Denied Boarding Hovertravel Portsmouth to Ryde

Skymonster said:

Indeed.


No, the customer’s contract is with SWR. SWR sub-contracted part of the journey to Hovertravel.

Click to expand...

No it didn't. That isn't what is happening here. They aren't subcontracting anything, they are simply selling tickets which are valid for Hovertravel and it's Hovertravel's TnCs which take precedence. They sell tickets on the day too, so "warnings" about "you need to reserve 48 hours in advance (as per Hovertravel' TnCs)" don't solve the issue.

Skymonster said:

It is SWR’s failing if it did not tell the customer that they needed to independently make reservations with Hovertravel. How can Hovertravel have any liability?

Click to expand...

Because it is a manifestly unfair term of their TnCs that a passenger have paid for their journey yet be denied boarding because the sailing is too full.

signed said:

Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, you do indeed have separate contract by the action of booking it.

A contract you aren’t even made aware of is not an enforceable contract.

Click to expand...

Whose fault is that? Are these tickets being sold without Hovertravel's consent? No.

By the same logic, consider:

You are Avanti West Coast. Your last train of the day is completely full and standing. You turn away a passenger who bought a flexible ticket from a SouthEastern TVM with no reservations. Does Avanti have any liability or not, regardless of the NRCoT, just because the ticket system it consents to use doesn't "tell them a passenger is coming"?

AlterEgo said:

Whose fault is that?

Click to expand...

The retailer, so the retailer has the duty to care to their passengers

AlterEgo said:

You are Avanti West Coast. Your last train of the day is completely full and standing. You turn away a passenger who bought a flexible ticket from a SouthEastern TVM with no reservations. Does Avanti have any liability or not, regardless of the NRCoT, just because the ticket system it consents to use doesn't "tell them a passenger is coming"?

Click to expand...

In a world without NRCoT or PRO, you would have Southeastern sort their contract with you then them going out to Avanti to collect according to their internal contracts if there is liability. Avanti would never have liability to you directly, like an ota would deal with an airline

signed said:

The retailer, so the retailer has the duty to care to their passengers

Click to expand...

No.

If you buy a combined or integrated ticket (for example SailRail) directly from a train company, your contract is with both the rail operator and the ferry carrier. The train company acts as the retailer and issuer of the integrated through ticket which legally establishes a single transport contract covering the entire journey.

The TOC is responsible for getting you to the port and honouring the NRCoT. The ferry operator is responsible for providing the maritime leg of your trip according to their own passenger carrier obligations.

SWR as the retailer are not liable here.

signed said:

In a world without NRCoT or PRO, you would have Southeastern sort their contract with you then them going out to Avanti to collect according to their internal contracts if there is liability. Avanti would never have liability to you directly, like an ota would deal with an airline

Click to expand...

What liability does an OTA have *on the day of travel?* Bringing them up wrt airlines is missing the point anyway. The law isn't the same.

AlterEgo said:

No.

If you buy a combined or integrated ticket (for example SailRail) directly from a train company, your contract is with both the rail operator and the ferry carrier. The train company acts as the retailer and issuer of the integrated through ticket which legally establishes a single transport contract covering the entire journey.

The TOC is responsible for getting you to the port and honouring the NRCoT. The ferry operator is responsible for providing the maritime leg of your trip according to their own passenger carrier obligations.

SWR as the retailer are not liable here.

Click to expand...

There is nowhere on the contract that you get that states that, until you get to the hovertravel website and tick the box that states so. That is the only dispute here, would there have been a clear “You accept the conditions of Hovertravel” it would be slam dunk and I wouldn’t be arguing this

The NRCoT stops applying because they are not a TOC, but then what’s remaining is your contract with the retailer to arrange for you to get to your destination as per the contract, since IMHO you have never accepted the conditions of travel of Hovertravel, therefore any liability would come out of the retailer

I am pretty certain the 'officious bystander' of yore would take the view that a retailer who did not inform you of the very real risk of not being carried was at fault. In Sealink days the railway timetables were clear that sailings were not guaranteed and could be cancelled at any time operating if weather and other circumstances permitted.

signed said:

There is nowhere on the contract that you get that states that, until you get to the hovertravel website and tick the box that states so. That is the only dispute here, would there have been a clear “You accept the conditions of Hovertravel” it would be slam dunk and I wouldn’t be arguing this

The NRCoT stops applying because they are not a TOC, but then what’s remaining is your contract with the retailer to arrange for you to get to your destination as per the contract, since IMHO you have never accepted the conditions of travel of Hovertravel, therefore any liability would come out of the retailer

Click to expand...

