Breach of impartial retailing rules by Chiltern

[yorkie]

A member of this forum encountered a breach of the Ticketing Settlement Agreement at Marylebone on Friday evening, around 1630.

He was incorrectly offered a "Chiltern Only" ticket at the same price as the "High Wycombe" ticket. This should not happen.

I found several old threads discussing this, and we know that the Chiltern only tickets are simply a fudge so that m-tickets can be issued, and should not be issued in paper form.

The customer could report it as a franchise breach to the DfT. Or they could contact Chiltern (and if they're like most TOCs, nothing will change!) however most passengers are busy people and don't have time to faff about writing letters.

Fortunately the customer was able to insist on the correct routeing, otherwise he would not have been able to excess his ticket to use Virgin Trains on his return journey.

I suspect there are hundreds, if not thousands, of franchise breaches occurring daily, but there isn't adequate 'mystery shopping', no visible enforcement, and no ombudsman.

Passenger Focus won't get involved unless the TOC has not given the customer a satisfactory response, and even then they are powerless to actually do anything!

Is anyone else in a position to request a ticket from London to Birmingham at Marylebone ticket office, to see what routeing they are offered? Before I decide whether to take this matter forward, I'd be interested to see how big a problem this is.

 

[RJ]

I think the best way forward here is to complain directly to Chiltern. If the Chiltern Only fare is not meant to be sold, perhaps their retailing department can brief their staff. It's certainly the case where I am that people are aware that they shouldn't issue certain tickets that can be issued. By the looks of things, the correct ticket was issued in the end - nobody got hurt or had money taken from them that shouldn't have been.

As for ticket offices, caveat emptor. They're often staffed by people who are not anywhere near as helpful as they could be. Whilst it would be nice if every clerk did do what they're supposed to, the reality is that they don't. To this end, identifying other options to obtain a ticket might be beneficial.

By all means, complain to the DfT if your ultimate objective is merely to see that it's recorded as an incident. Realistically, I can't see them doing much other than simply forwarding the complaint on to Chiltern to deal with - which you can do yourself.

 

[yorkie]

By the looks of things, the correct ticket was issued in the end - nobody got hurt or had money taken from them that shouldn't have been.

...only because the customer was knowledgeable.

Let's face it, you have to be a fares expert to avoid being occasionally overcharged on the railway!

....Realistically, I can't see them doing much....

You're probably right. There's no-one who can (or will) actually do anything to ensure that customers consistently get good customer service.

 

[hassaanhc]

Southern's website ("WebTIS" booking engine I think is the name?) offers the Chiltern-only fares, at the exact same price as the "via High Wycombe" ones. In the screenshot below the "via High Wycombe" also shows trains where the itinerary given involves using another TOC for part of the journey.

 

[RJ]

...only because the customer was knowledgeable.

Let's face it, you have to be a fares expert to avoid being occasionally overcharged on the railway!

You're probably right. There's no-one who can (or will) actually do anything to ensure that customers consistently get good customer service.

That's the beauty of customers having access to the same level of information on available ticket choices as staff. Customers have the option of educating themselves and identifying what the best deal is for them.

 

[CyrusWuff]

The issue here, I suspect, would be due to FasTIS thinking that the "Chiltern only" fare should be the default. As they only appear for flows to/from London IIRC, if a shift gets covered by someone from elsewhere it's an easy mistake to make.

In an ideal world, they'd be suppressed in rmthe Fares Database such that they only show for web bookings.

 

[RJ]

The issue here, I suspect, would be due to FasTIS thinking that the "Chiltern only" fare should be the default. As they only appear for flows to/from London IIRC, if a shift gets covered by someone from elsewhere it's an easy mistake to make.

In an ideal world, they'd be suppressed in rmthe Fares Database such that they only show for web bookings.

I think it might also depend on the TIS being used. The one I used in the past would grey out fares like this. The one I use now will allow anything and everything to be issued, Web Only tickets, 5p ITX tickets, £999 Not For Travel tickets and so on.

