considered further.

Can you please issue to all parties a further revised version of the NRCoT with your response to these further DfT comments, so that everyone can see the latest version – and therefore have the opportunity to comment – either by email or at the meeting on 27/7/16 if they are attending. 

All parties will need to confirm that they are content with the final version of the NRCoT.

Regards

xxx, Department for Transport

Sent: 18 July 2016 10:11Subject: RE: NRCOT Condition 33

Hi xxx

Thank you for this.

I have moved some things and can make myself available for 12-1400 on Wednesday 27th. I would like to use this to cover off all the DfT comments, not just Condition 33 - as per my reply to xxx last week we stated that given the content of [his] email we would recommend the revised Condition 33 as supplied by the DfT to our members, so unless you want to propose any further changes in wording I’m not sure how long we will need to discuss it.

Regarding the DfT comments, I expect that the majority can be cleared quickly on the basis that any minor errors or non-critical drafting changes can be accepted without further delay; in some cases we will provide the reasoning behind our choice of text, which you can note and accept. This may leave us with one or two areas that need resolution and we will need to agree where we stand on those, and escalate them if required.  

I do not have an issue with the ORR or Transport Focus attending the meeting but given that we have consulted with those bodies and understand their position I do not think it a requirement if they cannot attend. I will leave it you to extend the invite to them. I would be grateful if you could confirm this meeting as soon as possible.

Kind regards

xxx Association of Train Operating Companies

Sent: 15 July 2016 16:58Subject: RE: NRCOT Condition 33

Dear xxx

I attach initial DfT tracked changes and comments on the NRCoT. We will be reviewing the NRCoT draft further and I will advise you of any further comments which we have as soon as possible.

Looking at dates for a meeting to discuss Condition 33, DfT can offer the following:

1200-1400 27 July

0900-1100 28 July

For these times to work for DfT, the meeting would have to be at Great Minister House.

Regards

XXXDepartment for Transport 

Sent: 15 July 2016 15:33Subject: RE: NRCOT Condition 33

Hi xxx

Thank you, as discussed I have been in contact with Transport Focus regarding their feedback, and I have also forwarded to them the DfT version of the Compensation paragraph as they will not previously have seen this.

As agreed, we should get round the table as soon as you have your full list of comments so that we can work towards a version that can be presented to ministers.

xxx Association of Train Operating Companies

From ATOC 15 July 2016

Hi xxx

Further to our telephone conversation I attach an annotated version of your note to capture the issues and our response.

Regarding para 33 (compensation) this is the version the DfT want us to use. Subject to Toc agreement that is what will go in place of the current drafting:

33.1     Compensation methods may include payment in notes and coins; or by cheque or a bank transfer payment (usually referred to as a BACS payment); by means of a refund to your debit or credit card (each of these is a “money option”); or in rail travel vouchers. Your options, which will include at least one “money option”, will vary by Train Company, and will be shown when making your claim. Where the delay was caused by a fault of the Train Company, you are entitled to payment by the same means as your ticket was paid for unless you agree to another payment method.

 

33.2     If you receive payment in rail travel vouchers you can use them in full or part payment for tickets for any rail journey on the services of the Train Companies. In some cases, they may also be exchanged for money at a ticket office of the Train Company that issued them.

As per the discussion, the DfT do require an acknowledgement from you, and whilst the content is yours it would be very useful if it could be structured as suggested below:

You confirm that you have been involved in consultation and have fed your comments back to ATOC

You note that in most cases these comments have been taken on board and where it has not a response has been received explaining the rationale

Whilst there are issues that you will continue to challenge the industry on, you do not object to the publication of this version on the basis that it does provide some benefits

Let me know if you have any questions,

Kind regards

XXX

……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

Transport Focus

Comments on the revised National Rail Conditions of Travel

Section 6 – you must have a valid ticket For the avoidance of doubt can we clarify that where 6(a) talks of the means

of purchasing at ‘the station you are departing from’ it means the originating station when part of a multi-leg journey. The adjacent infobox clarifies this in more detail. – yes it does; once we have DfT comments on the draft I am happy to make a minor text change to confirm this

Conscious that it is probably too late for these points, nevertheless we believe that 6(a) would be enhanced if it also mentioned:

queues – i.e. situations whereby there are facilities but the queue is excessively long.

