• Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!

Ticket Irregularity and Withdrawn Season Ticket

Status
Not open for further replies.

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,615
The ticket has not been handed in for refund and in any case Credit Cards would not be involved unless there had been a misapplication of Consumer Law or the Company had gone bust. Neither applies in this case.

The other situation of course is where the retailer fails to provide the contracted service. In this case the fact the season ticket was issued against the wrong photocard suggests the retailer has not sold the product correctly. However I'm no expert on that.

Assuming that is the case, the credit card provider could be relevant. Usual first step by the card firm is a letter along the lines of 'our customer states you have not provided the contracted service...' Followed by a chargeback or (usually only) a suggestion of instructing solicitors. Then I guess it comes down to whether FCC would contest it.

 
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R

RailUK Forums

LexyBoy

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
4,478
Location
North of the rivers
That seems a bit harsh considering that if I didn't have any ticket the PF would have only been £20.

Worse than that - if you had forgotten the ticket rather than the photocard, it wouldn't have cost you anything as you would be able to claim back the fare, provided you had not done so previously in the year (I think 2 refunds are generally allowed). The PF would be £46 BTW.

If I dropped my discounted season ticket (not the photocard) and someone else (with a photocard of their own) picked it up and attempted to use it, should they be treated any differently?

How can you tell that person apart from the Op?

Exactly - whilst this is unlikely the railway doesn't know whether this has happened
Exactly - whilst it is unlikely, the railway doesn't know whether this has happened or whether it is a case of a misplaced card. Or, for the more suspiciously-minded, whether the passenger had been given the ticket by an unscrupulous partner/friend who is entitled to such a ticket.

However, writing in with proof that the ticket was rightfully held should get it returned. "Should" here means morally (IMO), rather than legally, for which I cannot speak - though I suspect you may be at the mercy of EMT's customer services.
 
Last edited:

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
....Exactly - whilst this is unlikely the railway doesn't know whether this has happened....

Whilst that exact scenario may be unlikely, in my experience, of those who have 'lost' their season ticket, I would say 1 in 10 did not lose their photocard. There is also a fair number of people who manage to lose the photocard and not their season.

....Or, for the more suspiciously-minded, whether the passenger had been given the ticket by an unscrupulous partner/friend who is entitled to such a ticket....

I believe this is also more common than you would think. I can recall a case of a pair who were caught out after the girlfriend had claimed a duplicate of a 'lost' season ticket and the boyfriend was discovered using the original one. He allegedly claimed she gave him the ticket and she allegedly claimed she knew nothing about it and that he had obviously stolen it from her.
 

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,702
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
Worse than that - if you had forgotten the ticket rather than the photocard, it wouldn't have cost you anything as you would be able to claim back the fare, provided you had not done so previously in the year (I think 2 refunds are generally allowed). The PF would be £46 BTW..
It was always the rule that there were no refunds on a weekly Season Ticket, only for Monthly and above.
 

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,702
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
The other situation of course is where the retailer fails to provide the contracted service. In this case the fact the season ticket was issued against the wrong photocard suggests the retailer has not sold the product correctly. However I'm no expert on that.
I am not familiar with this particular arrangement but I imagine that the reduced rate card is simply to authorise the reduction, whereas the Season Ticket should have been issued against the photo ID card.

I am sure that many will be upset, but it is the responsibility of the person buying the ticket to ensure that it is correct. I always look at mine when issued just to be certain, as on at least one occasion I have spotted an error. Booking clerks like the rest of us, can and do make errors, and it is much easier for everyone for a clerk to cancel a ticket straight away and re-issue as doing it much later can bring complications all round.
 

LexyBoy

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
4,478
Location
North of the rivers
(I've edited my earlier post as the first sentence didn't make much sense after I'd been re-phrasing the paragraph)

Whilst that exact scenario may be unlikely, in my experience, of those who have 'lost' their season ticket, I would say 1 in 10 did not lose their photocard. There is also a fair number of people who manage to lose the photocard and not their season.