Right, I've misunderstood then, apologies - you mean the passenger can't have accepted a contract they didn't know about, not Hovertravel. In which case your objection makes a lot more sense.

AlterEgo said:

Right, I've misunderstood then, apologies - you mean the passenger can't have accepted a contract they didn't know about, not Hovertravel. In which case your objection makes a lot more sense.

Click to expand...

IANAL so idk how it would stand legally

Now I fully feel that it is a bad situation and you deserve compensation, but I strongly suggest @kkgbd2223 let that can of worms closed up firmly, as it is likely the legal implications of what is debated here, would scare the industry or some retailers or Hovertravel to close shop on very good value tickets, ruining it for everyone (not that that thread won’t or hasn’t already been read by people with the capacity to do it of course, we all know rf is read by a lot of the rail industry staff)

kkgbd2223 said:

Hello, here is the reply I received from Hovertravel:

We can advise that customers who purchase rail tickets which include cross solent travel with any of the three cross solent operators are not automatically booked onto any of the services provided by any operator. The rail operators do not provide any details of customers who have booked journeys which include cross solent travel and as such, none of the cross solent operators will be aware of any purchases that have been made.

As Hovertravel has been accepting through rail tickets for many years, we put in place a process whereby customers can contact us in advance of the day of travel to reserve a seat on a Hovercraft departure, to ensure that they can undertake their journey as required. This service is routinely used by many customers each day and is well received.

Full details of how this works and how to book is contained in the link below.
https://www.hovertravel.co.uk/connections/national-rail/

We can advise that national rails terms and conditions do advise that if your journey includes travel by a third party, such as a cross solent operator, that the third party’s terms and conditions do apply to that part of the journey. We can further advise that any customer who does not have an advanced, confirmed reservation with us, will only be accepted for travel, where unbooked seating exists on a departure at the time of checkin and this can mean a significant wait to travel at busier times, where services are fully booked. In addition to the above, if a customer arrives to travel with us, where they do not have a confirmed, advance reservation with us, such as a reservation made through the rail reservation process indicated in the link above and that departure is the last service of the day and there is no available seating, the customers will be required to arrange travel across the solent with another service provider at their own expense. Hovertravel has no obligation to offer alternative travel options or refunds, where no advance reservation is presented for the stated departure and our services are operating as advertised.

Our terms and conditions do advise the following regarding national rail tickets:
“Please also note that for tickets issued by third parties such as National Express and National Rail, you will need to contact the relevant third party for information regarding any compensation or liability and we shall have no responsibility or liability in that regard.”

As your purchase was made via National Rail, we are unable to assist with your enquiry further and we recommend that you contact the Rail service provider who sold the ticket to you, as indicated in the extract from our terms above.

I would appreciate comment with those more knowledgable on the legal aspects of this......
I will contact SWR next.

Click to expand...

Whilst that's an articulate and detailed response from Hovertravel, it doesn't explain how they justify refusing to carry you and thereby failing to deliver their contractual obligation.

Moreover their conditions do not say anything about the possibility of being denied boarding on a through National Rail ticket. It's frankly hilarious that they think they can get out of any liability simply by stating:

you will need to contact the relevant third party for information regarding any compensation or liability and we shall have no responsibility or liability in that regard

Click to expand...

To the extent that such a condition could be read as allowing them to deny boarding without liability (which is not at all how I read it), it is likely to be regarded as unfair under consumer law, and thus not binding. Based on the way they are arguing it should be interpreted, it would fall into the following examples of terms that may be regarded as unfair, from Schedule 2 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015:

2. A term which has the object or effect of inappropriately excluding or limiting the legal rights of the consumer in relation to the trader or another party in the event of total or partial non-performance or inadequate performance by the trader of any of the contractual obligations...

Click to expand...

The conditions suggest that they have no liability in the event of non-performance of their service.

