Advance missed connection.

[faddy]

I've just looked up the Blackheath to Liverpool journey (for next Saturday) on NRE. Where TfL gives the 16:15 Blackheath -> Charing Cross, NRE gives the 16:04 Blackheath -> Victoria. Both however give a tube journey arriving Euston at 16:52.

Just realised that of course I wasn't comparing like with like: the TfL journey was produced from a query for arrival at Euston (Underground platform) by 17:00, the NRE journey from a query for, in effect, connecting with the 17:07 Euston departure.

 

[Paul Kelly]

The issue with the TfL journey planner not honouring the National Rail minimum connection times is an interesting one that could do with a bit of stirring up, if you or your daughter have the tenacity to pursue it. I've been wondering about it for a while but this is a real life example of it causing a passenger serious inconvenience and significant added cost. It's the kind of thing that Barry Doe (journalist who writes for RAIL magazine on fares issues) might be interested in.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Actually, forget that - even the TfL journey planner says you need to leave Blackheath on the 16:04 if you want to arrive at Euston by 16:52, which you must do to allow the 15-minute connection time. So the passenger has just cut it too fine and doesn't have a leg to stand on, unfortunately.

 

[sheff1]

The issue with the TfL journey planner not honouring the National Rail minimum connection times is an interesting one that could do with a bit of stirring up ...
Actually, forget that - even the TfL journey planner says you need to leave Blackheath on the 16:04 if you want to arrive at Euston by 16:52 ..

... but if you put in the journey as Blackheath to Liverpool Lime St, it returns the 1615 x Blackheath as the connection into the 1707 from Euston.

Obviously the prime purpose of the TfL planner is not to plan journeys to cities in the North of England but, if it is going to return itineraries for such things, it should reflect the National Rail minimum connection times. Therefore I believe your original point stands.

 

[bb21]

... but if you put in the journey as Blackheath to Liverpool Lime St, it returns the 1615 x Blackheath as the connection into the 1707 from Euston.

Obviously the prime purpose of the TfL planner is not to plan journeys to cities in the North of England but, if it is going to return itineraries for such things, it should reflect the National Rail minimum connection times. Therefore I believe your original point stands.

I believe there is potentially something in this, however I'm not sure this would be the best example to use as a test case.

Two issues remain unclear. Firstly you have the Oyster PAYG issue and the question on whether this really represented one journey, and secondly trying to hold TfL liable for the additional fare is going to be extremely tricky. Their practice in missed connections is to refund you the LUL fare, but not any consequential loss. I don't know how the CRA changes things but there is too much uncertainly for my liking.

 

[FenMan]

I welcome TfL reporting actual likely journey times for journeys that include a cross-London element. I use it a lot and have never come a cropper so far (but I don't use Advance tickets).

Would a disclaimer on the TfL Planner, linking to to the minimum NR interchange times that apply to Advance tickets, do the job?

 

[yorkie]

Firstly you have the Oyster PAYG issue and the question on whether this really represented one journey....

I hope no-one is suggesting that two separate journeys were made, one from Blackheath to Euston and another from Euston to Liverpool.

and secondly trying to hold TfL liable for the additional fare is going to be extremely tricky. Their practice in missed connections is to refund you the LUL fare, but not any consequential loss. I don't know how the CRA changes things but there is too much uncertainly for my liking.

But where there is uncertainty, the customer should not lose out.

I'm not sure where the suggestion of holding TfL liable has come from, but from what was posted in the original post, it appears Virgin Trains didn't even look into whether it was a valid connection, and even if it wasn't a valid connection, I'd expect Virgin Trains to apply common sense, as the customer was following an itinerary in good faith, albeit one that - unknown to the customer - was not fully compliant with minimum interchange times.

Virgin Trains claim that their values are to "do our utmost to ensure they get to where they want to be, feeling refreshed, relaxed and re-energised", they claim to " pride ourselves on being entrepreneurs, on challenging the status quo and taking risks" and they look for "ways to improve our customers' experience with us".

