London Zone U e-ticket

[ServerHoster]

I've bought a ticket from Norwich to London Zone U3 from Avanti's app. I'm travelling from Norwich to Stratford, then from Stratford to a Zone 3 DLR station.

It's given me an e-ticket, which I thought it wasn't meant to do for a journey involving TFL? Would I be fine using this on the train and DLR, or should I attempt to contact Avanti to get it fixed?

 

[bcarmicle]

I suspect that in practice you will be fine, since you won't need to pass a gateline at Stratford to change and DLR stations don't have gatelines. However, if there is a ticket inspection on the TfL portion of the journey, it would almost certainly be very annoying to deal with, so it is probably worth querying with Avanti at least.

 

[Watershed]

It is a valid ticket since it has been issued by an accredited retailer; TfL have given RDG the authority to issue tickets on their behalf, and in turn RDG have licensed Avanti and their TIS (Ticket Issuing System: Pico4UK) as an accredited retailer.

As @bcarmicle says, I would put money on TfL RPIs wrongly claiming it is invalid, but you would have to be pretty unlucky to come across them so I would be prepared to deal with that situation if it arises.

In terms of what has happened, the flow (i.e. origin/destination pair and ticket type) must have been accidentally enabled for eTicket fulfilment in the RCS (Retail Control System) by Greater Anglia, who are the fare setter. I am sure this will be fixed fairly soon now that you have posted about it on the forum.

However, Pico should probably also have a hardcoded rule that prevents the issuance of eTickets for journeys involving the Tube, even when eTickets are enabled for the tickets in question. So although they were just following what's in the industry data feeds, other TISes would not have offered an eTicket for this journey because they know that it is only liable to cause passengers difficulties.

 

[Benjwri]

It is a valid ticket since it has been issued by an accredited retailer; TfL have given RDG the authority to issue tickets on their behalf, and in turn RDG have licensed Avanti and their TIS (Ticket Issuing System: Pico4UK) as an accredited retailer.

As @bcarmicle says, I would put money on TfL RPIs wrongly claiming it is invalid, but you would have to be pretty unlucky to come across them so I would be prepared to deal with that situation if it arises.

In terms of what has happened, the flow (i.e. origin/destination pair and ticket type) must have been accidentally enabled for eTicket fulfilment in the RCS (Retail Control System) by Greater Anglia, who are the fare setter. I am sure this will be fixed fairly soon now that you have posted about it on the forum.

However, Pico should probably also have a hardcoded rule that prevents the issuance of eTickets for journeys involving the Tube, even when eTickets are enabled for the tickets in question. So although they were just following what's in the industry data feeds, other TISes would not have offered an eTicket for this journey because they know that it is only liable to cause passengers difficulties.

While I agree with the overall point, this isn’t the customers fault and I would hope discretion would be use, I disagree that a TfL RPI would be wrong to deny the ticket. The issuing of the ticket will have broken the Travelcard Agreement because it hasn’t been issued in an approved format, and therefore they were not authorised to sell the ticket.

As I say I would hope discretion would be shown, but TfL is within their right to refuse, and in my opinion the liability would fall on the retailer to reimburse the customer if TfL charges them.

 

[Wallsendmag]

While I agree with the overall point, this isn’t the customers fault and I would hope discretion would be use, I disagree that a TfL RPI would be wrong to deny the ticket. The issuing of the ticket will have broken the Travelcard Agreement because it hasn’t been issued in an approved format, and therefore they were not authorised to sell the ticket.

As I say I would hope discretion would be shown, but TfL is within their right to refuse, and in my opinion the liability would fall on the retailer to reimburse the customer if TfL charges them.

Strange that it's broken the Travelcard agreement when it isn't a Travelcard

 

[Benjwri]

Strange that it's broken the Travelcard agreement when it isn't a Travelcard

It appears the non got lost while I was typing it, that is my mistake.

To give it its full name the Through Ticketing (Non-Travelcard) Arrangement, which limits the formats tickets can be issued in Section 18. While it has been expanded since as ticket formats changed, it obviously has not had e tickets added.

 

[Watershed]

While I agree with the overall point, this isn’t the customers fault and I would hope discretion would be use, I disagree that a TfL RPI would be wrong to deny the ticket. The issuing of the ticket will have broken the Travelcard Agreement because it hasn’t been issued in an approved format, and therefore they were not authorised to sell the ticket.

TfL authorises RDG and its licensed retailers to issue through tickets on their behalf. In doing so, they give those retailers the apparent authority to bind them.

As such, customers are entitled to rely on the retailers' apparent authority to bind TfL, including selling tickets valid on their services - regardless of whether or not the retailers are actually correct to issue such tickets in a particular format.

The Travelcard and Through Ticketing Agreements are not a contract that the customer is a party to, and so they are of no relevance as far as the customer is concerned. There is also nothing in any of TfL's Conditions of Carriage of Byelaws which states that eTickets are not valid.

As I say I would hope discretion would be shown, but TfL is within their right to refuse, and in my opinion the liability would fall on the retailer to reimburse the customer if TfL charges them.

I agree that a good retailer would reimburse the customer or as a minimum, support them in a complaint with TfL. But legally speaking I think the customer's recourse would be against TfL if their staff rejected a valid ticket (even if incorrectly issued).

 

[blimmo]

How would the retailer reimburse the customer for being criminally prosecuted?

