Non Arrival of Tickets

[najaB]

How do we know London Midland actually despatched the tickets? I wasn't joking when I said I'd had East Coast send me other people's tickets before.

There's no way to know for sure - even a certificate of postage only proves that *something* was posted.

 

[Be3G]

It is LMs problem. RM will not listen to a complaint from the recipient so there is something LM can do. They can raise a complaint with RM.

Royal Mail do permit the recipient of a lost item to claim compensation rather than the sender; on the form there's an option for you to tick whether you're the sender or recipient.

The interesting thing is to LM a lost ticket is never worth more than £20, it can be replaced for much less than £20. However, to the customer getting £25 compensation for a lost £25 Advance ticket may not allow them to purchase a replacement ticket for the same train on the same day.

This would be a case where ‘consequential loss cover’ would be useful, but it's only available for Special Delivery (and even then I've never known anyone use it). It allows one to protect oneself against the need to spend more money than the posted item's value if it's delayed or lost.

 

[Bletchleyite]

This would be a case where ‘consequential loss cover’ would be useful, but it's only available for Special Delivery (and even then I've never known anyone use it). It allows one to protect oneself against the need to spend more money than the posted item's value if it's delayed or lost.

Probably useful for things like sold-out gig tickets where there may well be no replacement possible, so travel bookings and hotel bookings and the likes may also be lost. That said, postman-delivered Special Delivery is *very* reliable (unlike Parcelfarce) and things very rarely go missing. OTOH, normal posted letters going missing or being heavily delayed is really not uncommon at all, particularly bad in specific areas - where I used to live, for instance, first class post routinely took a week or more.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
TBH, the real solution is in the short term to get all TVMs enabled for ToD, using mobile phone connection if necessary, and to move towards print-your-own, mobile ticketing etc to avoid that collection step in the longer term. It shouldn't even be particularly difficult to make it possible for guards on board trains on "Paytrain" routes to issue ToD provided the line has a decent mobile signal.

 

[northwichcat]

where I used to live, for instance, first class post routinely took a week or more.

There's no guarantee about delivery times using Royal Mail standard services other than First Class items have priority over Second Class items. At quieter times a Second Class item can arrive the next day.

 

[Bletchleyite]

There's no guarantee about delivery times using Royal Mail standard services other than First Class items have priority over Second Class items. At quieter times a Second Class item can arrive the next day.

I'm aware there is no *guarantee*, but in the vast majority of cases First Class is next-day and Second Class is the next 3 days. I've never quite been sure why we don't abolish the distinction, to be honest, as it is rather blurry.

It is certainly not acceptable for First Class mail to routinely and consistently take over a week, which it was doing.

 

[northwichcat]

There's no way to know for sure - even a certificate of postage only proves that *something* was posted.

Indeed. Once an eBay buyer told me an item I sent had arrived opened with nothing inside. Proof of posting or recorded delivery can't help here.

However, on that occasion I am sure they were actually trying it on because the item I sent was in a standard sized envelope and I didn't put the return address on the outside of the envelope. I messaged back asking if they could describe what they have received so I could verify it was what should have contained the item given I didn't put a return address on the outside and received no further response.

 

[Llanigraham]

It is up to London Midland to ensure that the ticket is delivered to the customer, as for any ticket that being been delivered, which is then used to access a service. If you do not receive the tickets then your bank would certainly regard it as non-receipt of goods/services paid for and you have a case for charge back.

The information given about you not "having a leg to stand on" is totally unfounded and has no basis. The fact remains that London Midland are yet to deliver the tickets to you. I would personally try their call centre again in the hope that you speak to someone who is more helpful and able to reissue tickets. Ask to speak to a Supervisor if they are not helpful and stand your ground.

Failing that make a formal complaint to LM and refer the matter to Transport Focus if you remain unhappy. Remember,you can also raise the matter with your bank/card providor as your have not received the tickets you have paid for.

Once an item is posted with the Royal Mail by the "sender" then it is deemed "delivered", even if it doesn't arrive.
The only full recourse the OP has to through his credit card company, although it is possible that LM could consider a "with prejudice" replacement.