Not surprising given that lots of people keep their tickets separate in a wallet/purse. I'd expect that of the legitimate losses, there would be more who had lost their photocard as it's asked for much less frequently - round here at least plenty of passengers show only the ticket and aren't asked for the photocard particularly often. Unfortunate for them if they only discover it's missing when asked for it :o

It was always the rule that there were no refunds on a weekly Season Ticket, only for Monthly and above.

The OP had a ticket for a month and a bit, so would be allowed to make a claim. Also, to clarify I was referring to claiming the return fare bought when the season ticket was forgotten, not refunding the ticket.
 

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,702
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
You can claim back on Weekly tickets these days, but there are limits.
OK, thanks for that, just shows how often I use the train these days !

Presumable the same basis as other STs ?



...The OP had a ticket for a month and a bit, so would be allowed to make a claim. Also, to clarify I was referring to claiming the return fare bought when the season ticket was forgotten, not refunding the ticket.
Yes, thanks, Hairyhandedfool has also kindly explained as well.

One thing that does strike me as completely strange is keeping the photo ID card separate from the ticket. What's all that about ??

I have always kept mine together for obvious reasons and I would have thought the free season ticket/Railcard holder given with them was a bit of a giveaway to that ?
 
Last edited:

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
Presumable the same basis as other STs ?....

Pretty much.

....I have always kept mine together for obvious reasons and I would have thought the free season ticket/Railcard holder given with them was a bit of a giveaway to that ?

I don't get it either, nor do I get those who buy a pass holder for their seasons when they are given one anyway.
 

LexyBoy

Established Member
Joined
23 Jan 2009
Messages
4,478
Location
North of the rivers
One thing that does strike me as completely strange is keeping the photo ID card separate from the ticket. What's all that about ??

Some people just don't like having to keep their ticket separate and prefer to keep it in their wallet - and this usually means as separate pieces of card. Seems daft to me but each to their own I suppose... (Then again, I keep my ticket wallet in my back pocket, which some might say is foolish :))

If I understand correctly the OP's season ticket was linked to some sort of staff pass which I can understand might be needed for other things and thus has more reason to be kept separate from the ticket.

I don't get it either, nor do I get those who buy a pass holder for their seasons when they are given one anyway.

Not as silly as passport holders!
 
Last edited:

muug1982

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2010
Messages
115
Thanks for all the comments...in response to some of the questions posed.

If the worst comes to the worst, did you buy the ticket with a credit card?

Yes I did, hopefully it won't come to this.

Has the OP got in touch with EMT to try & sort out the problem as surely that is the first thing to do.

I did on Friday evening and again this morning. I've been advised that the Prosecutions Department is in receipt of the report and withdrawn ticket and will be in touch by post in the next 7-10 days. To try and save time I asked if I could contact them directly and was advised by the customer service agent that he couldn't give me any further contact details. The customer service rep did ask if I was cautioned by the guard, which I wasn't.

GOf course, there's no reason that you can't get it back once you can produce all the relevant IDs.
However, writing in with proof that the ticket was rightfully held should get it returned. "Should" here means morally (IMO), rather than legally, for which I cannot speak - though I suspect you may be at the mercy of EMT's customer services.

I certainly hope so, although I'll be honest and say I thought this would be realtively straightforward - I'm not so sure now.

I am not familiar with this particular arrangement but I imagine that the reduced rate card is simply to authorise the reduction, whereas the Season Ticket should have been issued against the photo ID card.

I think when I get the ticket issued at the Northern end (usually Leicester or Mkt Hboro) they scan my NR photocard. I'll know to check in future. In the 18 months or so I've been doing this journey, I've never been asked for the discount card and I've never kept it with the ticket, although it's normally on my person. On the basis that the majority of the tickets have been issued at Luton Airport Parkway, presumably with the discount card number I've been pretty unlucky to come across a diligent guard on the day I've forgotten the pass.

One thing that does strike me as completely strange is keeping the photo ID card separate from the ticket. What's all that about ??
Hindsight is a wonderful thing! The discount card has greater validity than just on rail season tickets, it can be used on local buses etc. As such I keep it on my building security lanyard, rather than with my rail tickets. In my season ticket wallet I have my NR Photocard in the top compartment, the season ticket in the middle and any additional tickets in the lower.

