Have I been overcharged for my excess?

[hairyhandedfool]

That raises the question, however, of whether the travelling public are meant to know which stations fall into groups. If you asked for a ticket to Manchester Airport and were given one to Manchester Stns it wouldn't ring alarm bells in your head immediately - especially if you hadn't travelled there before....

Of course joe public won't always know the difference, I didn't mean that. The point of the excess fares section being mentioned was to suggest that the person who has a ticket that doesn't cover there entire journey, should be allowed to travel free to their destination, on the basis that it is 'the railways fault'. I was mearly pointing out that the NCoC contradicts that view point, and so the excess should still apply.

....Incidentally it is impossible to get from Sheffield to Manchester Victoria without going through Salford Central as far as I can see. But Salford Central is not listed as a Manchester Station!!....

You are entitled to use the shortest route to your destination, if your journey is from Sheffield to Manchester Victoria and the shortest journey is via Salford Crescent/Central then it is valid that way. If the shortest route is via Huddersfield then that is the valid route. Bearing in mind it is not valid on the Metrolink in Manchester.

 

[Robert Carlisle]

I haven't your level of expertise and I do thank you for sharing it with me.

As I see it the thing is very simple and having read all the ticketing stuff on here I have no doubt that is a naive view!!

However - it is clear that train companies have been mistakenly giving out tickets to Manchester Stations under the impression that such tickets are valid for Manchester Airport.

We know this because the nationally-distributed "Newsrail Express" dated February 9th 2009 has asked people not to do it. Were it one clerk or one particular station then they would have been contacted personally.

We know that when it comes to excess fares then the Manual allows - under the heading "Exceptions to Excess Fares" that an excess fare is not taken when a train company is at fault.

Whilst NCoC - section 21 does suggest you need to check you have the correct ticket then I did do that - and it said "Manchester Stations" and that seemed to be sufficient to me. I rely on the train ticket seller to sell me the correct ticket and if he/she fails to do so I cannot possibly see how that is my error. You ay find this hard to believe but I do not check before I travel what stations are grouped together (does anyone) nor do I carry a wi-fi enabled laptop to ensure the correct ticket has been sold to me.

If a retailer sells good "not fit for the purpose" then they are at fault. This seems to me to be an exact analogy.

It is not the cost, it is not the fact that they did not charge a penalty. It is the fact I was held up at an airport in a hurry to catch a plane and as far as I can see there was no legal support for such action!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
And sorry if that comes across as shouting at you guys and gals far from it.

But as you can guess I hate bureaucracy.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I'm sure there are many analogies you could level at it, some to defend it, others to suggest it is wrong, but at the end of the day we have to go with what is written, whether we agree with it or not. I'm not taking sides here, I'm just trying to illustrate where the land lies.

 

[Robert Carlisle]

Indeed it is precisely by going on what is written I have be doing!

But thanks!

 

[yorkie]

No you can only excess Single/Return tickets. You would have to purchase a seperate ticket from the last station within the rover area to your destination. The train need not stop at that last station as the National Rail Conditions of Carriage allow for combinations of tickets where one of the combination is a rover ticket for the train to travel non stop.

Are you sure? Someone told me that you can excess a STD class ALR into 1st class for any journey by paying the difference between SOS and FOS.

Example: MAN-EUS FOS £193.50 - SOS £123.50 = £70.00

So if someone on an ALR wanted a "free" meal and a window seat and a socket and a little more room they could pay "only" £70?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

you would expect an informed source like a booking office to be able to give you advice on whether or not the ticket is valid but the onus is still on you to have a valid ticket and thus the excess is charged to bring your original ticket in line with a valid ticket.

I don't think this is right in consumer law. The onus is on the customer - to what extent? The rail industry can't try to say the customer is always in the wrong, legally.

If the booking office had done their original job correctly you would have only paid that fare anyway you aren't being penalised.

Hang on, if you ask for a quote, and are given a quote and agree to it and enter into a contract, you can't then be charged more! Again, I am pretty sure the TOCs are breaking consumer law here!

 

[glynn80]

Are you sure? Someone told me that you can excess a STD class ALR into 1st class for any journey by paying the difference between SOS and FOS.

Example: MAN-EUS FOS £193.50 - SOS £123.50 = £70.00

So if someone on an ALR wanted a "free" meal and a window seat and a socket and a little more room they could pay "only" £70?

Well in a separate context away from the issue the OP had- Standard to First Class travel you can excess a ticket that isn't a Single or Return. It doesn't apply to All Line Rovers, I think you have maybe heard about this from someone who got a little confused.

First Class travel with a Standard Class ticket

Season Tickets- 7 Day, 1 Month or over.

Charge the difference between the appropriate Standard and First Class (Single or Return, as applicable) fares for the journey provided the excess fare is paid before the journey starts otherwise treat as if no ticket is held.


So you can excess Season Tickets using the method you talk of but not All Line Rovers.

I don't think this is right in consumer law. The onus is on the customer - to what extent? The rail industry can't try to say the customer is always in the wrong, legally.