What to do if the ticket you want is not available from the TVM. These are areas to develop for future drafts and we are happy to work with you on this as part of the wider revenue protection work

Section 9 – Travelling without a valid ticket & Section 10 Penalty FaresThis was not something we covered in our previous comments but it has since come to light.

Clause 10(d) says that Penalty Fares may be charged if “you travel with a train company or on train service for which your ticket is not valid”.

This would seem to contradict the Penalty Fares Policy 2002 (section 4.29) which says that instances of wrong train or route are excess fares rather than penalty fares. As far as we are aware, this policy document is still valid.

Excess fares also used to be allowed under the ‘current’ conditions – clause 12.  Put together they create an additional risk for PFN and UFN areas that was not present in the previous conditions.9 and 10 need to be read together and they do not extend the powers of Penalty Fares beyond the Act. In any case, any Penlaty (and subsequent appeal if there is one) is judged against the criteria of the Act. However to make clear that ‘off-route’ is not a ‘Penalty Fare’ situation I will propose with the DfT that we remove the reference to ‘train service’ in clause d thus:

“you travel with a train company for which your ticket is not valid”.

This should avoid anyone interpreting this to mean ‘off route’

There is also no specific mention of what happens if you miss your Advance train because of a late incoming train – hopefully that is because this is a given now rather than something that needs specifying. Yes, that is now covered in the Advance ticket rules

Clause 15 – Using First Class accommodationSomething we have just noticed. In previous versions of the conditions it has been very clear that ‘first class accommodation’ in section 15.2. means the entire carriage, including vestibules where appropriate, and not just the seating area.  We get a

steady flow of complaints about passengers who have been penalised for standing in the first class vestibule. Having an explicit mention in the conditions gives the industry something to point to – just saying accommodation opens this to argument / debate.

Conscious that it is late notice but some explicit clarification here could save the industry from protracted complaints.

We will add an ‘info box’ to make this clear

Clause 21 – Passengers with a disabilityDuring discussions my notes suggest that a URL was promised here to direct interested readers to relevant websites, e.g. for further info/bookings, to avoid the need for Appendix F. I will speak with my disability colleagues to identify a suitable URL

Clause 33 – How your compensation will be paidThe way this is now worded looks like it has reduced/rowed back from previous commitments to give cash if that is what the passenger wants. The new wording does not prevent this – it just lists compensation options rather than specifying how it will be provided. TOCs can still pay in case/refund to card etc.

However, it has removed a passenger’s right to choose a cash option and placed this decision back on the TOC. The original change to offer a right to cash was welcomed by consumer groups (including us) so its removal will be seen as a retrograde step and it will attract considerable criticism.

The situation is inflamed by clause 33.3 which reflects the Consumer Rights Act requirement to offer compensation by the same means as the original payment. When delays are within the control of the industry you will get a cash equivalent – when they are not the TOC gets to decide. Surely, having set up systems to cover the former it is simpler to use it for all claims.  

The revision of the Conditions provided an opportunity for a clear, simple system. What we now have is a system that virtually says ‘this is what we are offering…but your statutory rights are not affected…’  This paragraph has been written with lots of input from the DfT and ORR. The DfT have now proposed a further redraft which I will send to you but suffice to say that for the avoidance of doubt it guarantees better access to cash than is offered now.