Whilst I accept I should have had the card on my person, I still feel that I've been exceptionally unfortunate and there should be an easier way to resolve such inicidents. If i was stopped by the police and couldn't produce my driving docs, then I'd need to do so within a certain amount of time. I didn't try and hide my identity from the guard - I showed my NR Photocard and Driving License and proof of Name and Address...if I then failed to produce the card as required then investigation / prosecution could rightly follow; if I couldn't identify myself then withdrawing the ticket may have been the only sanction available, but in my case I feel there were alternatives available.
 
Last edited:

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,702
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
...Hindsight is a wonderful thing! The discount card has greater validity than just on rail season tickets, it can be used on local buses etc. As such I keep it on my building security lanyard, rather than with my rail tickets. In my season ticket wallet I have my NR Photocard in the top compartment, the season ticket in the middle and any additional tickets in the lower.

Whilst I accept I should have had the card on my person, I still feel that I've been exceptionally unfortunate and there should be an easier way to resolve such inicidents. If i was stopped by the police and couldn't produce my driving docs, then I'd need to do so within a certain amount of time. I didn't try and hide my identity from the guard - I showed my NR Photocard and Driving License and proof of Name and Address...if I then failed to produce the card as required then investigation / prosecution could rightly follow; if I couldn't identify myself then withdrawing the ticket may have been the only sanction available, but in my case I feel there were alternatives available.
I had meant the Season Ticket photo ID card not the discount card.

The comparison with a the driving licence is not really relevant because in the case of a season ticket, this represents a financial transaction between you and the Railway which allows unrestricted use of the ticket. Now the Guard has a duty to protect revenue and when someone has a Season Ticket where there appear to be irregularities that bring into question the legitimacy of the ticket then he does not have too many options. If he lets it go then he is in effect allowing a potentially fraudulent situation to continue - please note I am not suggesting this was the scenario in your case.

Many cases of long term or organised fare evasion can get picked up almost be accident because a Guard spots a minor discrepancy.

In your particular case, I am assuming that the clerk inserted the number of the discount ID card on the Season Ticket rather than the Season Ticket photo ID card number. Now the Guard was correct in withdrawing this both in order to have the ticket corrected, and so as to rule out any potential fraud situation. All tickets that you buy due to not having the Season Ticket in the interim should be retained and they will be refunded in due course I am sure.

Speaking personally, if I had been able to satisfy myself that the ticket had been isssued with the wrong ID card number, and I was satisfied that you were who you said you were, then I would have let it go and directed you to go back to the booking office and get them to replace it.

However that judgement is made based upon BR revenue experience, and the comfort of age. It may have been that the Guard did not feel able to do this, or his Company instructions are very explicit in which case he really does have no alternative. It really is very much more a mixed bag these days, however on the basis of what you have posted I am sure that matters will sort themselves out.

I guess the point moving on, is the need to check in future that the proper ID card number is written onto the ticket.

Just as a matter of clarification, you had not noticed this before and altered the number ?
 

muug1982

Member
Joined
23 Oct 2010
Messages
115
In your particular case, I am assuming that the clerk inserted the number of the discount ID card on the Season Ticket rather than the Season Ticket photo ID card number.

Just as a matter of clarification, you had not noticed this before and altered the number ?

Correct, it was the discount card ID number, not the season ticket photo ID on the season ticket. I hadn't noticed this and even if I had I wouldn't have done anything about it, with my knowledge Pre-Friday I have had no reason to, especially as I carry the discount card with me (normally.) I certainly wouldn't have tried to change it. The Photocard ID is printed on the ticket, I'd have though changing it would look even more suspicious.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
7,436
I had meant the Season Ticket photo ID card not the discount card.

The comparison with a the driving licence is not really relevant because in the case of a season ticket, this represents a financial transaction between you and the Railway which allows unrestricted use of the ticket. Now the Guard has a duty to protect revenue and when someone has a Season Ticket where there appear to be irregularities that bring into question the legitimacy of the ticket then he does not have too many options. If he lets it go then he is in effect allowing a potentially fraudulent situation to continue - please note I am not suggesting this was the scenario in your case.

