Permitted Route Problem

[yorkie]

Really? What hidden rules are these then. I thought the website used a journey planner that applied the electronic national routeing guide logic.

There are loads of secret electronic-only negative (oxymoron) "easements". They are not in any way contractually binding, of course.

 

[319321]

Someone with more legal knowledge than me:
"Would contra proferentem apply in this situation?"

Contra proferentem is the principle that ambiguous terms in contracts should be interpreted in the favour of the person who did not write it.

 

[gray1404]

I would say that as the OP has managed to obtain confirmation from ATOC that the route they took was valid for the ticket they held, they should send a copy of this to Govia Thameslink Railway requesting a refund of the ticket they were told incorrectly. They should also be requesting additional compensation for the fact GTR did not honor their contractual obligations on the day of travel and incorrectly demanded more money from a passenger who had already paid their fare.

I would hope that GTR, in light of the confirmation from ATOC, will simply refund the additional fare paid issue some "goodwill" compensation. I certainly would not let them get away with it. Again, if the matter is taken to Transport Focus (who are very hit and miss) I would hope that they would take the side of the customer once they see the confirmation from ATOC that the route taken was totally valid on the day of travel for the ticket held.

 

[SickyNicky]

As predicted, the routes were removed in yesterday's (and Wednesday's) update to the routeing guide.

Clearly this particular route (though completely valid) was absurd. But it goes to demonstrate that if you are using a route that you think may not be liked, you might prefer not to publish it here where the industry can see it.

 

[gray1404]

Totally agree. Shooting yourself and everyone else in the foot posting the details onto this forum.

However, that does not take away the fact that at the time of travel, the OP had a valid ticket, and Southern owes the customer a refund for the additional fare paid.

 

[yorkie]

Of course it was inevitable, once published, the route would be removed.

rscott - your ticket is still valid via the permitted routes specified in the contract at the time of purchase, until your Season expires. Make sure GTR (the train company operating trains branded "Southern") refund you. If they kick up a fuss, refer the matter to Transport Focus, the ORR (to report a breach of consumer law), and the DfT (to report a breach of franchise commitments; something GTR are in a habit of doing right now!)

 

[MikeWh]

rscott - your ticket is still valid via the permitted routes specified in the contract at the time of purchase, until your Season expires.

I'm not at all clear which ticket the OP now has. I suspect it may be the more expensive version. If it is then I don't think it would be wise to attempt switching it again without legal clarification as to whether previously available routes would be valid. Although the price used for a changeover is the same as the price which applied when the original ticket was purchased, you are clearly only purchasing the ability to use the new ticket from the changeover date. Sadly I think the ship has sailed.

 

[rscott]

Thanks to everyone for their comments, positive or negative. I can't believe that I mention this onto the forum on 3rd September and by the 7th so many changes to the RG have been introduced after only 4 days. And also part 2 on the 9th.
It's my view that this review of map LB in the new ATOC dataset was already underway, possibly as a result of when I first contacted Southern regarding the incident back in March when all this took place.
My first post here was mainly the correspondence I sent to Southern back in March. I posted it here to gain an impartial view from expert and knowledgeable people such as yourselves.
After reading all the comments I now feel encouraged to contact GTR, stating how they failed to meet their obligations and how they should refund the extra charges I have incurred, or I may feel compelled to take this matter further.
I currently have a ticket between Shoreham by Sea & Leatherhead which seems to be unaffected by the latest changes. I wonder if more changes will alter this. I hope the review has ended now.
Even though the Leatherhead to Croydon loop has been removed I still notice they are savings to be made on similar routes but I doubt I would purchase one as I would be challenged by too many railway staff who don't know what the rules are.
Thanks again for all your expert help.

 

[Hadders]

We know for certain that ATOC and the train companies watch this forum like hawks. Be in no doubt that the routeing guide changes are a result of this thread.

 

[All Line Rover]

And would the passenger be allowed to use a route that wasn't valid when the ticket was purchased since "[t]he contract is set at the time of purchase, and the permitted routes are a part of that contact"?

The contract cannot, in the absence of express provision (which would be subject to a host of restrictions), be unilaterally amended by one contracting party to the detriment of the other contracting party. I am of the opinion that the range of permitted routes available at the time of entering into a contract for the purchase of a season ticket, form part of that contract.

On the other hand, where additional permitted routes are added during the course of a contract (validity of a season ticket), the passenger can query whether they are entitled to travel on these additional permitted routes using their season ticket (and would be wise to seek confirmation that these additional permitted routes will hold for the remainder of the duration of the season ticket), which, if answered in the affirmative - as is almost certain - would perfectly properly vary the terms of the contract.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The law is skewed towards the consumer as far as I know it.

hock:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The RG really exists only to apportion revenue on Any Permitted tickets thanks to a fragmented franchising system.