Clause 40 – Season ticket refundsThis is another source of complaints from passengers who believe that if there is 6 months left on an annual ticket then you get 50% back.  It would help the industry if the info box made it clear that, due to the discounts, most annual season tickets lose any refund value after 10 months. Something that clearly shows that the refund is not pro-rata will be helpful. We will add an info box to explain this

We welcome a number of improvements:

In section 3.3. the specific mention of the availability of first class seats makes the intention behind the condition clear.

In 6.3(d) the much tidier wording ‘suitably accessible’ makes eligibility clear. In 6.4. the non-specification of the number of children under 5 travelling free with each Ticketholder is welcome.

In 16.3. the clarity about break of journey and its limitless occasions, when permitted within validity, is welcome. In 15.6, clarity that inability to sit in a first-class seat qualifies the passenger for a refund of the difference in fare is welcome.

Section 30.1 is particularly welcome as it brings passengers whose journeys have begun in line with those whose journeys have not when disruption has struck.

To DfT, 14 July

Dear colleagues,

We attach our comments on the signed-off NRCoT, as sent already to xxx at ATOC,

Kind regards,

xxxTransport Focus

E-mail from Transport Focus to DfT, 19 July

Dear Colleagues,

We have had further word from ATOC regarding one of the sticking points in the revised text for the NRCoT, i.e. Condition 33.  We have seen the wording which we are told that DfT prefers and are happy with that.  We agree that it is important that a commitment to ‘cash’ compensation is made.

During this overall revision process of the NRCoC, Transport Focus was invited to comment on an original circulated draft, which we did both in writing (in addition to attaching our long-term views for amendments which we want to see in the Conditions) and at a meeting some weeks later.  As a result, a number of amendments was made to the original draft, the revised version of which was circulated a short time ago.  We made further comments on that (which were copied to you). 

We are pleased that ATOC has now responded to those points made and agreed to make alterations to the revised text.   We recognise a number of improvements over the original draft and the previous Conditions.

Needless to say Transport Focus still has a number of long-standing issues but we will pursue these outside the Conditions.

Kind regards,

xxx

Email from ATOC, 29 July to all stakeholders

Dear all,

Following our review meeting on Wednesday 27th July, I have incorporated the agreed changes and amendments into our proposed National Rail Conditions of Carriage. This also includes the advice regarding the overall limit of liability received today from the DfT.

As discussed, this version has today been circulated to members as any changes to the submitted draft do require their approval. I have recommended the changes and hope to have this agreement by 8 August.

Please note that to enable reviewers to check the draft more easily, typographical corrections are NOT shown in the mark-up as these do not affect the content and such changes are given as acceptable. Comments next to the changes are mine alone and represent a summary of the agreed position; previous drafts are on file with all parties that show the internal discussion if required.

Please let me know if you have any comments questions on the drafting changes, and as always notice of any further typographical issues is welcomed.    

XxxAssociation of Train Operating Companies

Final comments from Transport Focus on draft (submitted 29 July) to ATOC, 5 August 2016

Dear xxx,

Transport Focus is generally content with the revised NRCoT following last week’s meeting, though I am attaching comments on the version circulated last week.  Mainly this covers typos, possible omissions and perceived inconsistencies.

We recognise many improvements in this version over previous ones but we see the need for further amendments which we shall look forward to discussing when the review process resumes.

Kind regards,

xxxTransport Focus

E-mail to DfT 5 August 2016, attached to a copy of the above message to ATOC;

Gentlemen, 

a few final comments on the revised text which I had not been able to look at properly until Wednesday this week.

xxx………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

[attachment]

Transport Focus

Final comments on NRCoT

[Document reproduced below with comments by ATOC in red.]

5th August 2016

Email from ATOC to DfT, copied to Transport Focus inter alia

10th August 2016

Dear xxx

Following our meeting on the 27th July and the subsequent revision and circulation of the NRCoT draft to members and stakeholders, I now attach the final version for submission to the Minister.