Many cases of long term or organised fare evasion can get picked up almost be accident because a Guard spots a minor discrepancy.

In your particular case, I am assuming that the clerk inserted the number of the discount ID card on the Season Ticket rather than the Season Ticket photo ID card number. Now the Guard was correct in withdrawing this both in order to have the ticket corrected, and so as to rule out any potential fraud situation. All tickets that you buy due to not having the Season Ticket in the interim should be retained and they will be refunded in due course I am sure.
Speaking personally, if I had been able to satisfy myself that the ticket had been isssued with the wrong ID card number, and I was satisfied that you were who you said you were, then I would have let it go and directed you to go back to the booking office and get them to replace it.

However that judgement is made based upon BR revenue experience, and the comfort of age. It may have been that the Guard did not feel able to do this, or his Company instructions are very explicit in which case he really does have no alternative. It really is very much more a mixed bag these days, however on the basis of what you have posted I am sure that matters will sort themselves out.

I guess the point moving on, is the need to check in future that the proper ID card number is written onto the ticket.

Just as a matter of clarification, you had not noticed this before and altered the number ?

my bold and italics

If ths happens then, as long as the OP can actualy afford to pay for additional tickets in the interim, then all is well that ends well.

If not then I for one would raise bloody hell! The railway operates under antiquated consumer unfriendly legislation dating back over a century which is grossly incompatible with modern consumer protection legislation. Given that much of the latter directly derives from UK implementation of EU legislation in that field (this I know - I work for HMG and have had directly relevant work experience!) there is a pretty strong arguement to say that the European Courts would have a field day with the current UK situation with respect to railway legislation.

To summarise, the OP bought a ticket, the railway misissued that ticket (and laughably tries to put the onus to avoid that on the passenger!), the passenger did not see this. The OP was checked on a train where he did not have the discount card (his big failing in my view) and the ticket was (understandably) withdrawn for further investigation (question - if the discount card had been present would the guard have still withdrawn the ticket as it had been wrongly issued?). When the investigation shows the OP to not be at fault the railway collectively has a moral duty to ensure that he does not suffer financially. If that does not happen he has a right (and my view almost an obligation) to make it hurt the railway!!!
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,546
Location
LBK
Wolfie, can you explain what you mean by the railway "misusing" the OP's ticket?

How has the railway misused it's own property?
 

RJ

Established Member
Joined
25 Jun 2005
Messages
8,827
Location
Back office
I think misissuing refers to the discount card ID being used instead of the photocard number on the season ticket.
 

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,702
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
....The railway operates under antiquated consumer unfriendly legislation dating back over a century which is grossly incompatible with modern consumer protection legislation.
That is not the view of the OFT or indeed the DfT

Given that much of the latter directly derives from UK implementation of EU legislation in that field (this I know - I work for HMG and have had directly relevant work experience!) there is a pretty strong arguement to say that the European Courts would have a field day with the current UK situation with respect to railway legislation.
We have to take your inference that your work for the Government, however the rest of your commentary would suggest otherwise.

Other European railway systems operate similar arrangements and indeed operate penal charges if you are not in possession of a valid ticket. Your post suggests that this is wrong in EU Law. I suggest you need to understand the difference between a consumer and a traveller because there are discrete differences which indeed EU law recognises, and as you should be aware of already.

....To summarise, the OP bought a ticket, the railway misissued that ticket (and laughably tries to put the onus to avoid that on the passenger!), the passenger did not see this. The OP was checked on a train where he did not have the discount card (his big failing in my view) and the ticket was (understandably) withdrawn for further investigation...
You are clearly not aware of the Law of Contract then, something which raises further questions as to your previous assertion. Neither would you appear to be aware of the manifestation of this within the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, which incidentally have been agreed with the OFT.

(question - if the discount card had been present would the guard have still withdrawn the ticket as it had been wrongly issued?). When the investigation shows the OP to not be at fault the railway collectively has a moral duty to ensure that he does not suffer financially.
Clearly you have failed to clarify the facts, so here they are. For some reason as yet unknown it appears that the passenger's Season Ticket has been endorsed with the number of the discount card rather than the correct Season Ticket photo ID card number.