A very easy way for Virgin to adhere to these values is to recognise the customer was acting in good faith and travelling from Blackheath to Liverpool, and to permit travel on a later train.

Charging a customer may be technically correct because of the breach of the minimum connection time, but that wasn't the excuse the company provided, and given the company's values and the possibility the Consumer Rights Act may apply here, the clear and obvious course of action is to allow travel on the later train.

 

[faddy]

Actually, forget that - even the TfL journey planner says you need to leave Blackheath on the 16:04 if you want to arrive at Euston by 16:52, which you must do to allow the 15-minute connection time. So the passenger has just cut it too fine and doesn't have a leg to stand on, unfortunately.

On a weekday yes, but travelling on a Saturday (as my daughter was) it gives the 16:15 Blackheath departure.

 

[fowler9]

I hope I am not being too bold or offensive (And definitely not too original) in saying that in many circumstances the whole ticketing system is far to vague and complicated for the average person who uses the railways to understand. You know, in a kind of "Ah but you used Transport for London, you should have used National Rail Enquiries" kind of way. Its like the Peoples Front of Judea and the Judean Peoples Front for most.

 

[gray1404]

And also they should remember the fact that VT will still get the revenue from the original ticket held.

Options here then:
Complain to VT customer services
Complain to the company running service that caused the delay in to London

Perhaps no entitlement to a refund but perhaps delay repay/goodwill may be shown.

 

[yorkie]

I hope I am not being too bold or offensive (And definitely not too original) in saying that in many circumstances the whole ticketing system is far to vague and complicated for the average person who uses the railways to understand. You know, in a kind of "Ah but you used Transport for London, you should have used National Rail Enquiries" kind of way. Its like the Peoples Front of Judea and the Judean Peoples Front for most.

For me, you have to ask what is reasonable. The only sensible course here, given VT's claims about their ethos, is to allow travel, given the customer did use a journey planner to generate an itinerary.

I appreciate it was the 'wrong type of journey planner' but Virgin really ought to be better than that. If they are not, then they need to stop making totally misleading claims about how good their customer service skills supposedly are.

I know some people will want the rules rigidly enforced, with no concept of reasonableness, but I do have to wonder how such people would cope in most job roles that involve dealing with people, plus to do so may actually be at risk of breaching consumer rights.

faddy - what's the latest on this? Have you written to VT yet?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

And also they should remember the fact that VT will still get the revenue from the original ticket held.

Options here then:
Complain to VT customer services

Agreed.

Complain to the company running service that caused the delay in to London

No, as if there was such a delay it was negligible. They were not the ones who generated the itinerary or charged the customer.

 

[fowler9]

For me, you have to ask what is reasonable. The only sensible course here, given VT's claims about their ethos, is to allow travel, given the customer did use a journey planner to generate an itinerary.

I appreciate it was the 'wrong type of journey planner' but Virgin really ought to be better than that. If they are not, then they need to stop making totally misleading claims about how good their customer service skills supposedly are.

I know some people will want the rules rigidly enforced, with no concept of reasonableness, but I do have to wonder how such people would cope in most job roles that involve dealing with people, plus to do so may actually be at risk of breaching consumer rights.

faddy - what's the latest on this? Have you written to VT yet?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Agreed.

No, as if there was such a delay it was negligible. They were not the ones who generated the itinerary or charged the customer.

Totally agree with you.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What I dislike about a lot of business is that it does at least in part rely on the consumer messing up based on the vagaries surrounding it. You can just go on the internet and buy a ticket. And that is just where it starts. Then it gets complicated. Who do you believe? People are overwhelmed with choice. They go for the cheapest and assume they aren't being ripped off. How could anyone official do that? But they don't know who is official. Technically most of the websites aren't ripping anyone off in the eye of the law, but still they know they are having people off.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Theirs no TVM here so I see what folk buy on the internet when they collect TOD's- its frightening sometimes and many also want customer service as they have questions about what they've bought.

Half the folk buy Off Peak or Anytime tickets and think they have saved money by buying online.