No further comments were received back from our members; we received some further comments back from yourself and [a colleague at DfT]; these have been reflected in this submitted draft. We also received some further comments back from Transport Focus [see document below] alongside their general response – I attach both of these, and have annotated comments document to show how these have been reflected in the document.

A number of the comments concern punctuation, and I would like to draw your attention to the fact that it is intended to publish the document in both PdF and HTML format. In both cases it will need to be fully typeset and proofread for formatting, line spacing, punctuation etc. Full stops cannot be used as part of hyperlinked addresses otherwise these will not work. You may therefore find that in such cases full stops are deliberately not included in the relevant passages.

I am liaising with my colleague xxx to provide you with a summary of our wider commitments in relation to the CRA and compensation to be used as part of the supporting material to the Minister, which should be sent to you shortly. As always, if you require more information we will endeavour to provide this.

xxxAssociation of Train Operating Companies

…………………………………………………….…………………………………………..

Transport FocusFinal comments on NRCoT

B Introduction: Condition 4, final paragraph, 1 st line : or should read nor - i.e. the sentence should begin Please note that neither a Train Company’s staff nor a Licensed….copy amended

C 1.2., last line: The form bicycle remains here. This has been amended to cycle everywhere else. copy amended

3.3. and elsewhere (e.g. 15, 24.2, 31): First Class (and in places Standard Class) are written with initial capitals but do not appear in Appendix B. copy amended, should be lower case

4.7. Additional text: would this new text not be more appropriate as new Condition 4.8, rather than a continuation of 4.7? The additional text is about damaged tickets rather than those which have been tampered with. copy amended so to make clause separate

After 6.3 (d): the remnants of the previous Infobox have not been fully deleted. – this is a formatting issue in markup. Please note published version is subject to a complete typesetting process

6.6..: the full stop after children is absent. Cannot be included where this is a hyperlink.

9.4., 2 nd paragraph, 1 st line : ticket immediately before Ticket should be deleted. Copy amended

10 c): was this Condition not to be deleted? No, it has been amended so that the four circumstances where a Penalty Fare can be issued are clearly stated, i.e. no ticket or permit; 1st class with Std ticket; ticket used at a time when invalid; ticket used on a TOC where it is not valid.

Text between infoboxes, after 13.3 c): should not both instances of ticket have an initial capital T? (Also, some inconsistency has arisen. In Appendix C the form Ticket Seller (i.e. with initial capitals and in bold) is always used, yet this does not appear in Appendix B either, although the definition of this term is given in Appendix C. Copy amended except Appendix C where Ticket Seller has a separate explained meaning

15.3.: It was my understanding from the meeting that this would become 15.5. Copy amended

15.6, 2 nd paragraph : I believe that or if it is declassified was to be inserted after First Class accommodation and before on your journey. Copy amended, slightly rearranged to make meaning clearer

26, 1 st paragraph, penultimate line : after Train Company should not Rail Service Provider be inserted? Copy amended, this is an addition to the current Condition but does logically apply

39.2,, 2 nd line : should this not read … stolen, then (a) further duplicate Ticket(s) …? Copy amended

Infobox between 40.4 and 40.5: charge is omitted from the last line in this revision. It had been clipped by the box formatting – now shown

Appendix B:

Possibly some missing items: First/Standard Class; Ticket Seller – not included, for reasons explained.

Under “Permit to Travel”, 2 nd line : allow should read allows. copy amended “Railcard” : if the intention of the text is to emphasise that the Railcard may

be held on an electronic device, rather than the Ticket (which is covered later), would not the wording be better as “Railcard” is a card which allows (a) Ticket(s) to be bought at a discounted fare and which may in some circumstances…copy amended to better convey intended meaning

Appendix C: the format Ticket Seller runs counter to previous usage within the NRCoT document, though the definition of this term is given within the Appendix.

As stated it has its own meaning. The CoP is a voluntary arrangement which is included in the NRCoT for clarity

XXX annotated by XXX 090816

5th August 2016