I think the hint is that the post by Mushtimushta was most unhelpful. Which I'd agree with. Obviously it was always going to provoke a reaction.
I think you have posted some very good points though.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
London to Salisbury
- Thread starter dojo
- Start date
- Status
I think you have posted some very good points though.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
Well of course not! Please accept my apology - I had started composing my post before your's had appeared!
But returning to your point, I must agree that T&Cs are very often poorly publicised. (I have even seen a large scale poster from EMT which makes a sweeping statement about Penalty Fares which is the exact opposite of the facts). But as the existing posts on this thread had argued FOR and AGAINST the OPs use of the "bargain" ticket to Bristol for a "short" journey. And the question seems to be quite specific: "is it valid for the short journey?", then that is clearly NOT a question of what might be fair, or proprotionate, applicable to distance-based pricing, or what would be equal across TOCs in a unified pricing system. And so, in answer to that specific question, I must say NO, it would NOT be valid - a view which the OP appears to have accepted on 3rd Jan.
Its because the subsequent posts, from yourself, Yorkie and others raised more general and more technical points that I thought it might actually be helpful to separate the OP's simple question from the recent follow up points about the more general principles at work. I hope you can see the difference too, between the specific query and our general dislike of how some of the offers from TOCs sit uncomfortably alongside passengers' expectations, needs and travel patterns.
Ok, fair enough, my misunderstanding!
But, in general, I think that along with the validity of a ticket, according to the rules, the validitiy of the ticket in the context of consumer protection legislation should also be considered. Although, I agree, that isn't really the question here, I don't think we can safely assume that all obscure terms to be found anywhere in the NRCoC or nationalrail website are automatically going to be legal and enforceable.
But, in general, I think that along with the validity of a ticket, according to the rules, the validitiy of the ticket in the context of consumer protection legislation should also be considered. Although, I agree, that isn't really the question here, I don't think we can safely assume that all obscure terms to be found anywhere in the NRCoC or nationalrail website are automatically going to be legal and enforceable.
I do think that TOCs are quite entitled to offer Advance tickets to a destination that ARE NOT valid for stopping short.
It's not too dissimilar to selling a multipack at a discount & you only taking one packet from it expecting the discounted item price.....
It's not too dissimilar to selling a multipack at a discount & you only taking one packet from it expecting the discounted item price.....
It is totally "dissimilar". It's the equivalent of buying the entire multipack but not consuming it all. There is no suggestion of paying less than the multipack price.
e.g. York to Doncaster Off Peak £19.30, this is 35 miles (55p/mile). So I buy a Cattal to Dronfield (70 miles) Anytime at £18.60 (26p/mile) valid via York & Doncaster. There is no question of me saying "I want to pay a discounted 26p/mile rate for part of this journey, York to Doncaster, at the discounted rate" as that would be absurd, like your example of wanting to split the multipack and still get a discount, there is no question of that whatsoever. No - it's a question of buying the full, but better, product and paying that price but only using part of it. So in the case of York to Doncaster it's a case of paying £18.60 which is the Sheffield price, but only using it to Doncaster. There is absolutely nothing wrong with that whatsoever, and it is identical to buying a multipack of crisps and not consuming them all. As you are paying the full price product to Sheffield but charged at a cheaper rate than to Doncaster, this is the same as buying the full price of a multipack charged at a cheaper rate than individual packets, but not consuming all the packets.
glynn80
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Jun 2008
- Messages
- 1,666
I think that Chris B's analogy is the best we've had, it is exactly the same scenario the OP experiences but transferred to crisps.
Not at all. He suggests that the analogy is wanting to only pay for part of the multipack and still get the discounted rate. This would be like asking for part of the fare to a further destination and still getting the discounted rate. That is absolutely not being suggested by anyone. Our argument is not that there should be a cheaper fare for the shorter journey. That's not the argument whatsoever.
Then what is the argument?
As I see it, you are saying that a ticket to Bristol, which is cheaper than to Salisbury, should be valid to the latter just because it passes through and stops there?
So, yes, I AM saying that you want to only pay the same pence/mile that refers to the Bristol trip (a multipack, if you like) where the single pack (trip) costs more (in the days of alcohol multipacks, this is often the case!) - and you are saying the single pack should be priced at the same price as the individual packs work out in a multipack!
Doesn't happen generally, does it.....?
As I see it, you are saying that a ticket to Bristol, which is cheaper than to Salisbury, should be valid to the latter just because it passes through and stops there?
So, yes, I AM saying that you want to only pay the same pence/mile that refers to the Bristol trip (a multipack, if you like) where the single pack (trip) costs more (in the days of alcohol multipacks, this is often the case!) - and you are saying the single pack should be priced at the same price as the individual packs work out in a multipack!
Doesn't happen generally, does it.....?
Yep.
Not at all.