Not according to Hansard, it doesn't. The original intent behind the routeing guide is perfectly clear.

 

[AlterEgo]

hock:
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Not according to Hansard, it doesn't. The original intent behind the routeing guide is perfectly clear.

Why surprised? The law does support the consumer in this instance - essentially ensuring that the company cannot retrospectively alter the contract.

The RG exists, ostensibly, so "passengers know the routes they are allowed to take", but the fact is, it's required only because we have a fragmented franchise system. Previously, passengers could take any *reasonable* route, because routeing was not so critical, as all the revenue went to the same company. The RG exists firstly to ensure passengers travel on routes which may or may not be reasonable, but which broadly (but not exclusively) mean that the companies on which they travel get a fair share of revenue from ORCATS. The second thing the RG does is play a part in the ORCATS shares as defined in the first place.

"Why something actually exists" and the reasons politicians give for something existing are two quite different things!

 

[infobleep]

Does NRE accurately reflect the paper version of the Routeing Guide?

I'm not convinced it does. Having played around with it in the past, I've noticed it keeps wanting to double back if doing so is quicker. That's regardless of an easement permitting doubling back or not.

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

We know for certain that ATOC and the train companies watch this forum like hawks. Be in no doubt that the routeing guide changes are a result of this thread.

Do you think they pay more attention to this forum than internal communication from staff or do both equally reach the departments who deal with routing guide amendments swiftly?

Sent from my SM-G925F using Tapatalk

 

[Hadders]

Do you think they pay more attention to this forum than internal communication from staff or do both equally reach the departments who deal with routing guide amendments swiftly?

I don't know what internal communication is like within the rail industry but what I do know is that 'loopholes' that have been mentioned on this forum have been removed within a matter of days To be fair a handful of positive amendments have also been made when things have been pointed out on here also.

This forum has also been mentioned in correspondence between ATOC and the DfT when they were discussing Routeing Guide amendments, if I remember correctly.

 

[gray1404]

I believe the routing guide still applies in cases when you do not have an Any Permitted ticket too. E.g. If I have a London Midland Only routed ticket for travel between Liverpool and London, then it is because of the routing guide that I am allowed to go Liverpool - Euston via the Trent Valley Line and also Liverpool to Euston via Birmingham.

 

[RJ]

I don't know what internal communication is like within the rail industry but what I do know is that 'loopholes' that have been mentioned on this forum have been removed within a matter of days To be fair a handful of positive amendments have also been made when things have been pointed out on here also.

This forum has also been mentioned in correspondence between ATOC and the DfT when they were discussing Routeing Guide amendments, if I remember correctly.

Forums are generally of interest to people where something that comes under their responsibility at work is being discussed. We all know that this forum is read by ATOC and TOC retail teams.

Internal communication can be very hit and miss. Sometimes the ticketing element of complaints never even reaches the Pricing Manager or ATOC, so all the Customer Services department might be going on is the word of someone who doesn't know what they're talking about.

Very occasionally I pick things up on the forum and raise it internally - not silly things like anomalies, but cases where a customer has been seriously mistreated and isn't getting anywhere with their complaint. Or things that could cause a significant problem to the company.

I did spend some time looking for an online site which could list all the fares together in a list for my route but after failing to find such a site I decided to search quite deep into the ATOC routing guide fares data files to find such a fare. I think these files are intended to be accessed by ticketing software programs but the fares are in a list along with station codes, route codes, ticket type and fares in pence. Over 500000 of them which I pasted into excel and deleted everything north and west of London and only kept 7DS tickets which were cheaper than my normal ticket. I think 7DS is used to calculate the 12 month ticket. It does show this on BRFARES.com results. This left 40000 fares which when sorted into ascending cost showed all the possible options.
It's a shame there is not a more user friendly way of looking at multiple fares for different routes. It's as if it's deliberately kept well hidden
I've never heard of a fares workshop would need to find out more info on that.
My current ticket needs to be renewed at the end of September so I'm considering a Pevencey Bay to leatherhead ticket routed not via Clapham junction which although is no cheaper than my current ticket I think it allows me to go via Tonbridge also.

You can download the fares data from http://data.atoc.org/data-download though you will need some IT skills to extract it into a useful format. A few years back, a fellow member kindly shared a program he wrote to allow us to access it - see this thread, although some mods have to be made to get it to work now.

It's a good resource to have if interested in loopholes - it has certainly saved me a lot of money.