 

[Agent_c]

Once an item is posted with the Royal Mail by the "sender" then it is deemed "delivered", even if it doesn't arrive.
The only full recourse the OP has to through his credit card company, although it is possible that LM could consider a "with prejudice" replacement.

I'd like to know what point of law you're relying upon for that... I think the postal acceptance rule only applies to communication of acceptance of an offer, not delivery.

 

[Llanigraham]

I'd like to know what point of law you're relying upon for that... I think the postal acceptance rule only applies to communication of acceptance of an offer, not delivery.

In that case why is a Summons "deemed served" when it is posted?
I have "served" plenty in that way.
That isn't an "acceptance of an offer".

 

[Agent_c]

In that case why is a Summons "deemed served" when it is posted?
I have "served" plenty in that way.
That isn't an "acceptance of an offer".

This isn't a summons either, and with a summons as other threads here have explored, you can go for a stat dec to indicate you never recieved it, turning back the clock.

 

[AngusH]

I suggest that the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 section 43 might be worth looking at.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/43/made

I can't see rail tickets are excluded. (Package holidays are, but that's different)

Presumably someone will tell me that I'm wrong in a moment


Try talking to Citizens Advice who may give you a stronger argument against LM if you're right (or should advise the other way if you're not)

"I talked to citizens advice and they said you're breaking the law" is rather stronger than "Some man on the internet thinks you're wrong".

Citizens Advice can also report the web site to trading standards, which might wake them up a bit.

 

[Agent_c]

I suggest that the The Consumer Contracts (Information, Cancellation and Additional Charges) Regulations 2013 section 43 might be worth looking at.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/3134/regulation/43/made

I can't see rail tickets are excluded. (Package holidays are, but that's different)

Presumably someone will tell me that I'm wrong in a moment

A sales contract is to be treated as including the following provisions as terms.

(2) The goods remain at the trader’s risk until they come into the physical possession of—

Key word there is goods... See Section 5.

“goods” means any tangible moveable items, but that includes water, gas and electricity if and only if they are put up for sale in a limited volume or a set quantity;

There are no goods being sold. The ticket remains property of the TOC. What is being sold is a service - Transportation.

 

[AngusH]

So if the service provided is transportation and not actually selling physical tickets, has the supplier fulfilled their obligation to provide transportation?

I would suggest not.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Once an item is posted with the Royal Mail by the "sender" then it is deemed "delivered", even if it doesn't arrive.

In some circumstances yes, and in some circumstances no.

The Land Registry, for instance, won't register title without the original signed deed, even if you can show that it's gone missing in the Royal Mail or DX. So you have to get a new one signed.

Goods remain at the vendor's risk until delivery, unless the purchaser has instructed their own courier.

It isn't clear whether a transportation contract is a service or a good. However you should consider that you cannot obtain the transportation service without possession of the ticket.

Note that the legislation refers to "physical possession"; this is very different to legal ownership. It is possible to physically possess something without owning it, and it is just as possible to own something without having physical possession of it.

 

[OwlMan]

The LM/ATOS webtis has a screen where you have to select delivery details (copy attached).
It defaults to TOD (in OPS case at Watford Junction) so a purchaser would have to select delivery by 1st class mail and would be warned he was not insured.

And if you click on the more info button the following is shown

First Class post

Tickets booked by 1700 Monday-Friday (1100 on Saturdays) will be processed and despatched the same day, free of charge. To allow for Royal Mail delivery, tickets must be booked at least 5 postal days before departure.
If you haven't received your ticket(s) two days before your date of travel, please call the web support team on 0844 811 0133 (or 0121 634 2040 from a mobile phone) with your booking reference. We'll do our best to help.
We are not obliged to change, cancel, replace or refund a ticket that has been lost in the post, so we always suggest you choose Recorded / Special Delivery (or Ticket on Departure) for added peace of mind.

 

[AngusH]

Yes, it clearly excludes loss in post. In writing and fairly obviously.

