Digital Railcards - Recent update broken App

[WelshBluebird]

All of the above are well well and good, but the T&Cs of the Railcard App are quite clear:

4.2 is the one that applies here. By choosing to have a Railcard that is app-based (and yes, that extends to 26-30 Railcards insofar as you choose to have the railcard) you accept the risk that app might not be available and the potential consequences thereof (i.e. not having your Railcard when travelling).

I suspect, if challenged, that could be found to count as an unfair condition (which are illegal and cannot be enforced).
Not that I'd like to be the one to challenge it, but considering you could end up with a pretty large bill if you are travelling on a long distance service, though no fault of your own, even though you have done everything the railway industry asks of you to make sure your railcard is valid, I really don't see how that term could be classed as fair.

And even ignoring the legal stuff, imagine the PR disaster and headlines if a significant number of people got penalty fares or large bills for new tickets because the RDG broke the app!

 

[takno]

All of the above are well well and good, but the T&Cs of the Railcard App are quite clear:



4.2 is the one that applies here. By choosing to have a Railcard that is app-based (and yes, that extends to 26-30 Railcards insofar as you choose to have the railcard) you accept the risk that app might not be available and the potential consequences thereof (i.e. not having your Railcard when travelling).

Supplying a duff version of the app which doesn't work on thousands of peoples phones couldn't for a second be described as outside of their control. Alright the failure on iOS may be an unexpected incompatibility with the new iOS release and therefore nominally outside their control, but in that case I wouldn't count their efforts as reasonable under 4.1. I doubt they'd even turn up to defend the contract in court anyway - there's not much enforceability in tiny legalese that says "we formed a contract with you, and you have held up your end and bought all the right tickets, but one part of our organisation has failed to show proof to another part of our organisation, so now you have to pay twice".

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

All of the above are well well and good, but the T&Cs of the Railcard App are quite clear:



4.2 is the one that applies here. By choosing to have a Railcard that is app-based (and yes, that extends to 26-30 Railcards insofar as you choose to have the railcard) you accept the risk that app might not be available and the potential consequences thereof (i.e. not having your Railcard when travelling).

This is what I was alluding to above - under S49 of the CRA, such clauses may as well not exist for all the enforceability they have. They can't exclude liability for breaking their app and thereby putting the passenger in a position of considerable financial and legal risk. It's an indisputable breach of the duty to provide the service (the Railcard app) with reasonable care and skill, as even a very basic bit of testing should have revealed the problem (likely some kind of incompatibility in security and server settings).

I'd honestly like to see them try and deny a claim for replacement tickets where no assurances of validity are forthcoming...

 

[marks87]

Except they’re not denying any such claims - which brings me back to my original post about not needing to go in all guns blazing, Acts of Parliament in hand.

With regards to unfair contract terms, the availability or otherwise of the app could be regarded as being a “core exemption” because the app itself is the service being provided. The consumer is capable of making an informed decision as to whether or not to accept the risks associated with the app potentially not being available - not least because no amount of testing can guarantee that any software will work for 100% of the time for 100% of users.

 

[WelshBluebird]

Regardless of the legal / T&C stuff, they have fixed it now, without an update to the app. So someone presumably messed up something on the server side (maybe the updating the app with the "security change" but not the server lol).

 

[Bletchleyite]

All of the above are well well and good, but the T&Cs of the Railcard App are quite clear:

4.2 is the one that applies here. By choosing to have a Railcard that is app-based (and yes, that extends to 26-30 Railcards insofar as you choose to have the railcard) you accept the risk that app might not be available and the potential consequences thereof (i.e. not having your Railcard when travelling).

I think that is rather close to being an unfair term legally and therefore non-enforceable. Did anyone get a PF or prosecution threat and fancies challenging it? (Sorry, I can't provide costs...)

 

[Bletchleyite]

This is what I was alluding to above - under S49 of the CRA, such clauses may as well not exist for all the enforceability they have. They can't exclude liability for breaking their app and thereby putting the passenger in a position of considerable financial and legal risk. It's an indisputable breach of the duty to provide the service (the Railcard app) with reasonable care and skill, as even a very basic bit of testing should have revealed the problem (likely some kind of incompatibility in security and server settings).

I'd honestly like to see them try and deny a claim for replacement tickets where no assurances of validity are forthcoming...

Replacement tickets aren't the issue - more the issue is that the security contractor goons at places like Manc Picc would report someone for prosecution because of it (most people don't check it before they board) and the similar goons in Northern's prosecution department would most likely, based on the kind of stuff we read here, proceed with the prosecution rather than writing to the passenger with a grovelling apology and a small RTV.

If the railway acted reasonably like it used to, this wouldn't be an issue. But when you take an absolutist approach you need to ensure your side works absolutely as well. And replacement tickets are not a solution - if I bought an Advance months ago on a peak time Manchester to London train, I may well not be able to afford a walk-up undiscounted Anytime to replace it. All this "pay and claim" lark (and the airlines are at it as well) assumes everyone has a credit card with a generous credit limit to bail the railway out of the things *it* should be dealing with.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Replacement tickets aren't the issue - more the issue is that the security contractor goons at places like Manc Picc would report someone for prosecution because of it (most people don't check it before they board) and the similar goons in Northern's prosecution department would most likely, based on the kind of stuff we read here, proceed with the prosecution rather than writing to the passenger with a grovelling apology and a small RTV.

