Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
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.
It boils down to whether London Midland are able to divest their obligations in this way.
If it was the sale of a good they wouldn't- any such clause would be struck out as automatically unfair, both under old and new legislation. Whilst the transportation itself is a service, that service cannot be obtained without possession of the ticket, which is a "tangible moveable item". If it is a "tangible moveable item" then it is a good not a service.
The fact that legal ownership of the ticket rests with the TOC is, in my opinion, largely irrelevant; legal ownership of a car rests with the loan company under a HP agreement, but nobody would argue the sale of a car was a service.
The fact that the OP has a choice of delivery methods is also irrelevant; the law only transfers the risk to the purchaser of goods where the purchaser instructs the courier themselves. In this case the OP has no choice as to which company the tickets are posted with.
As an aside, it is fascinating that it is only London Midland who have chosen to put this clause into their sales contract. All the other TOCs, and even TrainLine, do not attempt to waive their obligations in this way.
I'm glad the OP's tickets turned up.