The Season Ticket is only valid with a supporting photo ID card which the passenger had left at home.

As the Season Ticket was not in compliance with the issuing requirements it was an invalid ticket.

Now I am sure that following enquiries, and based upon the information we have been given, the matter will be resolved amicably. I have no doubt whatsoever in those circumsatnces that the cost of any additional tickets bought will be refunded and I am sure that there may well be a gesture of goodwill once it has been established that there has been an error on the part of the booking office.

the railway collectively has a moral duty to ensure that he does not suffer financially. If that does not happen he has a right (and my view almost an obligation) to make it hurt the railway!!!
The only person to have become so exercised over this is you, and for no obvious reason. You purport to be a person who has "had directly relevant work experience" and you go on to suggest that "the European Courts would have a field day with the current UK situation with respect to railway legislation" which Courts would that be exctly, and if you are some convinced that thius is the case, given the rather venomous attitude of certain organisations (a) why has no action been taken before you popped up on the scene, and (b) now that you have, and now that you suggest there is such an open and shut case, I presume you will be confirming to us that you will be taking steps to instigate the necessary investigation by the European Courts ?

Your claim to be in Government does rather suggest to me that you are very well placed to do so, and I know that there will be at least two or even three people on here who will be very anxious indeed to support your actions once you advise what these will be.

If that does not happen he has a right (and my view almost an obligation) to make it hurt the railway!!!
That to me (having worked with some very senior people in the Judicial system one of who is now sitting on the bench of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) ) does not come across as the sort of comment that would be made by a professional. In my experience this is the sort of emotive language that they have to dissaude their clients from using. I could be wrong of course.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
7,436
Wolfie, can you explain what you mean by the railway "misusing" the OP's ticket?

How has the railway misused it's own property?

I believe (and I have checked!) that I wrote "misissued" (as in put the discount card number rather than the photo card number on it).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I think misissuing refers to the discount card ID being used instead of the photocard number on the season ticket.

Yup - pleased to see that I hadn't completely messed up!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
That is not the view of the OFT or indeed the DfT

We have to take your inference that your work for the Government, however the rest of your commentary would suggest otherwise.

Other European railway systems operate similar arrangements and indeed operate penal charges if you are not in possession of a valid ticket. Your post suggests that this is wrong in EU Law. I suggest you need to understand the difference between a consumer and a traveller because there are discrete differences which indeed EU law recognises, and as you should be aware of already.

You are clearly not aware of the Law of Contract then, something which raises further questions as to your previous assertion. Neither would you appear to be aware of the manifestation of this within the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, which incidentally have been agreed with the OFT.

Clearly you have failed to clarify the facts, so here they are. For some reason as yet unknown it appears that the passenger's Season Ticket has been endorsed with the number of the discount card rather than the correct Season Ticket photo ID card number.

The Season Ticket is only valid with a supporting photo ID card which the passenger had left at home.

As the Season Ticket was not in compliance with the issuing requirements it was an invalid ticket.

Now I am sure that following enquiries, and based upon the information we have been given, the matter will be resolved amicably. I have no doubt whatsoever in those circumsatnces that the cost of any additional tickets bought will be refunded and I am sure that there may well be a gesture of goodwill once it has been established that there has been an error on the part of the booking office.

The only person to have become so exercised over this is you, and for no obvious reason. You purport to be a person who has "had directly relevant work experience" and you go on to suggest that "the European Courts would have a field day with the current UK situation with respect to railway legislation" which Courts would that be exctly, and if you are some convinced that thius is the case, given the rather venomous attitude of certain organisations (a) why has no action been taken before you popped up on the scene, and (b) now that you have, and now that you suggest there is such an open and shut case, I presume you will be confirming to us that you will be taking steps to instigate the necessary investigation by the European Courts ?

Your claim to be in Government does rather suggest to me that you are very well placed to do so, and I know that there will be at least two or even three people on here who will be very anxious indeed to support your actions once you advise what these will be.