 

[34D]

I suppose one option might have been to tape the request for a ticket, walk away with the wrong ticket, then ask for an excess en route, and get reported for prosecution/buy a new ticket.

Getting the matter corrected immediately means less to complain about.

 

[sarahj]

It can also depend on what ticket the punter asked for. Ticket offices are now being told to sell what the punter asks for. Eg on a train I worked the other week a pass had got on at station X. I checked his ticket and was interested to note that the ticket was an anytime single to London Terminals priced over £20.00. The pass was going to Victoria where a super off peak single for around £14.00 could have been purchased. But it seems because the pass asked for a ticket to London and not Victoria, the pass was sold the ticked he had asked for. This sell what pass asks for it seems is now policy when I enquired back at base.

However, what sound like here is the ticket office is being asked to push Chiltern only tickets as the default, as they get all the revenue. Only by asking for a not chiltern only ticket would the buyer get one. And for 99.9% of passengers this would be fine, they will be both going out and back on Chiltern. the only thing the ticket office should be doing is when selling these tickets is to remind the punter that both outward and return trips must be done on chiltern, as I'm sure all our ticket offices do when they sell an FCC or Southern only ticket :roll:, and if the punter does not want to do that, sell them another ticket.

 

[Monty]

Depending on the route specified by the customer (if any) the ticket office clerk may have come to the conclusion that the Chiltern Only fare was the most suitable ticket to offer. Unless the customer says he intend to excess the ticket at a later time for a different route how is he to know?

 

[tony_mac]

We have been told that the 'Chiltern only' fare is not supposed to be sold ( I think Barry knows what he is talking about).

http://www.railforums.co.uk/showpost.php?p=692116&postcount=12
It is the same price as the route High Wycombe, but with strictly greater restrictions - so how could it ever be more suitable?

 

[LexyBoy]

Creation of these fares should never have been permitted, as Chiltern is the lead operator. The excuse of requiring them for the m-ticketing app is laughable for two reasons: one, if the company responsible can't write their software to cope with a fairly simple set of fares then I wouldn't trust their ticketing implementation; and more importantly, tickets which are not permitted by the TSA are still being offered.

If the m-tickets were displayed as, and accepted as, Via High Wycombe with the Chiltern Only designation firmly behind the scenes, that would be one thing (though still a dangerous precedent).

This is the sort of thing I expect to happen more often, and one of the reasons I am distrustful of "smart" ticketing in general. I see an opportunity for many more TOC-specific fares to replace interavailable fares, amongst other things detrimental to the passenger. I do not have the confidence of some others that "a ticket is a ticket, the medium is not important" as discussed here.

 

[jkdd77]

Creation of these fares should never have been permitted, as Chiltern is the lead operator. The excuse of requiring them for the m-ticketing app is laughable for two reasons: one, if the company responsible can't write their software to cope with a fairly simple set of fares then I wouldn't trust their ticketing implementation; and more importantly, tickets which are not permitted by the TSA are still being offered.

I'm not surprised; Megatrain tickets are already sold, in violation of the franchise agreements, and the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, in "amending" the NRCoC to purportedly eliminate passenger rights under the NRCoC to delay compensation, and to provide for a PF or full single fare in circumstances where the NRCoC expressly provides for an excess fare (e.g. unauthorised BoJ).

SWT franchise agreement:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...data/file/182167/sswt-franchise-agreement.pdf

SWT franchise agreement
13.6 The Franchisee shall, subject to and in accordance with the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement, introduce ‘megatrain.com’ Fares on the following Flows by 31 December 2007:
(a) Poole-London
(b) Honiton-London
(c) Axminster-London
(d) Havant-London

Ticketing and Settlement Agreement:
http://www.atoc.org/clientfiles/files/RSPDocuments/TSA V9_4 - Main Agreement (Volume 1).pdf

8-12 CONDITIONS AND BYE-LAWS

(1) Prohibition on restricting the Purchaser's rights

An Operator must not publish any conditions which apply to the Purchaser of a Fare, Reservation or an Upgrade, and must not pass any bye-laws or operate any procedures, which restrict or purport to restrict the rights that the Purchaser would otherwise have under the National Rail Conditions of Carriage or the CIV Rules

The TSA also makes clear that Megatrain, or any other authorised seller, merely acts as agent, and that the actual contract for travel is entered into with the TOC(s) on whose trains the ticket confers the right to travel.

