Fine for using anytime return ticket with railcard

[Haywain]

A good lawyer could potentially find further issues with GTR’s case.

You seem to be suggesting that GTR would only refer to the use of an Anytime ticket and not to the use of the railcard. As the railcard is very clear about when it can be used I don't think that the case would be as clear cut as you seem to think. However, the OP is not going to be going to court to argue about this, so it is all rather irrelevant.

 

[Watershed]

Any reasonable judge would throw out a case that relied on that.

I would unfortunately not share your confidence in this. Consumer law absolutely does have to be considered, because it impacts the contractual validity of the ticket, which in turn influences whether or not a Penalty Fare can be issued. But I am not sure that it has any role to play in these circumstances, much as it seems unfair not to.

 

[rs101]

You seem to be suggesting that GTR would only refer to the use of an Anytime ticket and not to the use of the railcard. As the railcard is very clear about when it can be used I don't think that the case would be as clear cut as you seem to think. However, the OP is not going to be going to court to argue about this, so it is all rather irrelevant.

The railcard is reasonably clear, but the digital one uses "may" more than once in the online info which introduce doubt.
The bigger is the ticket purchasing process, which makes no mention whatsoever about any restrictions.

 

[island]

I would unfortunately not share your confidence in this. Consumer law absolutely does have to be considered, because it impacts the contractual validity of the ticket, which in turn influences whether or not a Penalty Fare can be issued. But I am not sure that it has any role to play in these circumstances, much as it seems unfair not to.

I agree. "Consumer law" is not a synonym for "I can sign up to any conditions and ignore them because I unilaterally decided they were unfair".

 

[geoffk]

Is the £59.10 quoted before or after the discount? Surely it can't be after.........

 

[rs101]

Is the £59.10 quoted before or after the discount? Surely it can't be after.........

Yep - after discount, for an anytime return.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Jun 2024 ==

I agree. "Consumer law" is not a synonym for "I can sign up to any conditions and ignore them because I unilaterally decided they were unfair".

But it does also tend to favour the consumer when terms/conditions are poorly explains, contradictory and/or unclear. I'd think there's a fair chance of the consumer winning, given that the sales process clearly says the ticket is valid any time, with no mention of any railcard restrictions.

 

[robbeech]

The issue with the incorrect grounds being given is sufficient in and of itself to overturn the Penalty Fare. The PF notice has to mention in general terms why you are being issued with it, and it plainly does not - "no ticket" is a falsehood.

This is the route you will need to take here to ensure the best chance of a successful appeal. I agree that the wording is misleading, i agree that it would be very easy for retailers to be much better and putting up a warning at the right time, but unfortunately none of these are going to be grounds for appeal.
It likely won't be easy. Despite you having clear grounds for appeal, the PF has been wrongly issued, this is not the sort of thing that the railway is bothered about. It is happy to ignore all regulation and "try it on" hoping that if they double down on made up rules the passenger will give in. They usually do. However, if the 1sts and 2nd stages of appeal (the ones that are a complete con) fail then hopefully the slightly more independent 3rd stage appeal will work.

I'd recommend a separate discussion with the retailer to complain about the potential misleading wording too, though you shouldn't expect anything from this. Hopefully this thread will be read by other retailers who may take steps to ensure that they do not unintentionally mislead railcard holders moving forwards.

 

[glasgowniteowl]

Should the op have been given for the penalty fare to the next stop and new ticket for remainder and not the final destination?

 

[Haywain]

Should the op have been given for the penalty fare to the next stop and new ticket for remainder and not the final destination?

How would that be done at the final destination?

 

[jamiearmley]

Should the op have been given for the penalty fare to the next stop and new ticket for remainder and not the final destination?

There's no "entitlement" to a penalty fare.

 

[Haywain]

There's no "entitlement" to a penalty fare.

They were issued a Penalty Fare at the final destination.

 

[jamiearmley]

They were issued a Penalty Fare at the final destination.

Good point!

 

[furlong]

The basic issue is that there are two conflicting terms here.

When the railcard was purchased, as part of its terms, a time restriction on its use was agreed.

When the contract for the journey was formed, the railway - in the full knowledge that the use of the railcard formed an essential part of the contract - explicitly stated there was no time restriction applicable to the contract.

Those two are in conflict.

Later, the railway decided the railcard term took precedence over the statement explicitly incorporated into the contract for travel at the time it was formed. Personally I think it's more likely that it's the other way around, and the information presented at the time the contract for travel was formed takes precedence. It would have been trivial for the railway to mention the additional time restriction had it wished for that term still to apply but it chose not to do so which, I would suggest, renders it unenforceable. Further, the railway is attempting to extract a penalty for failing to adhere to a term that it itself did not consider of sufficient importance to mention at the time the contract was formed.

But regardless, merely the difference in fare should have been requested in line with NRCoT 9.5.1. PFs aren't supposed to cover breaches of general fare time restrictions - perhaps 'no ticket' was selected because there was no suitable category to use because it shouldn't have been a PF!