Are there any plans to alter Condition 19 of the National Rail Conditions of Carriage?

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am aware that there have been a number of recent debacles between
East Midlands Trains and some of its customers regarding Condition
19 of the National Rail Conditions of Carriage - Section C of this
condition in particular. The condition states:

"You may use two or more tickets for one journey as long as
together they cover the entire journey and one of the following
applies:
(a) they are both Zonal Tickets (unless special conditions prohibit
their use);
(b) the train you are in calls at a station where you change from
one ticket to another; or
(c) one of the tickets is a Season Ticket (which for this purpose
does not include Season Tickets or travel passes issued on behalf
of a passenger transport executive or local authority) or a leisure
travel pass, and the other ticket(s) is/are not."

Section C is very useful for many customers, particularly season
ticket holders. For example, a customer holding a Manchester to
Sandbach season ticket who wishes to travel to Crewe on a
particular journey can simply purchase a Sandbach to Crewe "Anytime
Day Single" (£2), and is then allowed travel on an "express" Virgin
Train between Manchester and Crewe that does not stop at Sandbach.
If Condition 19(c) was abolished, this customer would have to
travel on a slower "stopping" service (operated by Northern Rail)
for no apparent reason.

Could you please confirm if there are any plans to alter Condition
19 of the National Rail Conditions of Carriage. Could you please
provide copies of any recent correspondence between yourself (the
DfT), ATOC and the Train Operating Companies regarding Condition
19.

I'm sure you are aware that any planned changes to the National
Rail Conditions of Carriage must involve a public consultation
before the change is enacted. If you and/or ATOC are planning to
make any changes to the NRCoC, could you please explain what steps
will be taken to ensure that the general public can have a say in
the matter.

Yours faithfully,

Mr David Jones.

Dear Frances Soames,

Even though I have not received a response yet, I have an
additional, real-life example which I feel would be very useful to
mention in justifying my request - to show that releasing this
information is in the public interest.

A friend of mine has an annual "Any Permitted" London to Rugby
season ticket, for which he pays £7040 a year for the privilege. He
spends a lot of time in London, lives in Rugby, and uses Virgin
Trains to commute between London and Rugby.

Occasionally he needs to visit Crewe for work purposes. He buys an
additional "Any Permitted" Off-Peak return ticket from Rugby to
Crewe (costing £37.10), which when used in conjunction with his
season ticket, covers him for the entire journey. Almost no Virgin
Trains services from London to Crewe stop at Rugby, but thanks to
Condition 19 of the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, he is
allowed to travel on these non-stop services. This is completely
justified, especially considering the amount of money he spends
each year on his season ticket.

If Condition 19 was altered or abolished, or in any way changed to
prevent what my friend currently does, he could either have to
travel via Birmingham or take the VERY slow London Midland stopping
service. Both of these options would double his journey time. How
could you justify this?

Clearly, it is in the public interest for Condition 19 to remain as
it currently is, and for any recent correspondence (last 6 months)
between you and ATOC concerning this condition to be released.

I await your response by January 25th.

Yours sincerely,

David Jones.

Dear Frances Soames,

Could you please confirm when I should except to receive a reply to
my Freedom of Information request. I expect a prompt response, and
it has now been almost a month since I made the request.

Yours sincerely,

David Jones

Dear Sally Delgado,

Thank you for your reply. I have a number of points that I wish to
raise in response.

With regard to the public interest test, withholding this
information would only be detrimental to the fare-paying passenger,
who would be forced to travel on a slower train or via a longer
route. If Condition 19 was amended or abolished, no passenger would
pay to cover a portion of their journey that is already covered by
their Season ticket, so it is highly unlikely that fares-revenue
would be affected. (People would simply travel on the slower train
or via the longer route). This helps to explain why I believe that
Section 43 - Commercial Interest - does not apply to this request.
The potential detriment to fare-paying passengers of Condition 19
being amended far outweighs the potential detriment to taxpayers,
ATOC and the Train Companies.

With regard to Section 35 (1) - Formulation of Government Policy -
I again see no reason to withhold the information because of this
exemption. The National Rail Conditions of Carriage is a
contractual document to which all fare-paying passengers agree to
when purchasing a ticket. Any planned changes to this document will
directly affect fare-paying passengers. Without the ability of the
public to participate in key decisions regarding this document,
there is a potential for selected individuals or groups (ATOC and
the Train Operating Companies) to have an unduly privileged
position of influence in policy making processes related to the
NRCoC.

You should already know that the Department for Transport must
consult with the public about any planned changes to the NRCoC,
unless it wants to behave improperly. It is logical that the
planned changes must be made publicly available for a public
consultation to be carried out. So I see no reason why any
correspondence between the DfT and ATOC concerning such planned
changes must be withheld at this present time.

With regard to Section 41 - Information provided in confidence - I
see no reason why correspondence concerning planned changes to such
an important, publicly available document should be withheld on the
basis that the information was provided "in confidence." I find it
highly unlikely that any such correspondence contains sensitive
personal information, and if any of it does, you are welcome to
blot it out. There is an overriding public interest in this
information being released.

I hope you will take my comments into consideration, and I await
your prompt response.

Yours sincerely,

David Jones