Simon Calder has always been a bit of a whopper. Unless he's kicking BA he just says what the industry tell him to say. He's forever acting as Ryanair's very own Comical Ali.
Wasn’t possible in the interface, not could the agent I phoned (well within that window)
Well it's taken a while, but I finally have an answer. My MP took up the issue with the Secretary of State for Transport, Heidi Alexander, and today I received a response from the Minister of State for Rail, Peter, Lord Hendy of Richmond Hill that was sent back to my MP.
Lovely weasel words, exempting them from any real responsibility when that doesn't happen
Taking your glass half full approach, they will still need to go through trial by ordeal to obtain that discount, escalating and probably having to find and quote that letter. And still there will be "customer service" staff at some operators who will go "but that doesn't apply to use".
The letter does go on to say that if I have any problems "the Rail Ombudsman should be able to help", but I do agree that there may be a bit of 'trial by ordeal' in that the letter may have to be forwarded a few/many times before the message gets through. I'd like to think that this will also be picked up in future revisions of the National Rail Conditions of Travel but, I suspect, that is probably wishful thinking.
"Should" is one of the weasel words I picked up on - it conveys no obligation whatsoever
DfT have confirmed that they do in a draft model Equality Impact Assessment. I think the challenge will be ensuring that front-line teams are suitably briefed and confident on the matter and don't just default to a "Computer says no" approach when they encounter anything slightly off the beaten path (and to be fair, I do get where this comes from to a small degree - the refund audit process incentivises following rules pretty closely because discretion needs to be justified/argued for in some cases - it's not good enough though, and a retailer offering decent customer support should do consistently better).
It is suboptimal this is all (from the passenger's perspective) mostly unwritten. This could have been avoided if more thought had been applied to the change.
Ah yes, in the same way that a chocolate teapot can help me make a brew?
Yes, this is why it's much better to do the policy work first and make sure the rules you're implementing don't discriminate unlawfully, rather than implement a discriminatory rule change and then do an impact assessment which concludes you need to make a load of exceptions to the rule you've just created.
Also creates differences in how the rules are applied between retailers and even depending on which agent reads your form/email, not that it isn't uncommon in customer service in different sectors too. It's quite common to hear of people "agent shopping" in different areas (eBay comes up quite a bit on forums), keep sending in your request until you get an agent who understands/is lenient/gives in for an easy life.
What these changes have shown is just how many people are not doing that, and were paying admin fees.
Other people have mentioned the need to buy in advance to secure seat reservations etc. (I am aware of the methods for obtaining seat reservations without tickets but they are intentionally obscure) but I would also like to mention the reduced rights this gives you in the event of disruption (since you don't have a contract).
If you get a seat reservation you have shown intent to travel and in defence in court you can cite the fact that walk up tickets are now (effectively) unavailable until immediately before travel.
I’m not convinced by that line of reasoning. There is no restriction on my ability to purchase a ticket before the day; the change is in my rights to seek a refund for change of mind on the day. I’d suggest it’s at least arguable that the existence of a reservation would be taken as proof of no intention to enter into a contract until the best possible terms are available.
If you buy a walk up ticket the previous day or before then you have to get a refund before midnight on the day before travel and then buy again just before travel because of the new rules. So buying the day before or earlier just means unnecessary time getting a refund and buying again. You can tell the court that these unfair regulations mean you have to show intent to travel in another way.
I don't think intent to travel on the passenger's part creates a contract with the railway. For example, if I board a local train at a station without a ticket machine, say King's Nympton, intending to buy a ticket to Birmingham New Street, but it turns out that the XC line is closed due to a national problem, the guard may refuse to sell me that ticket. In those circumstances, I have no right to request alternative transport from Exeter to Birmingham (unless I then do something else, such as buy the ticket on my phone).
I’m confused here - why would I need to refund and replace in this scenario?
Demonstrating an intent to travel does not form a contract. It's a pointless exercise.
In case you need to cancel on the day.
Arguably you don't need a ticket at all to have rights. You can't seriously say that KeyGo, TfL contactless and similar schemes mean you don't have rights before you tap in? That would be laughably unfair and surely a court would be similarly sympathetic.
I rather suspect it does mean that in many cases, at least for PAYG, which is one of the reasons (though I concede, not the main reason) why the railway likes it.
Much as we both hate it, that is a question of choice rather than of necessity - which takes us back to the question of the contract that is formed
I'm with @redreni - the rights associated with these are limited. But the question here is about the rights associated with disruption, which are rights that remain protected for tickets purchased in advance - unlike those related to cancellation through choice, which are in a different category. Fortunately, so far, the intersection between KeyGo etc. and reservations is very limited, which makes the conversation moot
