Reading to Gatwick, via Contactless

[johnny_t]

I'm currently travelling on the 1224 from Reading to Gatwick Airport. In advance, I checked on the National Rail website and it said that it would be 22.10, if I paid via contactless, so I tapped in at Reading.

When the ticket inspector came round, he first told me that I couldn't use contactless on this service, but he would sell me a ticket for 25.10. I did explain about the National Rail website, but he said that if I did contactless on this route, then it would charge me the 44.00 'through London' fare, so he was just saving me money. Its expenses anyway, so I didn't really care and just paid up, and he told me to get a refund for the original tap-in on the tfl website.

However, I've checked and rechecked, and it looks like I was correct in the first place and that 22.10 via contactless should have been valid. Can anyone confirm that, or have I overlooked something stupid ?

Also, how much of a nuisance is the refund process ? I don't mind getting the contactless refunded and losing 3.00, but is it going to be a lot of work ?

 

[signed]

I don't think contactless is valid on GWR services as far as Reading, might be wrong

 

[jfollows]

See the map at https://assets.nationalrail.co.uk/e...y_as_you_go_with_contactless_map_Feb_2025.pdf

Reading and Gatwick are both shown, but not the direct service you used.

You can’t use contactless on the train you used.

The inspector did you a favour, some of them would have issued a penalty fare or worse.

 

[methecooldude]

I can see where the OP is coming from, doing a journey plan RDG > GTW on TfL presents this train, at the £22.10 price, with 'The price shown is a single adult pay as you go fare'

 

[johnny_t]

See the map at https://assets.nationalrail.co.uk/e...y_as_you_go_with_contactless_map_Feb_2025.pdf

Reading and Gatwick are both shown, but not the direct service you used.

You can’t use contactless on the train you used.

The inspector did you a favour, some of them would have issued a penalty fare or worse.

OK - Thanks.

In that case, though, the National Rail website is clearly wrong

 

[Watershed]

Yes, it's wrong and misleading. Unfortunately the only way of being sure that contactless is valid is to check the validity map linked to by @jfollows

 

[johnny_t]

Yes, it's wrong and misleading. Unfortunately the only way of being sure that contactless is valid is to check the validity map linked to by @jfollows

That's a nuisance and, to be honest, a pretty big error. They also show the 'through London' price as being 22.10. Is that wrong as well ?

 

[Watershed]

That's a nuisance and, to be honest, a pretty big error. They also show the 'through London' price as being 22.10. Is that wrong as well ?

It is indeed £22.10 if you touch in after 09:30 (or before 06:30).

 

[johnny_t]

It is indeed £22.10 if you touch in after 09:30 (or before 06:30).

So the ticket inspector was also wrong about the fact that it would have charged 44.00-ish for going 'through London' ? If I had just tapped in at Reading and tapped out at Gatwick, it would only have charged me 22.10 ?

(Edited for a bit of clarity - I was typing on the train earlier)

 

[Watershed]

£46.10 would be the peak fare, charged if you touch in between 06:30-09:30 (also 16:00-19:00 if coming back from Gatwick).

So if you touched in outside of those times you would have been charged the off-peak fare which is indeed £22.10. That still leaves you without a valid ticket on the direct train via Guildford, since contactless PAYG is not valid on that route.

 

[Tetchytyke]

It's worse than misleading. The National Rail website (the authority, apparently) expressly states that Contactless PAYG is valid on the direct train if you are travelling from Reading to Gatwick Airport.

I shall look forward to the first Penalty Fare in the disputes section.



How this has happened I don't know. It correctly doesn't offer the Contactless PAYG option for Reading to Redhill.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

How this has happened I don't know. It correctly doesn't offer the Contactless PAYG option for Reading to Redhill.

The forum's ticketing website doesn't offer contactless Reading to Gatwick Airport.

 

[Deepgreen]

The continuing saga of disparate and disagreeing information on today's railway! The more sources of information there are, the greater the chance of errors. IT/AI appears not to be helping us, either. I'm also surprised a "ticket inspector" (guard?) appeared at all on the North Downs line, as, if they do emerge from the rear cab, it's usually just to walk through rather than check! There are a very few good exceptions, though.