This seems to be a statement you continually claim with regard to these so called "unfair" conditions when it is pretty clear neither me nor you is an expert in consumer law. Now the Office of Fair Trading who are the authoritative source on unfair conditions have already ruled on the National Rail Conditions of Carriage we have today, the reason the conditions changed in 2006 was due to a ruling by the Office of Fair Trading to change various sections of the document http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/consumer-regulations/traders/2100/1/. So the rest of the conditions are sound in consumer law otherwise the OFT would have challenged it in 2006 when they ruled on so many of the other clauses within the document.

Hang on, if you ask for a quote, and are given a quote and agree to it and enter into a contract, you can't then be charged more! Again, I am pretty sure the TOCs are breaking consumer law here!

Again in the National Rail Conditions of Carriage which has already been ruled on by the OFT it does state:

Before you travel you must have a ticket or other authority to travel which is valid for the train(s) you intend to use and for the journey you intend to make.

 

[John @ home]

Now the Office of Fair Trading who are the authoritative source on unfair conditions have already ruled on the National Rail Conditions of Carriage we have today, the reason the conditions changed in 2006 was due to a ruling by the Office of Fair Trading to change various sections of the document http://www.oft.gov.uk/advice_and_resources/resource_base/consumer-regulations/traders/2100/1/. So the rest of the conditions are sound in consumer law otherwise the OFT would have challenged it in 2006 when they ruled on so many of the other clauses within the document.[/I]

This is where I cannot agree with you. The fact that OFT require some changes to Conditions of Carriage does not imply that the rest of the conditions are sound in consumer law. It means that other issues which had not been thought of at the time will be judged as they arise.

In particular, the fact that both the ticket seller and the passenger thought at the time of purchase that a ticket to Manchester Stations was valid to Manchester Airport, and that both were wrong, raises an issue on which a Court may rule, but not one which can be determined by reference to the 2006 changes to the NCoC.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that a Court is more likely to rule in favour of the passenger in these circumstances. But none of us can be certain. Previous experience suggests that TOCs will settle the individual case before a Court judgement is obtained to avoid the possibility of an adverse precedent being set.

John

 

[glynn80]

This is where I cannot agree with you. The fact that OFT require some changes to Conditions of Carriage does not imply that the rest of the conditions are sound in consumer law. It means that other issues which had not been thought of at the time will be judged as they arise.

I think it does imply that, the OFT did not rule on the conditions on the basis of several separate complaints about specific clauses, it is clear they looked at the document as a whole and ruled on various sections of the document.

 

[Robert Carlisle]

In particular, the fact that both the ticket seller and the passenger thought at the time of purchase that a ticket to Manchester Stations was valid to Manchester Airport, and that both were wrong, raises an issue on which a Court may rule, but not one which can be determined by reference to the 2006 changes to the NCoC.

My opinion, for what it's worth, is that a Court is more likely to rule in favour of the passenger in these circumstances. But none of us can be certain. Previous experience suggests that TOCs will settle the individual case before a Court judgement is obtained to avoid the possibility of an adverse precedent being set.

I am inclined to agree. The passenger (me) is not suggesting that the ticket was valid - only that he should not have been delayed in his journey rectifying the seller's error.

And I would further argue that the evidence of the "Exceptions to Excess Fares Rules" (for rightly or wrongly it was an excess I was charged) in that the rules allow for the excess to be waived in the case of a mistake by the Railway Company should have been applied.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

....And I would further argue that the evidence of the "Exceptions to Excess Fares Rules" (for rightly or wrongly it was an excess I was charged) in that the rules allow for the excess to be waived in the case of a mistake by the Railway Company should have been applied.

But if they are to waive the charge, they would have to admit the clerk was wrong, doubtless there was no evidence of that at the time. You could have been 'trying it on' for all they know, trying to evade paying the full fare for your journey.

If the same happened today, would you expect them to believe that the ticket was wrongly issued (it must happen, its in Newsrail Express) or conclude you are trying to avoid paying the proper fare (everyone knows its wrong, its in Newsrail Express)?

 

[Robert Carlisle]

But if they are to waive the charge, they would have to admit the clerk was wrong, doubtless there was no evidence of that at the time. You could have been 'trying it on' for all they know, trying to evade paying the full fare for your journey.

If the same happened today, would you expect them to believe that the ticket was wrongly issued (it must happen, its in Newsrail Express) or conclude you are trying to avoid paying the proper fare (everyone knows its wrong, its in Newsrail Express)?

Interesting point. I don't see anything wrong in admitting the clerk had made a mistake. No-one's perfect!

There is no indication that passengers were deliberately exploiting this "loophole" to buy tickets to Manchester Stations and then travel to Manchester Airport. There is indication that the Railway Companies were issuing tickets wrongly.

If the ticket was wrongly issued now then I would expect it to be regarded as a mistake since the clerk has been warned not to do it.

If the Railway Company believes someone has have deliberately purchased a ticket to Manchester Stations in order to get to Manchester Airport then they can prosecute them for doing that. They then have the right to defend themselves.