EMT - tickets withdrawn

[RJ]

I travelled today. Checked with the TM prior to boarding to ensure all was well with my paperwork etc, to which I received a positive response.

So I sat down in First Class (I was holding a valid public rate First Class ticket). Before long, the TM came along and inspected my ticket. She was not happy with the amount that I paid for it. The TM said that she could see that the ticket was valid, but was overruling that validity and withdrew it for investigation as she believed there was a mistake made somewhere.

I was then issued with a free SOR and asked to leave First Class. She was very polite and professional about the matter. As always, I politely justifed why the ticket I was holding was valid but moved anyway.

A few hours later, I received a friendly email from their customer service department informing me that they were aware of what had happened!

 

[kar3emosman]

The ticket was valid but was made invalid due to how much was paid for the ticket is what you are saying?

That seems odd.

 

[lyesbkz]

I was then issued with a free SOR and asked to leave First Class. She was very polite and professional about the matter. As always, I politely justifed why the ticket I was holding was valid but moved anyway.

A few hours later, I received a friendly email from their customer service department informing me that they were aware of what had happened!

You don't seem very irritated for someone who was forced to leave a First Class compartment despite holding a valid ticket (I know I would be!) - will you get some form of compensation for this?

 

[transportphoto]

Did you get a receipt for the withdrawal of the ticket? I have sent you a PM I can further detail on reply

TP

 

[WelshBluebird]

Is there any reason you did not protest (or refuse to hand over your tickets)?
Surely the price you paid has nothing at all to do with the TM / guard, unless they think your ticket is not valid (or is not real)? If they agree that it is valid and real, then I see no justification at all for taking the ticket from you (indeed I would have thought such an action is well outside what a TM / guard is allowed to do).

 

[DaveNewcastle]

If they agree that it is valid and real, then I see no justification at all for taking the ticket from you (indeed I would have thought such an action is well outside what a TM / guard is allowed to do).

Actually, this is precisely the action that a Guard is supposed to take, if any condition applies which suggests that the ticket might have been wrongly issued.
By retaining the ticket(s), by replacing them with a zero value excess to permit onward travel, and by completing a Travel irregularity Report, it becomes possible for the Operating Company to check the system which issued the tickets and if necessary, to arrange with ATOC (who are responsible for the central database of fares) for corrections to be made.

Its a vital stage in 'closing the loop' of information between the thousands of differing tickets which are physically printed and the systems which set the fares.


Without specific details of the ticket, no one here can comment on whether the grounds for suspecting an error would appear to be justified or not. However, this suggests that there was indeed an error:

A few hours later, I received a friendly email from their customer service department informing me that they were aware of what had happened!

An error which, in this case, was already known about.

 

[lyesbkz]

By retaining the ticket(s), by replacing them with a zero value excess to permit onward travel, and by completing a Travel irregularity Report

Although why should onward travel only be permitted in Standard class if the passenger held a First class ticket?

 

[tom1649]

Asking the passenger to leave first class doesn't sound necessary when they have a valid ticket. Retain the ticket for investigation by all means, but why should they have to move when it's through no fault of their own?

 

[WelshBluebird]

Actually, this is precisely the action that a Guard is supposed to take, if any condition applies which suggests that the ticket might have been wrongly issued.
By retaining the ticket(s), by replacing them with a zero value excess to permit onward travel, and by completing a Travel irregularity Report, it becomes possible for the Operating Company to check the system which issued the tickets and if necessary, to arrange with ATOS (who are responsible for the central database of fares) for corrections to be made.

Its a vital stage in 'closing the loop' of information between the thousands of differing tickets which are physically printed and the systems which set the fares.

Without specific details of the ticket, no one here can comment on whether the grounds for suspecting an error would appear to be justified or not. However, this suggests that there was indeed an error:An error which, in this case, was already known about.

But they were sold the ticket.
It is not the fault (or the problem) of the passenger if there was a mistake in pricing.
And even if that is the correct course of action, there is no way in my mind the passenger should then be asked to leave first class (despite having bought a perfectly valid first class ticket).