3. A term which has the object or effect of making an agreement binding on the consumer in a case where the provision of services by the trader is subject to a condition whose realisation depends on the trader's will alone.

Click to expand...

They seem to suggest that it is entirely up to them whether they will carry you.

17. A term which has the object or effect of limiting the trader's obligation to respect commitments undertaken by the trader's agents or making the trader's commitments subject to compliance with a particular formality.

Click to expand...

This one in particular strikes me as relevant, since they seem to be claiming that unless you comply with the formality of making a reservation, they do not commit to carrying you on services which you may well have been shown and "booked" on.

18. A term which has the object or effect of obliging the consumer to fulfil all of the consumer's obligations where the trader does not perform the trader's obligations.

Click to expand...

Similarly, they have not performed their obligation to transport you, and yet they are effectively force you to comply with your obligation to pay for your ticket.

I think it is worthwhile making the above points to them and asking for reimbursement of the new Wightlink fare you had to pay for.

I don't think there is much mileage in continuing any complaint with SWR, other than in respect of the information (or lack thereof) they gave about the necessity of making reservations and consequences for not doing so.

signed said:

I am very late to this thread but

In the airline world, this would 100% be a retailer problem, and that’s indeed what happens all the time with Online Travel Agencies.

Unless you are H-24, in which case the operating carrier has your booking for changes (at all times refunds would be dealt by the OTA), everything needs to go through your retailer as your contract is with the agency not the airline.

Click to expand...

That's not correct, you have two contracts: one with the agency for the retailing of the ticket itself and another with the airline for the travel. An airline would not let you travel without having a contract with them, in which they can establish things like luggage limits and boarding/check-in deadlines. But regardless, comparisons with the airline world are not terribly helpful since the applicable conditions and laws are quite different.

signed said:

IMHO Hovertravel has a right to say, you don’t have a reservation, you can’t travel since you don’t have a contract with us.

Click to expand...

There is very clearly a contract with Hovertravel from the moment the ticket is sold, and Hovertravel don't deny this. They are just seeking to rely on their terms & conditions to deny travel without liability.

signed said:

Someone booking on SWR or NatEx or others, they don’t have a contract with Hovertravel, until they reserve, SWR has. It’s up to SWR to handle and refund/compensate an involved traveler.

Click to expand...

Whilst I agree that National Rail retailers could and should do more to inform people of the possibility of making a reservation and the potential consequences for not doing so, I don't see how a failure to provide that information would make them liable for what is likely a breach of contract by Hovetravel.

signed said:

There is nowhere on the contract that you get that states that, until you get to the hovertravel website and tick the box that states so.

Click to expand...

It is stated in the NRCoT that any element of your ticket not performed by the rail operator is subject to the relevant operator's terms and conditions.

I agree that it is not stated that Hovertravel's conditions apply, but equally I don't think a reasonable person would assume that the NRCoT govern a non-National Rail leg of their ticket - just as they wouldn't apply on the Underground, DLR or bus in London for example.

signed said:

That is the only dispute here, would there have been a clear “You accept the conditions of Hovertravel” it would be slam dunk and I wouldn’t be arguing this

Click to expand...

I agree this would be much clearer.

signed said:

The NRCoT stops applying because they are not a TOC, but then what’s remaining is your contract with the retailer to arrange for you to get to your destination as per the contract, since IMHO you have never accepted the conditions of travel of Hovertravel, therefore any liability would come out of the retailer

Click to expand...

I can see where your viewpoint is coming from, but ultimately Hovertravel's conditions are alluded to, even if not explicitly linked to.

Watershed said:

It is stated in the NRCoT that any element of your ticket not performed by the rail operator is subject to the relevant operator's terms and conditions.

I agree that it is not stated that Hovertravel's conditions apply, but equally I don't think a reasonable person would assume that the NRCoT govern a non-National Rail leg of their ticket - just as they wouldn't apply on the Underground, DLR or bus in London for example.

Click to expand...

I have missed that, my bad, fully makes sense

I have kept out of this thread so far, but it is taking a turn that is somewhat concerning for someone living on the Isle of Wight. One of the major factors affecting travel to and from the Isle of Wight is in the name: it is an isle. It should be fairly obvious that expectations and arrangements have to be adjusted to take into account the restrictions that this creates and the problems that this can cause. The various transport providers do their best to accommodate travellers as flexibly as possible, but they have only a limited amount of leeway to play with. They, quite reasonably in my option, expect passengers to, at the very least, make minimal preparations before travelling.