(I am not suggesting this would happen in reality)

 

[Watershed]

How would the retailer reimburse the customer for being criminally prosecuted?

(I am not suggesting this would happen in reality)

Not really possible in practice, but again you'd hope that a good retailer would liaise with TfL to ensure that no prosecution was brought in the first place.

 

[blimmo]

Indeed, I don't think it's discretion for a TfL RPI to accept that ticket rather a requirement. The correct course of action in my opinion would simply be reporting it so the retailer can fix the error.

 

[Benjwri]

TfL authorises RDG and its licensed retailers to issue through tickets on their behalf. In doing so, they give those retailers the apparent authority to bind them.

As such, customers are entitled to rely on the retailers' apparent authority to bind TfL, including selling tickets valid on their services - regardless of whether or not the retailers are actually correct to issue such tickets in a particular format.

The Travelcard and Through Ticketing Agreements are not a contract that the customer is a party to, and so they are of no relevance as far as the customer is concerned. There is also nothing in any of TfL's Conditions of Carriage of Byelaws which states that eTickets are not valid.

I would agree that an apparent authority might hold true for a defense in a penalty fare or prosecution, I still disagree that they have to accept the ticket. The agreement with TfL is not fulfilled by the ticket and therefore does not need to be accepted under it. In the same way, admittedly taking it a other way further, if Avanti issued a hand written piece of paper claiming to be a ticket TfL would not have to accept it. A company cannot be held to something just because a separate company said they could do so. Avanti is the one that has issued an invalid ticket, and therefore I would agrue the onus is on them to resolve the matter under the Consumer Rights Act.

In practice I've found TfL staff good at accepting barcode tickets, although in this case I would undertand if they were hesitant given the lack of a location code on the destination.

 

[Adam Williams]

They shouldn't have any fallback logic whatsoever for when they can't find a (real, or fake fares destination) three letter code for an origin/destination - at that point, you treat it as an unrecoverable fault and fail fulfilment. It's shoddy design from a software engineering perspective to just blindly continue trying to render an E-Ticket in these circumstances when the industry data is not set-up in a way to allow you to generate an E-Ticket according to the spec.

I know it's almost a meme now for it to be brought up in unrelated threads, but it wouldn't have happened on the forum ticketing site because I just throw an exception if any pre-conditions like this one are not met at the point of fulfilment. In fact, no money will ever leave the customer's bank account because it simply wouldn't be captured and the entire purchase would just be cancelled.

 

[Watershed]

I would agree that an apparent authority might hold true for a defense in a penalty fare or prosecution, I still disagree that they have to accept the ticket.

There is only a valid defence to a prosecution or grounds for appealing a Penalty Fare if it is a valid ticket. If it's a valid ticket then it would have to be accepted.

The agreement with TfL is not fulfilled by the ticket and therefore does not need to be accepted under it.

Issuing it in eTicket format may be a breach of the agreement RDG have with TfL, but that simply means TfL have recourse against RDG for that breach of contract.

It doesn't relieve TfL of their obligation to honour the consumer contract that the retailer has entered them into, as their agent.

In the same way, admittedly taking it a other way further, if Avanti issued a hand written piece of paper claiming to be a ticket TfL would not have to accept it. A company cannot be held to something just because a separate company said they could do so.

All four of the tests for 'apparent authority' to exist (as per Freeman v Buckhurst Park, summarised here) are met in the case the OP raised:

• TfL authorises RDG retailers to issue tickets on their behalf
• This authority has been given by senior representatives of TfL who undoubtedly have the power to bind it as a company
• Consumers obviously rely on RDG retailers being entitled to sell through tickets - otherwise they would just buy a ticket for the National Rail part of the journey and pay separately for the TfL part
• No reasonable person would suspect that this is a breach of the agreement between RDG and TfL since there is nothing in any of the Conditions of Carriage/Travel which say that eTickets aren't valid

As for your hypothetical piece of paper, if suitably stamped/endorsed then I don't see why this would not be valid, but clearly an 'official' ticket has more legitimacy and therefore there is no risk of the last test not being met.

 

[Haywain]

View attachment 204474

I've bought a ticket from Norwich to London Zone U3 from Avanti's app. I'm travelling from Norwich to Stratford, then from Stratford to a Zone 3 DLR station.

It's given me an e-ticket, which I thought it wasn't meant to do for a journey involving TFL? Would I be fine using this on the train and DLR, or should I attempt to contact Avanti to get it fixed?

If you want to be sure of avoiding any difficulties, contact the retailer.

 

[marshlinker]

I'm guessing the destination is London City Airport DLR ZAF? Theres all sorts of weird and wonderful fares to and from that location many of which that dont seem to be advertised online especially on the not London Side ie to Southeastern and Great Anglia destinations.

 

[ServerHoster]

I'm guessing the destination is London City Airport DLR ZAF? Theres all sorts of weird and wonderful fares to and from that location many of which that dont seem to be advertised online especially on the not London Side ie to Southeastern and Great Anglia destinations.

When I searched for tickets I simply typed in “Zone U3* London”.

London City Airport does just happen to be the DLR station I’m travelling to, but the retailer doesn’t know that.

I suspect that in practice you will be fine, since you won't need to pass a gateline at Stratford to change and DLR stations don't have gatelines. However, if there is a ticket inspection on the TfL portion of the journey, it would almost certainly be very annoying to deal with, so it is probably worth querying with Avanti at least.

That’s what I thought too