In terms of standard retailing, once a retailer has accepted your money for a product or service, then they have to provide the product or service. (Yes a retailer doesn't have to sell something at x price if they believe that price to be an error, but once they have accepted your money and agreed to provide you with the product or service, then they have to honour it). Why should the railways be any different?

 

[ChrisCooper]

I would think at very least they would be expected to refund any difference between the price of the ticket held and the standard class equivalent. I can't think any other business would get away with that, so neither should the railways. Actually in any other business even if a refund was provided it would still seem dodgy. At the end of the day it's deception as the person is not getting what they think they paid for, regardless of if it was mistakenly sold or not.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

So was this a normally purchased ticket that any of Joe Public could have, not bought using some complex split ticketing arrangement or super secret discount?

If it is a normal ticket then I would make very sue to pursue this. I would not expect to get chucked out of first class on a plane because I got a good deal.

 

[transportphoto]

So was this a normally purchased ticket that any of Joe Public could have, not bought using some complex split ticketing arrangement or super secret discount?

Even if it is either of these, it is a valid ticket. It has been withdrawn because of a ticket irregularity, they are not accusing the OP of doing anything wrong, the railways are entitled to withdraw the ticket as it is their property It will now go through an internal process to find the error however I think they are already aware of it, should it be what I am assuming it is

TP

 

[WelshBluebird]

Even if it is either of these, it is a valid ticket. It has been withdrawn because of a ticket irregularity, they are not accusing the OP of doing anything wrong, the railways are entitled to withdraw the ticket as it is their property It will now go through an internal process to find the error however I think they are already aware of it, should it be what I am assuming it is

TP

In that case, why should the passenger be inconvenienced because of it?
The OP paid for a first class ticket. There is no reason why he should not have at least been allowed to stay in first class.
Also, what if the original ticket was needed for some reason? (expenses to an employer or similar*, for further travel etc etc).

*Before this starts another "keeping your ticket" debate, some places will only accept a the ticket for expenses claims. That is a fact, and not something the person using the ticket can usually change.

 

[transportphoto]

In that case, why should the passenger be inconvenienced because of it?
The OP paid for a first class ticket. There is no reason why he should not have at least been allowed to stay in first class.

I don't condone this, however, if the person who is withdrawing the ticket wishes to do this, then they are well within their rights to do so.

Also, what if the original ticket was needed for some reason? (expenses to an employer or similar*, for further travel etc etc).

*Before this starts another "keeping your ticket" debate, some places will only accept a the ticket for expenses claims. That is a fact, and not something the person using the ticket can usually change.

Firstly if the ticket was needed for future travel, the replacement will cover this The railways are within their rights to retain their property, expenses or other requirements for the ticket have nothing to do with it. Sorry to be blunt, however that is reality.

TP

 

[Old Timer]

...In terms of standard retailing, once a retailer has accepted your money for a product or service, then they have to provide the product or service. (Yes a retailer doesn't have to sell something at x price if they believe that price to be an error, but once they have accepted your money and agreed to provide you with the product or service, then they have to honour it). Why should the railways be any different?

Because this is not "standard retailing". Railway tickets are issued under a variety of Railway-specific Legislation, which long preceeded any form of modern retailing law. If a ticket is not valid for the journey being undertaken then the Railway can take action to resolve that situation, which is why for years on this site I have continued to use the phrase "the correct fare for the journey being undertaken".

There are some parts to the story that are missing, which I would very much like to OP to fill us in with, as in its present form it is incomplete.

In that case, why should the passenger be inconvenienced because of it?
The OP paid for a first class ticket. There is no reason why he should not have at least been allowed to stay in first class.
Also, what if the original ticket was needed for some reason? (expenses to an employer or similar*, for further travel etc etc).

*Before this starts another "keeping your ticket" debate, some places will only accept a the ticket for expenses claims. That is a fact, and not something the person using the ticket can usually change.

See my last paragraph above.

So was this a normally purchased ticket that any of Joe Public could have, not bought using some complex split ticketing arrangement or super secret discount?

If it is a normal ticket then I would make very sue to pursue this. I would not expect to get chucked out of first class on a plane because I got a good deal.