I, and probably 100,000+ others, would be thoroughly fed up, to put it mildly, if one person’s attempt to get compensation for a situation largely brought about by their own failure to take reasonable preventative measures led to restrictions. Problems with travelling to the mainland are a factor that ought to be obvious to all: we don’t want them increased.

As I say, when the HoverBus leg of my journey on a through National Rail ticket was cancelled I got a refund from the retailer.

The same NRCoT provisions applied as in this case: the NRCoT says the T&Cs of the operator of the non-rail leg apply, and the T&Cs of the bus company said we're not liable and you can't have a refund under any circumstances even if we fail to carry you for a reason that is entirely our fault. I agree that's a manifestly unfair term, as is HoverTravel's similar term in its T&Cs for the Hovercraft leg, but the retailer is who I bought the ticket from and who I paid the money to so I went to them and they dealt with it.

Accordingly I would respectfully disagree that approaching SWR would be a waste of time. They may do what LNER did for me and at least issue a refund.

Gloster said:

I have kept out of this thread so far, but it is taking a turn that is somewhat concerning for someone living on the Isle of Wight. One of the major factors affecting travel to and from the Isle of Wight is in the name: it is an isle. It should be fairly obvious that expectations and arrangements have to be adjusted to take into account the restrictions that this creates and the problems that this can cause. The various transport providers do their best to accommodate travellers as flexibly as possible, but they have only a limited amount of leeway to play with. They, quite reasonably in my option, expect passengers to, at the very least, make minimal preparations before travelling.

I, and probably 100,000+ others, would be thoroughly fed up, to put it mildly, if one person’s attempt to get compensation for a situation largely brought about by their own failure to take reasonable preventative measures led to restrictions. Problems with travelling to the mainland are a factor that ought to be obvious to all: we don’t want them increased.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised you managed to wait so long before posting - post #100! For what's it's worth, I'm in full agreement with you.

Gloster said:

I have kept out of this thread so far, but it is taking a turn that is somewhat concerning for someone living on the Isle of Wight. One of the major factors affecting travel to and from the Isle of Wight is in the name: it is an isle. It should be fairly obvious that expectations and arrangements have to be adjusted to take into account the restrictions that this creates and the problems that this can cause. The various transport providers do their best to accommodate travellers as flexibly as possible, but they have only a limited amount of leeway to play with. They, quite reasonably in my option, expect passengers to, at the very least, make minimal preparations before travelling.

Click to expand...

I fully agree with you, and thank you for saying that, but the offering of flexibility isn't the issue here

The issue is wildly unfair terms and lack of passenger awareness

If every retailer were to have a very clear warning, we wouldn't be in this situation right now, due diligence or not, a single line in the middle of a page is going to be missed.

Gloster said:

I have kept out of this thread so far, but it is taking a turn that is somewhat concerning for someone living on the Isle of Wight. One of the major factors affecting travel to and from the Isle of Wight is in the name: it is an isle. It should be fairly obvious that expectations and arrangements have to be adjusted to take into account the restrictions that this creates and the problems that this can cause. The various transport providers do their best to accommodate travellers as flexibly as possible, but they have only a limited amount of leeway to play with. They, quite reasonably in my option, expect passengers to, at the very least, make minimal preparations before travelling.

I, and probably 100,000+ others, would be thoroughly fed up, to put it mildly, if one person’s attempt to get compensation for a situation largely brought about by their own failure to take reasonable preventative measures led to restrictions. Problems with travelling to the mainland are a factor that ought to be obvious to all: we don’t want them increased.

Click to expand...

I don't see that pursuing a case like this would lead to Hovertravel pulling out of through ticketing if that is what you are imagining. If it did, that would be quite the overreaction. What they simply need to do is to provide better alternatives when their 'flights' are fully booked rather than telling people to get lost. Ticket acceptance already seems to be arranged with Wightlink when there are cancellations due to poor weather, so it is not as if they are unable to agree terms on that topic.