That to me (having worked with some very senior people in the Judicial system one of who is now sitting on the bench of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) ) does not come across as the sort of comment that would be made by a professional. In my experience this is the sort of emotive language that they have to dissaude their clients from using. I could be wrong of course.

OT

In this context I am but a consumer who has had some bad experiences with the railways and indeed other big powerfaul and frankly arrogant organisations (which is why easyJet will soon find themselves defending a case in a County Court in the North London area). No, before you ask, I have never been caught without a ticket, penalty-fared or suffered any other financial loss.

My language in a professional context is (usually!) rather different than that I use in my personal life.

You may doubt my professional skills all you like. Suffice to say that I have worked for HMG in the UN, NATO, EU and other organisations and have been directly involved in the drafting of new international legislation (half a day arguing over the placement of a comma is NOT fun!). For a change my current work involves coordinating the response of part of HMG to two Public Inquiries, a series of Judicial reviews and a shedload of personal injury claims.

25 years in Whitehall (note I would have to be a politician to be in Govt and that I could never do!) does teach an individual one or two things about how things work, including the fact that HMG has often made assertions about the adequacy of our national legislation which have proven to be less than well founded when put to a European Court test.....
 

radamfi

Established Member
Joined
29 Oct 2009
Messages
9,267
I think it is clear that, in general, the railway is legally permitted to behave in a draconian and non-customer friendly way.

Aside from this, I think there needs to be a debate as to whether or not the railway should behave in a more consumer orientated manner instead. If the OP, for example, is deterred from using the railway in future because of such an incident, and drives long distances instead, that is grossly undesirable, because excessive car usage is among the biggest problems faced by the world. After all, the main reason for the existence of the railways in 21st century affluent western societies is to alleviate the economic, environmental and social problems associated with mass car usage.
 

hairyhandedfool

Established Member
Joined
14 Apr 2008
Messages
8,837
....I certainly wouldn't have tried to change it. The Photocard ID is printed on the ticket, I'd have though changing it would look even more suspicious.

Changing the number yourself is a no-no, never do this. Get a ticket office to do it (for a monthly or longer season it will have to be an office of the same company that you bought it from).

....To summarise, the OP bought a ticket, the railway misissued that ticket (and laughably tries to put the onus to avoid that on the passenger!), the passenger did not see this....

To be fair, if you buy anything it is a good idea to check it as soon as reasonably possible, it doesn't matter if it is a ticket or a dvd boxset.

....The OP was checked on a train where he did not have the discount card (his big failing in my view) and the ticket was (understandably) withdrawn for further investigation (question - if the discount card had been present would the guard have still withdrawn the ticket as it had been wrongly issued?)....

Depends on the guard, if they felt there was still an irregularity it is quite possible it would still have been withdrawn, however I suspect in this case, if the number on the season matched the passenger might simply be told to make sure the photocard number on the season ticket is changed at a reasonable opportunity.

....When the investigation shows the OP to not be at fault the railway collectively has a moral duty to ensure that he does not suffer financially. If that does not happen he has a right (and my view almost an obligation) to make it hurt the railway!!!

Moral duty?????

In reality, a refund would be given, if the Op is found not to be using the ticket fraudulently, for additional tickets bought with the exception of the one bought on the day the ticket was withdrawn (as the Op did not have a valid ticket due to not having the discount card to show).
 

AlterEgo

Verified Rep - Wingin' It! Paul Lucas
Joined
30 Dec 2008
Messages
29,546
Location
LBK
I believe (and I have checked!) that I wrote "misissued" (as in put the discount card number rather than the photo card number on it).

So you did! I misread :)
 

barrykas

Established Member
Joined
19 Sep 2006
Messages
1,579
Having checked for a mention of the Luton Airport discount card in The Manual and not found one, is it not a possibility that there could be a local instruction that requires the discount card number to be used instead of the normal photocard number?

Having said that, we (as usual) only have one side of the story...
 

34D

Established Member
Joined
9 Feb 2011
Messages
6,048
Location
Yorkshire
Having checked for a mention of the Luton Airport discount card in The Manual and not found one, is it not a possibility that there could be a local instruction that requires the discount card number to be used instead of the normal photocard number?