Despite this, the DfT told me, in response to my written complaint, that they were absolutely happy for TOCs to ignore their obligations under the NRCoC when selling 'Megatrain' branded tickets, and for TOCs to unilaterally cancel the contract for travel simply because they think they can re-sell the seat for a higher price.

The question is, what can be done about it, in the face of the DfT actually supporting the TOCs in breaking their obligations? The DfT only most reluctantly made certain TOCs remove evening restrictions on certain regulated SVRs from non-London stations (e.g. from Bedford or Milton Keynes) after I threatened to get my MP involved.

 

[Haywain]

However, what sound like here is the ticket office is being asked to push Chiltern only tickets as the default, as they get all the revenue. Only by asking for a not chiltern only ticket would the buyer get one. And for 99.9% of passengers this would be fine, they will be both going out and back on Chiltern. the only thing the ticket office should be doing is when selling these tickets is to remind the punter that both outward and return trips must be done on chiltern, as I'm sure all our ticket offices do when they sell an FCC or Southern only ticket :roll:, and if the punter does not want to do that, sell them another ticket.

If, as suggested elsewhere in this thread, Chiltern have told their own staff not to sell this ticket then I can only surmise that it is incompetence or human error. If Chiltern can show they have issued a written instruction not to sell the ticket there is not much risk of them being found to be breaching impartial retailing rules.

 

[Clip]

If, as suggested elsewhere in this thread, Chiltern have told their own staff not to sell this ticket then I can only surmise that it is incompetence or human error. If Chiltern can show they have issued a written instruction not to sell the ticket there is not much risk of them being found to be breaching impartial retailing rules.

I would say it was solely down to human error. The staff at Marylebone on the whole are generally excellent at their jobs and I cant see this being passed down from higher up to sell them just to grab more revenue, they are cannier than that there(well they were).

Or as has been said it couldve been a GPR from further up th eline not used to selling such tickets and wasnt really aware or even an agency they had in.

Id complain to Chiltern about it and not make such a fuss like this. If they repeatedly done this then there would be an issue but insomuch as Ive not seen anything browsing through the disputes or fares section about getting into difficulties I can only surmise this was a one off.

 

[LexyBoy]

If, as suggested elsewhere in this thread, Chiltern have told their own staff not to sell this ticket then I can only surmise that it is incompetence or human error.

Chiltern sell these tickets every day. Ticket offices are supposed not to sell them, but they can be bought online either for TOD or as m-tickets. In the latter case interavailable fares are not offered.

 

[Haywain]

Chiltern sell these tickets every day. Ticket offices are supposed not to sell them, but they can be bought online either for TOD or as m-tickets. In the latter case interavailable fares are not offered.

That's as maybe, but the suggestion was that the ticket office staff were not acting impartially.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....If the m-tickets were displayed as, and accepted as, Via High Wycombe with the Chiltern Only designation firmly behind the scenes, that would be one thing (though still a dangerous precedent)....

Wouldn't comply with NRCoC Condition 10. m-tickets are restricted to use on Chiltern Railways services (in this case), that restriction must be shown on the ticket.

....This is the sort of thing I expect to happen more often, and one of the reasons I am distrustful of "smart" ticketing in general. I see an opportunity for many more TOC-specific fares to replace interavailable fares, amongst other things detrimental to the passenger. I do not have the confidence of some others that "a ticket is a ticket, the medium is not important" as discussed here.

It does depend on the medium, the conditions attached to Chiltern's m-tickets include that they are TOC specific, this is not the same as, for example, Oyster.