Moreover, in the short term they need to push SWR to get rail retailers to improve the information they give at the time of purchasing. It is all well and good saying that the OP didn't take 'reasonable preventative measures' but it is not at all made clear - even when reading Hovertravel's terms and conditions - that they will strand you if the last 'flight' is full. No average person even reads such conditions so it needs to be made clear at the point of purchase that a reservation is not only advisable but that the absence thereof may lead to a denial of boarding.

Skymonster said:

Those who cannot be bothered to check the full arrangements for what they are buying (in this case simply reviewing the Hovertravel website), and then self-entitledly start causing a fuss and trying to claim unwarranted compensation, simply risk ruining good deals that benefit the majority. IMO the OP needs to accept that they didn’t make enough effort to understand the product that they had bought and put down any extra expense they incurred to a learning exercise.

Click to expand...

Can I politely suggest that you have given your opinion on the OP enough times? This is at least the fourth time I've read you repeat this now. Nobody actually asked you what you thought, and while you're obviously as entitled as anyone to express it, the OP is asking the rest of us for assistance in recovering some of their money, which they ought to be entitled to do without having you repeatedly re-state the same thing again?

Your opinion is crystal clear and perfectly valid. However, it is plain that the OP does not agree with you.

This entire thread is making a mountain out of a molehill. The issue is no different to a last bus having reached it's maximum permitted capacity, or even a last train being too full to squeeze on.

From appearances, rail passengers without bookings make up a substantial percentage of Hovertravel's passengers on every flight, and any changes are far more likely to inconvenience the majority. All that really needs to be done is to remove the last flight from rail journey planners and keep a few spaces on it free for contingency (which I assume they already do), ideally with an agreement with Wightlink for the rare occasion that's still not enough

Watershed said:

I don't see that pursuing a case like this would lead to Hovertravel pulling out of through ticketing if that is what you are imagining. If it did, that would be quite the overreaction. What they simply need to do is to provide better alternatives when their 'flights' are fully booked rather than telling people to get lost. Ticket acceptance already seems to be arranged with Wightlink when there are cancellations due to poor weather, so it is not as if they are unable to agree terms on that topic.

Moreover, in the short term they need to push SWR to get rail retailers to improve the information they give at the time of purchasing. It is all well and good saying that the OP didn't take 'reasonable preventative measures' but it is not at all made clear - even when reading Hovertravel's terms and conditions - that they will strand you if the last 'flight' is full. No average person even reads such conditions so it needs to be made clear at the point of purchase that a reservation is not only advisable but that the absence thereof may lead to a denial of boarding.

Click to expand...

Exactly. There's no evidence to suggest that there is a risk of "ruining a good deal for the majority". That would be a complete hyperbole when all that's needed is a few hours of basic work implementing a reservation service, which has already been done for Stena and others regardless, so it clearly isn't all that difficult. A few minutes work adding a suitable note on the purchase would also solve the issue if there were genuine technical problems. BR Fares' website manages to get this perfectly correct in respect of tickets and reservations with essentially no issues at all. It's far from difficult. The retailer is paid a commission for the explicit purposes of getting this kind of thing correct (or carrying the can on the rare occasion they don't and there's a financial consequence to a consumer).

Mainline421 said:

This entire thread is making a mountain out of a molehill. The issue is no different to a last bus having reached it's maximum permitted capacity, or even a last train being too full to squeeze on.

Click to expand...

This isn't the case. If either happened to a ticket holder, they'd be unquestionably entitled to alternative transport at no extra cost.

redreni said:

As I say, when the HoverBus leg of my journey on a through National Rail ticket was cancelled I got a refund from the retailer.

The same NRCoT provisions applied as in this case: the NRCoT says the T&Cs of the operator of the non-rail leg apply, and the T&Cs of the bus company said we're not liable and you can't have a refund under any circumstances even if we fail to carry you for a reason that is entirely our fault. I agree that's a manifestly unfair term, as is HoverTravel's similar term in its T&Cs for the Hovercraft leg, but the retailer is who I bought the ticket from and who I paid the money to so I went to them and they dealt with it.

Accordingly I would respectfully disagree that approaching SWR would be a waste of time. They may do what LNER did for me and at least issue a refund.

Click to expand...