If the railway acted reasonably like it used to, this wouldn't be an issue. But when you take an absolutist approach you need to ensure your side works absolutely as well. And replacement tickets are not a solution - if I bought an Advance months ago on a peak time Manchester to London train, I may well not be able to afford a walk-up undiscounted Anytime to replace it. All this "pay and claim" lark (and the airlines are at it as well) assumes everyone has a credit card with a generous credit limit to bail the railway out of the things *it* should be dealing with.

Absolutely. I think reimbursement for replacement tickets is the absolute least they could be doing. It would probably not be legally impossible to be convicted for a Byelaw 18 offence if the Railcard wasn't working, if you hadn't had assurances it'd be accepted. And so either the railway should buy people replacement undiscounted tickets or give assurances.

 

[marks87]

I think that is rather close to being an unfair term legally and therefore non-enforceable. Did anyone get a PF or prosecution threat and fancies challenging it? (Sorry, I can't provide costs...)

As I said in a subsequent post, the term may be regarded as a "core exemption" because it relates specifically to the delivery of the service to which the contract applies.

It would however require a test in court, something I doubt will be happening any time soon (regardless of yesterday's goings-on).

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

As I said in a subsequent post, the term may be regarded as a "core exemption" because it relates specifically to the delivery of the service to which the contract applies.

It would however require a test in court, something I doubt will be happening any time soon (regardless of yesterday's goings-on).

Core exemptions are only in relation to the 'unfair term' test. The duty to perform the service with reasonable care and skill is not subject to any provisos.

 

[marks87]

Core exemptions are only in relation to the 'unfair term' test. The duty to perform the service with reasonable care and skill is not subject to any provisos.

And here was me thinking people were trying to claim 4.2 was an unfair term. Now you’re not?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

And here was me thinking people were trying to claim 4.2 was an unfair term. Now you’re not?

Ah no that wasn't me. I was saying that they can't exclude liability for screwing up as S49 implies a non-excludable duty of reasonable care and skill.

 

[matt]

Same here, mine is working fine.

However it is now broken and I'm travelling this evening

 

[_toommm_]

However it is now broken and I'm travelling this evening

Mine is broken too

 

[matt]

Mine is working again now.

 

[Joe Paxton]

Mine is working again now.

Mine never stopped working.

It is however a bit of plastic (ordered online rather than from a station) which I keep in my wallet nowadays - tougher than a traditional paper Railcard that would soon become all chewed up, and no need to rely on the vagaries of app and/or mobile OS updates etc. I do need to know where my wallet is however!

That said, I'm all for the app-based Digital Railcards in principle - they do need to work reliably though.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Mine never stopped working.

It is however a bit of plastic (ordered online rather than from a station) which I keep in my wallet nowadays - tougher than a traditional paper Railcard that would soon become all chewed up, and no need to rely on the vagaries of app and/or mobile OS updates etc. I do need to know where my wallet is however!

That said, I'm all for the app-based Digital Railcards in principle - they do need to work reliably though.

Indeed, I got a Digit Railcard the last time I got a Railcard because I had forgotten my (physical) Railcard shortly beforehand and didn't want to repeat it.

However, after the debacle of the app being broken by an update recently, I will certainly not be renewing it to the digital version, unless ATOC/RDG make assurances that you do not need to buy a new ticket if such issues occur and that you can use Railcard-discounted tickets normally even if the app is broken by them.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That said, I'm all for the app-based Digital Railcards in principle - they do need to work reliably though.

They have gone too complex with them with the verification etc. They just need to be "pkpass" cards with a barcode verifiable by the TOC online - like all e-tickets need to be. Sorted.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

They have gone too complex with them with the verification etc. They just need to be "pkpass" cards with a barcode verifiable by the TOC online - like all e-tickets need to be. Sorted.

I suppose the worry is that, since they aren't biometrically registered, they could be used in multiple places at once. It's a feeble argument IMO since the Railcard fee is more of an administration fee for the scheme anyway, but that's probably why they have all this faff.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I suppose the worry is that, since they aren't biometrically registered, they could be used in multiple places at once. It's a feeble argument IMO since the Railcard fee is more of an administration fee for the scheme anyway, but that's probably why they have all this faff.

If they had a barcode, it would be easy to pick up on "odd" usage patterns, such as a scan at London Euston and Manchester Picc at the same time. Then get prosecuting. Problem solved.

 

[_toommm_]

Indeed, I got a Digit Railcard the last time I got a Railcard because I had forgotten my (physical) Railcard shortly beforehand and didn't want to repeat it.

However, after the debacle of the app being broken by an update recently, I will certainly not be renewing it to the digital version, unless ATOC/RDG make assurances that you do not need to buy a new ticket if such issues occur and that you can use Railcard-discounted tickets normally even if the app is broken by them.

Could not agree more - especially after being harassed by some Carlisle bods at Manchester Piccadilly, I'd rather have the physical assurance and keep a card in my ticket wallet.