Having said that, we (as usual) only have one side of the story...

There's some scant information online at http://www.london-lutoninthecommunity.co.uk/uploads/docs/Current%20offers%20Travelcard%202011.pdf
 

IanXC

Emeritus Moderator
Joined
18 Dec 2009
Messages
6,615
I am sure that many will be upset, but it is the responsibility of the person buying the ticket to ensure that it is correct. I always look at mine when issued just to be certain, as on at least one occasion I have spotted an error. Booking clerks like the rest of us, can and do make errors, and it is much easier for everyone for a clerk to cancel a ticket straight away and re-issue as doing it much later can bring complications all round.

Am I correct in understanding that you believe that the railways are exempt from consumer protection law?

If, as has been suggested, the season ticket has been issued incorrectly using the discount card ID then it is clear to me that the retailer has made an error. Following the argument that the customer should have checked, next time I buy a TV should I unpack it and plug it in while still in Currys? Alternatively what if the ticket was being purchased for the first time, how is the customer to know that the season should be issued with the photocard ID and not the discount card ID?

As a retailer in the UK any booking office is required to put right an error made by them, whether its more complicated at a later date is the company's problem not the consumer's. We're not talking about some dispute about the explanation of a condition or restriction, this error is evidenced by the ticket itself.

To be fair, if you buy anything it is a good idea to check it as soon as reasonably possible, it doesn't matter if it is a ticket or a dvd boxset.

I wouldn't dispute that, however it does not absolve the retailer from the obligation to correct their error.
 
Last edited:

blacknight

Member
Joined
19 Feb 2009
Messages
543
Location
Crow Park
Am I correct in understanding that you believe that the railways are exempt from consumer protection law?.

Yes. Can you tell me of any other company that can sell you an expensive item but item remains the property of the company.
For instance you buy TV & have no TV licence you are misusing TV but do electrical retailers take TV back?
 

transportphoto

Established Member
Associate Staff
Jobs & Careers
Quizmaster
Joined
21 Jan 2010
Messages
5,574
They are not selling you an item, they sell you the authority to travel between two points which is represented on 'The Ticket'. 'The Ticket' never leaves the railway's property. An authorised person may withdraw both the authority to travel and the ticket at any time, they do not have to refund.

TP
 

jon0844

Veteran Member
Joined
1 Feb 2009
Messages
30,937
Location
UK
I had the incorrect number put on one of my season tickets once (by staff). It was only two digits in the wrong order, and highly unlikely to ever have been checked, but luckily I noticed.
 

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,702
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
Am I correct in understanding that you believe that the railways are exempt from consumer protection law?

If, as has been suggested, the season ticket has been issued incorrectly using the discount card ID then it is clear to me that the retailer has made an error. Following the argument that the customer should have checked, next time I buy a TV should I unpack it and plug it in while still in Currys? Alternatively what if the ticket was being purchased for the first time, how is the customer to know that the season should be issued with the photocard ID and not the discount card ID?

As a retailer in the UK any booking office is required to put right an error made by them, whether its more complicated at a later date is the company's problem not the consumer's. We're not talking about some dispute about the explanation of a condition or restriction, this error is evidenced by the ticket itself.

I wouldn't dispute that, however it does not absolve the retailer from the obligation to correct their error.
A couple of points, firstly to use your TV example, I would expect you to at least check that the TV was the correct one before leaving. Experience in shops is that sometimes errors in that way can happen.

There has never been any suggestion that the ticket will not be put right or that the matter will not be resolved amicably.

The ticket was withdrawn because there were irregularities with the numbers on it. I would suggest that the test here will be to see what the outcome is to those enquiries.

With regards to consumer law, this is based upon the transfer of ownership in something from one person to the other, and covers aspects that set out to ensure that the item transferred meets certain reasonable criteria, such as description, correct operation, etc.

Railway travel, as with all other travel is different in that there is no property to transfer ownership of, merely the provision of a service, which is the transport of a person from origin to destination. The nature of the contract therefore is very different and is subject to the Law of Contract rather than Consumer law primarily in that the obligation between both parties (the passenger and the Railway) is accepted subject to conditions and duties on the side of both parties. These are far different to a situation where goods and services are provided.
 