 

[Watershed]

How this has happened I don't know.

It's happened because GWR have made a complete dog's dinner of the fares data on this journey. They have created a duplicate "+Any Permitted" set of point-to-point fares between Reading and Gatwick, which cost exactly the same as the "+via London" flow-based fares between QV10 (Reading) and Q435 (Gatwick).

They should delete the walk-up point-to-point fares, and change the routing of the "+via London" flow-based fares to "+Any Permitted".

That would leave just the PAYG "informative" fares (POC and PAC) which journey planners like NRE use to tell people whether contactless/Oyster is available, and if so what it costs. GWR should change the routing of the point-to-point PAYG fares to "not via Guildford" to make prevent journey planners from offering them for direct trains.

 

[AdamWW]

Yes, it's wrong and misleading. Unfortunately the only way of being sure that contactless is valid is to check the validity map linked to by @jfollows

Not exactly obvious, is it?

As it happens I was recently trying to check whether PAYG was valid for a journey in London - I looked for a validity map but didn't come across anything recent.

 

[johnny_t]

Not exactly obvious, is it?

As it happens I was recently trying to check whether PAYG was valid for a journey in London - I looked for a validity map but didn't come across anything recent.

To be honest, it goes beyond 'not exactly obvious'. The information is quite clear, but also completely wrong.

I've written to National Rail about it. Would be interesting to know how many people have just accepted penalty fares, especially foreigners en route to the airport.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Oct 2025 ==

Interestingly, I wrote to National Rail, and they have come back surprisingly quickly, but they are sticking to their guns and insisting that they are right and GWR are wrong:

Thanks for taking the time to email us. I was sorry to learn that you had to buy a new ticket for your journey. I understand that the train conductor informed you that the Contactless fare of £22.10 is not valid on the 12:24 journey from Reading to Gatwick Airport.

Having checked our information, I can confirm that the price mentioned on our website is correct, as you are travelling during the off peak hours.

I have checked the information on the Transport for London website, as they deal with the Contactless payment. I have included a screen capture of this information with this email for your reference.

I recommend that you contact Great Western Railway, as their train conductor has given you wrong information. I’m pleased to include their contact details below:

Contact number: 03457 000 125 (Monday to Friday and public holidays: 06:00 - 22:00, Saturday and Sunday: 07:00 - 23:00)

Email address: gwr.feedback@gwr.com

I trust this information clarifies the situation.

This is what they attached as 'proof':




Now, of course, it very far from clarifies the situation. Will write to GWR as well and will report back what they say.

Now, just to reiterate, this is all from the National Rail website, not some weird third-party reseller.

 

[AdamWW]

To be honest, it goes beyond 'not exactly obvious'. The information is quite clear, but also completely wrong.

I've written to National Rail about it. Would be interesting to know how many people have just accepted penalty fares, especially foreigners en route to the airport.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Oct 2025 ==

Interestingly, I wrote to National Rail, and they have come back surprisingly quickly, but they are sticking to their guns and insisting that they are right and GWR are wrong:




This is what they attached as 'proof':

View attachment 189464


Now, of course, it very far from clarifies the situation. Will write to GWR as well and will report back what they say.

Now, just to reiterate, this is all from the National Rail website, not some weird third-party reseller.

Although the answer is presumably wrong, I actually think that's a decent response - quick, actually dealing with the question and not complete rubbish.

Frustrating, but given that their own web site and the TfL web site say it's valid I can't blame someone in customer service for saying it's valid any more than I'd blame a passenger for thinking so.

Might be interesting to politely point out that the map on the National Rail web site says otherwise though.

 

[Crithylum]

Although the answer is presumably wrong, I actually think that's a decent response - quick, actually dealing with the question and not complete rubbish.

Frustrating, but given that their own web site and the TfL web site say it's valid I can't blame someone in customer service for saying it's valid any more than I'd blame a passenger for thinking so.

Might be interesting to politely point out that the map on the National Rail web site says otherwise though.

The response is complete rubbish. It says that the price of the fare is correct. Which is correct. However, the fare is straight up not valid. The question was about the fare being ‘not valid’, not the actual amount of the fare. The answer is completely misleading. However the point about the conductor being wrong is factually incorrect. The fare is not valid on that train.