No the matter would be discovered at checkin, this being the nearest equivalent to a guard checking tickets albeit even then the comparison is tenuous.

 

[AlterEgo]

Would this have anything to do with WebTIS and, erm, irregularities in routing which have now been closed?

*cough*

 

[WelshBluebird]

I don't condone this, however, if the person who is withdrawing the ticket wishes to do this, then they are well within their rights to do so.

That just does not sit right with me.
So in effect, you are saying that the railway staff are allowed to change the contract with the passenger at a whim? (since the contract the OP agreed to with the ticket retailer and EMT was for first class travel, and the TM changed that).

Firstly if the ticket was needed for future travel, the replacement will cover this

That is good to hear.

The railways are within their rights to retain their property, expenses or other requirements for the ticket have nothing to do with it. Sorry to be blunt, however that is reality.

Again, that doesn't sit right with me at all. People rely on being able to keep their tickets after travel. If there is no suggestion the passenger has done anything wrong, then they should not be inconvenienced in this way.

Because this is not "standard retailing". Railway tickets are issued under a variety of Railway-specific Legislation, which long preceeded any form of modern retailing law.

Fair enough. Still seems wrong though.
If I enter into a contract for travel, I rely on and expect the ToC to fulfil their side of the contract.

If a ticket is not valid for the journey being undertaken then the Railway can take action to resolve that situation, which is why for years on this site I have continued to use the phrase "the correct fare for the journey being undertaken".

But the ticket apparently was valid for the journey.
This is supported by the fact the TM didn't try to charge the OP any kind of excess or penalty fare, or give any warnings and such, and indeed said that the tickets were valid.
(as you say, the normal caveats about if the OP is telling the truth apply).

 

[Old Timer]

But the ticket apparently was valid for the journey.
This is supported by the fact the TM didn't try to charge the OP any kind of excess or penalty fare, or give any warnings and such, and indeed said that the tickets were valid.
(as you say, the normal caveats about if the OP is telling the truth apply).

A ticket is only valid WHEN it is the correct ticket for the journey (date/time restrictions), it is available on the route being travelled, it is being used in the correct Class e.g. in First it must be a First class ticket, and there are no non-compliances with restrictions such as a specific seat or other restriction such as no break of journey, etc, etc.

The Law is quite specific in that a Railway ticket can be withdrawn at any time, and for any reason. It merely represents for the benefit of the Railway physical evidence that the passenger has paid the fare for the journey being undertaken. If the fare is incorrect then the ticket per se becomes invalid.

The key point is the ability of the passenger to continue their journey, not whether or not they can keep the ticket.

A Contract is a two-way agreement and the Law of Contract requires both parties to ensure that the Contract and any written evidence of it is as has been agreed. Thus that is why there has always been a requirement upon an intending passenger to ensure that they have been given the correct ticket, as otherwise in Law technically it can be argued no Contract exists.

 

[AlterEgo]

As is becoming the norm on here, we know nothing about the ticket...so I'll hold off making comment until we do.

 

[Old Timer]

As is becoming the norm on here, we know nothing about the ticket...so I'll hold off making comment until we do.

Indeed, it is just a shame that almost EVERY ticket question of this sort now ends up with so many experts in ticketing Law venting forth with opinions of what should be rather than facts.

 

[yorkie]

As the details of the ticket are not known it is difficult to have a discussion about a ticket of unknown type from unknown origin to unknown destination with unknown routeing and unknown reservations.

I have been made aware of the details of the ticket and can confirm it is valid and the OP will obviously not be asked to pay anything.

However if the OP wishes for the ticket details to remain anonymous that must be respected, however it is perhaps best that unknown tickets are not discussed as it is impossible for people to contribute accurately to a thread where the details are unknown.

A Contract is a two-way agreement and the Law of Contract requires both parties to ensure that the Contract and any written evidence of it is as has been agreed. Thus that is why there has always been a requirement upon an intending passenger to ensure that they have been given the correct ticket, as otherwise in Law technically it can be argued no Contract exists.

The contract was agreed by both parties in this particular case.