Wolfie

Established Member
Joined
17 Aug 2010
Messages
7,436
A couple of points, firstly to use your TV example, I would expect you to at least check that the TV was the correct one before leaving. Experience in shops is that sometimes errors in that way can happen.

There has never been any suggestion that the ticket will not be put right or that the matter will not be resolved amicably.

The ticket was withdrawn because there were irregularities with the numbers on it. I would suggest that the test here will be to see what the outcome is to those enquiries.

With regards to consumer law, this is based upon the transfer of ownership in something from one person to the other, and covers aspects that set out to ensure that the item transferred meets certain reasonable criteria, such as description, correct operation, etc.

Railway travel, as with all other travel is different in that there is no property to transfer ownership of, merely the provision of a service, which is the transport of a person from origin to destination. The nature of the contract therefore is very different and is subject to the Law of Contract rather than Consumer law primarily in that the obligation between both parties (the passenger and the Railway) is accepted subject to conditions and duties on the side of both parties. These are far different to a situation where goods and services are provided.

While you might be an expert on things railways, including legislation, your understanding of UK consumer law is little short of laughable.

My bold
Inaccurate at best. What you describe is a loose interpretation of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Quite how the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 would not be described as part of consumer law is a mystery to me (and indeed to BIS, the responsible Govt department, which features information on that Act on its website!).

My italics
This is no different to many other services.
Part 2, Para 12 Section 3 in theory applies to the railways:
"Subject to subsection (2) above (which relates to apprenticeships), a contract is a contract for the supply of a service for the purposes of this Act whether or not goods are also—
(a)transferred or to be transferred, or
(b)bailed or to be bailed by way of hire,
under the contract, and whatever is the nature of the consideration for which the service is to be carried out."
However, Part 2, Para 12, Section 4 states:
"The Secretary of State may by order provide that one or more of sections 13 to 15 below shall not apply to services of a description specified in the order, and such an order may make different provision for different circumstances."
My understanding is that such an order was done for the railways - had this not been done the TOCs would have been up to their armpits in county court cases for years!
 

Old Timer

Established Member
Joined
24 Aug 2009
Messages
3,702
Location
On a plane somewhere at 35,000
While you might be an expert on things railways, including legislation, your understanding of UK consumer law is little short of laughable.

My bold
Inaccurate at best. What you describe is a loose interpretation of the Sale of Goods Act 1979. Quite how the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 would not be described as part of consumer law is a mystery to me (and indeed to BIS, the responsible Govt department, which features information on that Act on its website!).

My italics
This is no different to many other services.
Part 2, Para 12 Section 3 in theory applies to the railways:
"Subject to subsection (2) above (which relates to apprenticeships), a contract is a contract for the supply of a service for the purposes of this Act whether or not goods are also—
(a)transferred or to be transferred, or
(b)bailed or to be bailed by way of hire,
under the contract, and whatever is the nature of the consideration for which the service is to be carried out."
However, Part 2, Para 12, Section 4 states:
"The Secretary of State may by order provide that one or more of sections 13 to 15 below shall not apply to services of a description specified in the order, and such an order may make different provision for different circumstances."
My understanding is that such an order was done for the railways - had this not been done the TOCs would have been up to their armpits in county court cases for years!
I was trying to paraphrase a complicated set of regulations and laws.

Youn go on to say
Part 2, Para 12 Section 3 in theory applies to the railways
Note especially the use of the word theory.

You then go onto state
However, Part 2, Para 12, Section 4 states:
"The Secretary of State may by order provide that one or more of sections 13 to 15 below shall not apply to services of a description specified in the order, and such an order may make different provision for different circumstances."
My understanding is that such an order was done for the railways - had this not been done the TOCs would have been up to their armpits in county court cases for years!
which simply validates what I was saying originally.


It also makes your post completely worthless, apart from an attempt to say who can piddle up the wall higher. :roll:

If you REALLY want to go head for head in fine detail of the points of Law then go for it
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Top