An equivalent wound be:
1. A retailer sells you a LNWR only ticket, with an itinerary on an Avanti train
2. You get charged a new ticket on the Avanti train
3. You ask the retailer why this happened, and they send you a screenshot of BRFares showing that they charged the correct amount for an LNWR ticket, and that you should contact Avanti due to the “mistake” of their conductor

 

[AdamWW]

The response is complete rubbish. It says that the price of the fare is correct. Which is correct. However, the fare is straight up not valid. The question was about the fare being ‘not valid’, not the actual amount of the fare. The answer is completely misleading. However the point about the conductor being wrong is factually incorrect. The fare is not valid on that train.

OK looking it again, I see your point that they didn't address the issue of contactless not being valid at all (though I don't know what they were actually asked).

 

[yorkie]

Any additional fare should not be charged, because the passenger was contractually entitled to make the journey in accordance with the information provided.

Sadly, there are insufficient safeguards in place at companies such as GWR, to ensure that inspectors behave correctly and appropriately.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Oct 2025 ==

The response is complete rubbish. It says that the price of the fare is correct. Which is correct. However, the fare is straight up not valid. The question was about the fare being ‘not valid’, not the actual amount of the fare. The answer is completely misleading. However the point about the conductor being wrong is factually incorrect. The fare is not valid on that train.

An equivalent wound be:
1. A retailer sells you a LNWR only ticket, with an itinerary on an Avanti train
2. You get charged a new ticket on the Avanti train
3. You ask the retailer why this happened, and they send you a screenshot of BRFares showing that they charged the correct amount for an LNWR ticket, and that you should contact Avanti due to the “mistake” of their conductor

If this "equivalent" happened, then Avanti would be totally wrong to charge the passenger; they are obliged to honour the ticket with the itinerary provided, in line with contract and consumer laws.

Sadly, some train companies - and some of their staff - do not have appropriate levels of knowledge of these areas of law, and have insufficient safeguards in place to ensure that their actions are lawful.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 1 Oct 2025 ==

I'm currently travelling on the 1224 from Reading to Gatwick Airport. In advance, I checked on the National Rail website and it said that it would be 22.10, if I paid via contactless, so I tapped in at Reading.

When the ticket inspector came round, he first told me that I couldn't use contactless on this service, but he would sell me a ticket for 25.10. I did explain about the National Rail website, but he said that if I did contactless on this route, then it would charge me the 44.00 'through London' fare, so he was just saving me money. Its expenses anyway, so I didn't really care and just paid up, and he told me to get a refund for the original tap-in on the tfl website.

However, I've checked and rechecked, and it looks like I was correct in the first place and that 22.10 via contactless should have been valid. Can anyone confirm that, or have I overlooked something stupid ?

Also, how much of a nuisance is the refund process ? I don't mind getting the contactless refunded and losing 3.00, but is it going to be a lot of work ?

I would say that GWR should be refunding you for the fare charged, because you were entitled to travel in accordance with the information provided.

 

[AdamWW]

Any additional fare should not be charged, because the passenger was contractually entitled to make the journey in accordance with the information provided.

The view I've seen a few times on this forum is that if you're sold a ticket for an invalid itinerary then it must be accepted.

But not if you buy a ticket without an itinerary but rely on the train company separately showing the itinerary as valid (though this seems unreasonable to me).

I'd have thought using PAYG would be the equivalent of buying a ticket without an itinerary.

 

[yorkie]

The view I've seen a few times on this forum is that if you're sold a ticket for an invalid itinerary then it must be accepted.

But not if you buy a ticket without an itinerary but rely on the train company separately showing the itinerary as valid (though this seems unreasonable to me).

I'd have thought using PAYG would be the equivalent of buying a ticket without an itinerary.

Information can be contractually binding without necessarily holding a specific itinerary.

However, I would agree that following a proscribed itinerary does place the customer in an extremely strong position, beyond the minimum level for the contract to be generally considered binding.

I'm a bit busy at the moment, but I'll try to have some conversations with solicitors/barristers on the topic when I get the chance (I know a dozen or so, but they can be very busy people and understandably may be reluctant to give an indication without the full facts of the matter).