I'm not sure it can be excluded (there are a bunch of things that can't be).
Someone else can argue whether it's an unfair contract term or not.

If it is an acceptable contract term then that may be the end in terms of complaints.
Check with CA or your lawyer

However I'm of the opinion that if they aren't going to replace lost in post tickets and can't track them, maybe 1st class post shouldn't be offered at all.

(If only the royal mail offered a tracked service without requiring a signature)

 

[northwichcat]

(If only the royal mail offered a tracked service without requiring a signature)

Not sure if there should have been a emoji after that as they do for businesses sending over 1,000 items per year: http://www.royalmail.com/corporate/sending-receiving/uk/royal-mail-24-48

 

[Bletchleyite]

I must admit I don't understand why they don't offer that to everyone. Several of the couriers do. It's ideal for smaller items that will fit through a letterbox to save the inconvenience of requiring a signature.

Nor indeed do I understand why the railway (which is clearly big enough) *doesn't* offer it!

 

[AngusH]

Not sure if there should have been a emoji after that as they do for businesses sending over 1,000 items per year: http://www.royalmail.com/corporate/sending-receiving/uk/royal-mail-24-48

No emoji, I didn't know about this at all.
Very glad to learn of it.

 

[IanD]

Royal Mail do permit the recipient of a lost item to claim compensation rather than the sender; on the form there's an option for you to tick whether you're the sender or recipient.

Tried that only to receive a response to the effect that I should contact the sender and get them to try and sort it. Was a while back so things may have changed since.

 

[gray1404]

LM state that they cannot guarantee delivery if you use First Clas post, which to me puts the risk on the purchaser's shoulders, not the vendor's shoulders. If the purchaser wants to be guaranteed delivery, choose an appropriate postal service. I fail to see why it is LMs fault that the OP chooses to use a (cheaper) delivery method that does not guarantee delivery. That is a risk inherent that has been accepted by the OP by choosing that method, presumably after conducting their own risk assessment.

I also don't see how a charge back would necessarily be successful, for the very same reasons. Just because the ticket was not received does not mean that they charge is not a valid one. LM have sent the tickets which is all they said they would do, that RM have failed to deliver is NOT LMs problem - once in the hands of RM, there is NOTHING LM can do about what happens.

All that said however, it does seem rather silly in this day and age for LM to even offer a system of delivery that is not guaranteed.

It is the duty of the vendor to ensure that the tickets are received. Your personal view does not come into it. A bank would also take the same view based on the fact that the customer has not received the tickets they have paid for. It is London Midlands problem is Royal Mail do not deliver and it is for them to sort out. I really can't add much further as your post is really your own personal view rather then the view that would be taken under consumer law/bank policy.

 

[najaB]

I must admit I don't understand why they don't offer that to everyone. Several of the couriers do. It's ideal for smaller items that will fit through a letterbox to save the inconvenience of requiring a signature.

Nor indeed do I understand why the railway (which is clearly big enough) *doesn't* offer it!

Royal Mail don't offer it by default because it costs more to provide. The railway doesn't offer it by default because it costs more to procure and the incidence of tickets going lost in the post is relatively low. Having done the maths it doesn't make financial sense.

 

[gray1404]

Once an item is posted with the Royal Mail by the "sender" then it is deemed "delivered", even if it doesn't arrive.
The only full recourse the OP has to through his credit card company, although it is possible that LM could consider a "with prejudice" replacement.

Can I ask what your basis is for saying that? I do not believe this to be true under consumer law. It is a good few years now since I was in Law school but what you mention reminds me of the postal rule under contract law. This relates to acceptance of an offer - which is not what we are dealing with here.

 

[najaB]

It is the duty of the vendor to ensure that the tickets are received.

I would agree with you if the vendor hadn't offered both a free and two at-cost reliable delivery methods. Given that the OP had to specifically choose First Class post, having been warned that delivery was not guaranteed, I am not as confident as you are.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Royal Mail don't offer it by default because it costs more to provide. The railway doesn't offer it by default because it costs more to procure and the incidence of tickets going lost in the post is relatively low. Having done the maths it doesn't make financial sense.