I'm saying that if you want 5 single packs, where the single packs cost, say 25p each (ie, £1.25), if a 6 pack costs £1.08 (18p each), then I am not arguing you should pay the same 18p rate for 5, that is not the analogy at all. I am saying that if you want 5, you can buy 6 and not consume the 6th.
If you wanted to do York to Doncaster at 0825, and were returning the next day, would you believe it is morally wrong and/or in any way invalid to buy the cheaper Sheffield ticket (£18.80) and get out at Doncaster, rather than buy to Doncaster (£19.30)?
Really? Even T&Cs that are unenforceable and breach consumer rights and/or human rights? So everyone who breaks a tiny smallprint in the T&Cs is committing fraud? That's a rather strong statement to make, and means there must be millions of fraudsters in this country!
As I said earlier, until these conditions are tested in court, it is not right to call people fraudsters. Breaking a condition in small print that is normally a right enshrined in the NCoC is hardly comparable to committing "fraud". If anyone is found guilty of fraud for getting off a train early, then I would be quite shocked.
Do you also think that anyone who fails to adhere to the incredible number of restriction codes, each with complicated text that we cannot see without using Avantix Traveller, is also committing fraud?
Good job the TOCs don't share that draconian view!
Given your previous record of refusing to accept that TOCs must honour multiple tickets as one journey in accordance with the NCoC, you are not someone who is familiar with, and adheres to every T&C yourself, are you?
You also believe that customers with valid tickets (to the next valid set down stop) can be charged again just because they got off at a pick-up only stop, don't you?
It is disappointing you are so anti-customer on a range of issues, but then perhaps you are too "close to management"?
The query was answered ages ago, we've moved on to discussing how bad people are to not consume the full product.
I trust you accept the crisp analogy is equivalent to paying the full multipack price and not consuming one of the packs? And it would be fine unless there is a condition of sale of the multipack that stated you must consume them all. In which case, anyone not consuming all of them would be guilty of fraud, is that right?
Unproven, either way.....I've seen no legal opinion either way - so your opinion is as valid as mine. No more, no less.
Show me where I said that.
Why not? They are defrauding the TOCs by not adhering to the conditions set out (even if just the stopping short one) - and elsewhere I think we accepted that while not everyone is told about the conditions, all those that book online should be aware of them. And that's a large minority, if not a small majority.
Did I say that?.....the answer is "of course not". Unless they were informed at time of booking, of course, which some undoubtedly are!
Where did I say that? I think you're badly mistaken. As long as the train stops where the tickets split, of course they're valid. And as long as one is a season ticket, they don't need to stop where the two tickets join either.
Oh, get off your high horse, why don't you?....Every one is entitled to their opinion here. Correct me if I'm wrong, of course, but otherwise my opinion is as perfectly valid as yours - no, I haven't said that at all! I'll ask politely for you to stop putting words in my mouth!
So, what range is that then? I'm Chairman of our local rail user group (over 10 years too, elected each year), so can't be doing badly for them then. My views are sought by a variety of bodies on the Passengers behalf, and am a long-standing member of two Passenger Panels, helping to put the Passenger point of view.
And you?......
A very strange opinion to call passengers frausters for such a minor thing for someone in your position though. An opinion I'd have thought would make the position untenable.
OK, so if not all T&Cs, can you list which ones are fraud and which are not?
Do you read all the small print of everything you agree to? With the Banks they have pages and pages of small print T&Cs. Do you actually read it all, and every time they update it?
There are in fact many examples of small print being ruled unenforceable.
Well, that's a break of a T&C, so perhaps you need to go into more detail to say which T&C breaches count as fraud in your book, and which do not. I'd be interested to know.
Note that I said for "one journey". Do you now accept they can be used for one journey? There is a huge difference.
This is where you said it:-
If you accept you made a mistake, then that's fine
Oh that's strange because you did say that. Again, if you have changed your mind then that's fine.
In response to someone having a Britrail/ALR and alighting on WSMR at Wolverhampton you said:
despite the customer having a valid ticket from London to the next available set down stop, Cosford.
You are entitled to an anti-customer opinion, yes, but surely that is not compatible with a position that is supposed to be helping customers?
- A breach of small print T&C of a particular right being withdrawn that customers are usually entitled to being equal to committing fraud despite no court ruling that as far as anyone can determine.
- Use of a valid rover ticket on a valid train resulting in a charge being made for alighting at a set-down only stop despite ATOC saying that no charge should be made.
- Combining AP tickets counting as "separate journeys" (in contradiction to NCoC) despite ATOC saying otherwise in correspondence I've had with ATOC.
And me? I believe in passengers' rights.
Do your passengers believe that their right to combine tickets for one journey should be eroded?
Do your passengers believe that it is right that they be accused of committing fraud for failing to comply with a small print T&C on a particular issue that is normally perfectly legitimate with a walk-up ticket?
Or are they unaware of these views. Yes, you are entitled to have them, but I do not see how they are compatible with that position.
- Status