It's also worth bearing in mind that if the meaning of wording is considered ambiguous, there is a requirement that it should be considered to have the meaning that is most favourable to the consumer.

 

[Tetchytyke]

I'd have thought using PAYG would be the equivalent of buying a ticket without an itinerary.

The screenshot I have provided shows that you can get an itinerary for Reading to Gatwick via the North Downs on contactless. It specifically says you can use it. You will note that I have clicked into the direct train to generate the screenshot.

Remember also that what NRES says is the definitive truth (stop laughing at the back).

 

[AdamWW]

The screenshot I have provided shows that you can get an itinerary for Reading to Gatwick via the North Downs on contactless. It specifically says you can use it. You will note that I have clicked into the direct train to generate the screenshot.

Remember also that what NRES says is the definitive truth (stop laughing at the back).

Well quite and I would have thought that similarly if I bought a paper or e-ticket for a journey with a valid itinerary for that ticket type from the National Rail web site or the relevant TOC it would have to be accepted even if not otherwise valid.

But the general wisdom on this forum appears to be that this isn't the case and that I only have a right to use such a ticket if it was purchased for the exact itinerary it's being used on.

Which doesn't seem reasonable to me.

 

[furlong]

Well quite and I would have thought that similarly if I bought a paper or e-ticket for a journey with a valid itinerary for that ticket type from the National Rail web site or the relevant TOC it would have to be accepted even if not otherwise valid.

It is merely a matter of practicality: It is harder for the railway to argue against you if the information was trivially embedded into the contract at the time of purchase, but anything official you rely upon might indeed be contractually binding.

 

[johnny_t]

A small update...

I have heard back from National Rail again, saying...

Thanks for your patience while I was looking into your complaint.

I have checked the journey planner and can confirm that the Contactless fare is not showing for the direct journeys. It is displayed for journeys with changes within the Contactless fare area.

Regarding the charge on your card when you tapped at Reading Station, I recommend that you contact Transport for London, as they deal with the Contactless payment. I’m pleased to include their contact details below:

I have just been onto the National Rail website and can confirm that it no longer shows as Contactless being valid on that route so it looks like someone (maybe GWR) has fixed it.




A little 'Thank you for pointing this out, here's a fiver' might have been nice rather than making it sound like it was right all along (and I'd probably be doubting myself if it wasn't for the screenshots), but all's well that ends well. Still haven't got my 'not tapped out' refund yet, though.

 

[MarlowDonkey]

I have just been onto the National Rail website and can confirm that it no longer shows as Contactless being valid on that route

There's very little difference in the timings. Presumably the via London route is non-stop to Paddington, change to Elizabeth, change to Thameslink at Farringdon.

 

[Kite159]

There's very little difference in the timings. Presumably the via London route is non-stop to Paddington, change to Elizabeth, change to Thameslink at Farringdon.

Although no doubt the timings for Reading to Gatwick via London would have been inflated by the minimum connection times and could be beaten by someone who knows where they are going. Considering Paddington to Farringdon is every 5 or so minutes and fast trains towards Gatwick are reasonably frequent (4 an hour, plus the option of taking a slow (via Redhill) train and changing again at East Croydon for a Southern service)

 

[Jimini]

Although no doubt the timings for Reading to Gatwick via London would have been inflated by the minimum connection times and could be beaten by someone who knows where they are going. Considering Paddington to Farringdon is every 5 or so minutes and fast trains towards Gatwick are reasonably frequent (4 an hour, plus the option of taking a slow (via Redhill) train and changing again at East Croydon for a Southern service)

All good points. But -- Reading resident here. We'd never even contemplate fannying around in town with the EL / Thameslink option. Nice slow yet direct train every time! Plus the North Downs does offer up some more than pleasant scenery en route. And a pretty much guaranteed seat every time as well

 

[Fawkes Cat]

All good points. But -- Reading resident here. We'd never even contemplate fannying around in town with the EL / Thameslink option. Nice slow yet direct train every time! Plus the North Downs does offer up some more than pleasant scenery en route. And a pretty much guaranteed seat every time as well

And for going to Gatwick, surely there will be a fairly substantial proportion of passengers with luggage who won't be that keen to change trains.