If the customer wanted a pro-rated refund, instead of compensation for the value of the alternative arrangement, they'd definitely be entitled to it. It's far from obvious what that'd be without knowing what ticket they were using precisely and what parts of it they did and didn't use, and why. They clearly have a cast iron right to a refund of the part they didn't use in these circumstances. This could actually be the best possible outcome that's left.

Watershed said:

There is very clearly a contract with Hovertravel from the moment the ticket is sold, and Hovertravel don't deny this. They are just seeking to rely on their terms & conditions to deny travel without liability.

Click to expand...

Exactly. The law clearly doesn't allow Hovertravel to hold the position that they are entitled to be paid for the journey under the contract, but not liable for providing anything at all, not even a partial refund, in return in these circumstances.

Now, the difference in values here between what the customer paid for and what they actually received may be rather small. But it's also clearly not zero, because Hovertravel certainly didn't carry the passenger on the way there in exchange for nothing at all, did they?

Exactly how to measure this and who pays it is of course not prescribed anywhere clearly either, because ideally this would never happen, or even just was never even envisioned at all when the relevant conditions were written. But the circumstances being awkward absolutely do not mean that the value is reasonably zero, either.

The last time I booked via hovercraft was about 3 years ago, and I even on the booking was allocated travel times, outward, and return,

Got to Southsea via the hover bus, presented by ticket, only to be told it was not valid, that because it was booked via another operator, they cannot guarantee I would get on that crossing, so i had to wait for the next one, luckily that did have space,

I went over to the ticket office at Esplanade and asked is my ticket valid on the Wightlink, instead of chancing the hovercraft, because I had purchased it via SWT, and he took the ticket and issued me with a replacement valid via Portsmouth, it was I think an extra £4.

I don't know if this is a regular thing, or a local arrangement because I would imagine being stranded would lead to problems, especially if you have connections at Portsmouth to catch.

Mainline421 said:

This entire thread is making a mountain out of a molehill. The issue is no different to a last bus having reached it's maximum permitted capacity, or even a last train being too full to squeeze on.

Click to expand...

If I can't get on the bus I could at least get a cab. I don't fancy swimming six miles.

Swedenorer said:

If I can't get on the bus I could at least get a cab. I don't fancy swimming six miles.

Click to expand...

The big ferries and catamaran in effect have unlimited capacity except at silly-busy times. The likelihood of being left behind on these is probably similar to a train.

Bletchleyite said:

The big ferries and catamaran in effect have unlimited capacity except at silly-busy times. The likelihood of being left behind on these is probably similar to a train.

Click to expand...

Indeed. And it's definitely happened at least once where the customer was given free passage on Wightlink for no reason other than that the Hovercraft was full for the remainder of the day.

In that circumstance the customer was tacitly expected to make their own way to or from Fishbourne but that didn't seem especially unreasonable.

Perhaps it's actually the norm and the OP just got someone who didn't realise or didn't want to help.

Good morning. Many thanks for everyone's replies.

I completely agree that the hovercraft is a unique service and I would not want to do anything that jeopardises either its existence and/or the value/convenience of the through tickets offered.

That said, it is manifestly unfair that the terms and conditions of travel can result in a situation where a passenger is not entitled to even a refund in the event that Hovertravel and it's retail partners sell more tickets than there are available seats resulting in that passenger not being able to travel the day their ticket is valid. That the passenger is not adequately informed of this risk at the time they purchase their ticket, especially if purchased from a 3rd party retailer such as a TOC ticket counter which is what I did.

Doing some homework on this, I don't think the Consumer Contracts / Consumer Rights regulations apply. Hovercraft are legally classified as vessels/ships which makes them subject to EU regulation 1177/2010, unfortunately, that regulation provides no obligation on the carrier to provide a refund or compensation where the passenger holds and open ticket. They are obligated if the passenger has a reservation or a season ticket.

So I think at this stage my complaint is with SWR who did not adequately inform me at the time I purchased my ticket, that there is a risk of denial of boarding without a refund, compensation or alternative travel (including re-validating ticket for the following day), unless a reservation has been made which has to be done a minimum of 48 hours in advance. Thus I will be asking SWR to refund the additional ticket I had to purchase to travel back with WightLink.

The Consumer Rights Act does apply. As you say, there is no right to compensation or a refund in this case under the retained EU maritime rights regulation, but that regulation merely sets out additional rights which apply in some circumstances - it doesn't limit or exclude your consumer rights in any way.