I didn't mean by default, I meant as a choice - even if priced the same as Special Delivery I might well choose it to avoid having to stay in and sign.

 

[ian959]

It is the duty of the vendor to ensure that the tickets are received. Your personal view does not come into it. A bank would also take the same view based on the fact that the customer has not received the tickets they have paid for. It is London Midlands problem is Royal Mail do not deliver and it is for them to sort out. I really can't add much further as your post is really your own personal view rather then the view that would be taken under consumer law/bank policy.

That is YOUR personal view, not backed by any legislation to the best of my knowledge although I concede I am no lawyer. The vendor's duty extends to doing what they said they would do - post the tickets. Once the tickets are in the post, the vendor's duty has been discharged.

I agree LM should probably do something about it but I don't believe that there is any legislation compelling them to do so.

 

[Agent_c]

That is YOUR personal view, not backed by any legislation to the best of my knowledge although I concede I am no lawyer. The vendor's duty extends to doing what they said they would do - post the tickets. Once the tickets are in the post, the vendor's duty has been discharged.

I agree LM should probably do something about it but I don't believe that there is any legislation compelling them to do so.

I'll have to wait until I get home for citations, but I am certain this is not correct. I am certain that if we are talking a sale of goods (which in this case I do not believe is the case as no good is having its ownership transferred) then ownership and risk doesn't pass until delivery and acceptance, not at the time of posting.

What I believe we have here is a sale of services, my memory here is somewhat hazier, but as presumably the time for LM to perform its obligation has not yet occurred (ie, the transportation) it falls to them to ensure the passenger can vest this right, through supply of a ticket. I don't believe there is any provision that allows them to transfer this risk to the customer at this point.

 

[island]

I did not state it applied, I asked whether it applied.

However, are we saying that despite all the various consumer legislation, including the new Consumer Rights Act which came into force today, a person who purchases a travel ticket has no comeback if the ticket fails to be delivered?

The Consumer Rights Act does not apply to this transaction as it was not in force when the contract was concluded.

I agree that this would cover LM in this situation, s.43(2).

I would be tempted to edit and fire off these two letters from Which? and be prepared to complain after the fact to Transport Focus and maybe claim in the Small Claims Court; You have nothing to lose as LM say you need to buy new tickets anyway.

This one first, before the journey:
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rights/action/letter-to-complain-about-undelivered-goods

This one post journey, if you buy new tickets:
http://www.which.co.uk/consumer-rig...laint-about-tickets-that-didnt-arrive-on-time

This is wrong. The legislation quoted applies to the sale of goods. This is a transaction for the supply of services.

It is the duty of the vendor to ensure that the tickets are received. Your personal view does not come into it. A bank would also take the same view based on the fact that the customer has not received the tickets they have paid for. It is London Midlands problem is Royal Mail do not deliver and it is for them to sort out. I really can't add much further as your post is really your own personal view rather then the view that would be taken under consumer law/bank policy.

See above re distinction between sale of goods and supply of services.

The vendor has made it clear that it takes no responsibility for tickets lost in the post and offers other options (including the free option of collecting tickets at a station) to the buyer if he does not wish to choose to take the risk of non-delivery).

I work at a bank and in these circumstances it would be unlikely that a chargeback would succeed.

The only possible legal remedy I can conceive of, and it is a tenuous one, is that the term disclaiming responsibility for tickets lost in the post is deemed to be an unfair term under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations and a court strikes it from the contract.

 

[PeterY]

Thanks for all the suggestions but luckily I located the tickets today, which is a relief. I didn't fancy forking out another £40. Anyway they were delivered next door. Postie needs to borrow my reading glasses. There's a slight difference between 25 and 23.

It was interesting to read all the replies.

Peter

 

[AngusH]

I'm very glad that you found the ticket and wish you a pleasant and trouble free journey.

Much better to not need to complain at all.