My view remains that their terms and conditions don't actually state they can refuse both travel and a refund, indeed it doesn't really address through tickets in any detail. Even if it did, such terms would be subject to an assessment of fairness because they aren't 'prominent', and they would almost certainly fail that test for being manifestly unfair as you say.

That's not to say that SWR haven't done a bad job of communicating the terms and conditions of the ticket, but I'm not sure that you can hold them legally liable for your costs as a result, when they are purely the selling agent and not the operator that's in breach of contract.

The maritime transport provider is absolutely on the hook to provide you with a proportionate refund in these circumstances, as an absolute minimum. This might not be much but it's not nothing. The current position is that they've been paid to transport you, and also refused to transport you (regardless of how justified or not it was for them to refuse). There's no possibility that would be allowed to stand given their terms.

The answer is quite clear, either, when you book, it adds a reservation, on Hoverspeeds system, before you complete the purchase, and removes it if you dont, or they stop offering tickets via Southsea, and only offer through ticketing via Wightlink. where you stand a greater chance of getting on,

martin butler said:

The answer is quite clear, either, when you book, it adds a reservation, on Hoverspeeds system, before you complete the purchase, and removes it if you dont, or they stop offering tickets via Southsea, and only offer through ticketing via Wightlink. where you stand a greater chance of getting on,

Click to expand...

When I went to visit my friends in Ryde in November I (a) didn't know I was going until less than 48 hours beforehand and (b) didn't know which flight I wanted to take on the outbound leg until maybe 90 minutes before, nor on the return leg until literally a few minutes before.

Nor is there any need to make a reservation when intending to travel in the middle of the day in November.

Under your proposal to force people to make a reservation, would they have to use it? If not, it's just going to lead to a lot of people being turned away from ostensibly full crossings which then leave with empty seats, isn't it?

What's wrong with just telling people they ought to make a reservation, telling them how to do so, explaining what may happen if they don't and getting rid of the stupid 48 hour notice period? The OP's unfortunate experience wouldn't have happened if that were the system (or if it did, it would have been his own fault).

martin butler said:

The answer is quite clear, either, when you book, it adds a reservation, on Hoverspeeds system, before you complete the purchase, and removes it if you dont, or they stop offering tickets via Southsea, and only offer through ticketing via Wightlink. where you stand a greater chance of getting on,

Click to expand...

More chance of Hovertravel deciding it would be far simpler to withdraw from the through tickets.

Especially when it comes to flexible tickets

Kite159 said:

More chance of Hovertravel deciding it would be far simpler to withdraw from the through tickets.

Especially when it comes to flexible tickets

Click to expand...

Or make it compulsory, or nearly so, to make a reservation for all journeys. This could be a problem for the many islanders and (fewer) mainlanders who use it to commute or go about their daily business, but are not able to plan exactly which flight they are going to need to use every day.

martin butler said:

The answer is quite clear, either, when you book, it adds a reservation, on Hoverspeeds system, before you complete the purchase, and removes it if you dont, or they stop offering tickets via Southsea, and only offer through ticketing via Wightlink. where you stand a greater chance of getting on,

Click to expand...

The cost and complexity of linking the 2 computer systems is likely to result in the same situation as with Scotrail and Caledonian MacBrayne where online through ticketing has been withdrawn except some turn up and go ferries, you can still book at ticket offices and via a call centre on the reservable ferries. Or between Eurostar and National Rail where all through ticketing was withdrawn.
Eurostar and the Scottish government are far bigger companies than Hovertravel which is the size of a medium heritage railway

marshlinker said:

The cost and complexity of linking the 2 computer systems is likely to result in the same situation as with Scotrail and Caledonian MacBrayne where online through ticketing has been withdrawn except some turn up and go ferries, you can still book at ticket offices and via a call centre on the reservable ferries. Or between Eurostar and National Rail where all through ticketing was withdrawn.
Eurostar and the Scottish government are far bigger companies than Hovertravel which is the size of a medium heritage railway

Click to expand...

Thats why i can easily see railway ticketing agencies only offering through travel via wightlink, because if something goes wrong, there is always the vehicle ferry if a coach can be arranged at short notice, or taxi, to ferry foot passengers from Ryde.