Two Together Railcard: unfair terms?

[yorkie]

From a thread regarding a query from @Egg Centric, relating to one passenger falling ill:

(Context: re the "two together" journey I posted above the toddler part of it has caught chicken pox and there's a chance I'll need to swap the advances to a single person one as Mrs Centric and Toddler Centric stay behind but likely won't know for sure until the Saturday. From prior experience moving an advance on the website the automated process is book another and then apply for a refund of the previous one giving the new booking reference, but with how busy the ECML diversion route will be on Sunday I can imagine that this may not be available so may need human assistance)

Regardless as to whether the automated system is used, I think you're going to run into issues with the passenger counts not matching if you try and go through the Change of Journey process, because the policy won't consider it a compatible rescheduled journey.

Given the toddler is unwell (hopefully they recover soon!), the simplest bet may be to just refund the whole lot under the Medical policy (would need paperwork of some sort [GP/pharmacy/some other AHP] sent over, I'm afraid). If this is timed properly, there's every chance the reservations will be released back and that Advance tier will then be available for re-purchase after that refund is processed (reservations are cancelled immediately) but appreciate it's a faff.

There's no easy way to reuse a previous reservation and convert into an undiscounted ticket, unfortunately. It's already been settled in LENNON and the reservation will have the wrong discount status code for a normal Adult ticket set against it in the reservation system.

I am personally of the view that this wasn't really thought through properly when the Two Together Railcard conditions were thought up, some sort of process probably should've been put in place for exceptional circumstances.

And from another query from @TonyR relating to the intended train being cancelled, which means the two passengers end up having different preferences regarding what to do next:

Just wondering what happens if two of us are travelling on a Two Together railcard, the train in cancelled and one of us wants to catch the next train and one abandon the journey. Do we still have to travel together for their ticket to be valid for travel?

Thanks but all rather impractical. Because the two of us were travelling for different reasons it din’t make sense for one of us to continue after the Scottish rail disruption this morning. But if we get a refund on our two Advance tickets, the new one at short notice will cost much more on top of which it won’t be for the cancelled train and therefore not due a delay repay refund for being late into London. Guess we’ll both be travelling together and once I get to London it’ll be a straight turnaround back for me because there won’t be time to do what I was going to do and a Delay Repay for both of us of the ticket cost. ☹️

I'd probably just travel and explain the situation on the way.

This is clearly an unfair term in the contract if the contract really does purport to limit one's rights in that way.

A fundamental flaw with Two Together Railcard discounts is that there appears to be no formal mechanism to 'excess away' the discount, in the event that one passenger is no longer able to travel. Should this be an entitlement, and is disallowing this option an unfair term?

Discuss...

 

[redreni]

I don't know if it's an unfair term but excessing away Railcard discounts should be allowed and made as easy as possible anyway, imho.

Unless the railway really dislikes its customers and wants to make their life difficult and put them off coming back.

If the railway will not make it possible to get Railcard to non-Railcard excesses online (this point generalises to all excesses of whatever type), then it should offer them onboard and live with the risk of Railcard fraud and 'pay when challenged' until it sorts itself out.

'Refund and replace' is not a reasonable alternative to offer people in the context of Advances.

 

[Gaelan]

I don't know if it's an unfair term but excessing away Railcard discounts should be allowed and made as easy as possible anyway, imho.

And ditto “zero-cost” excesses from one railcard to another.

 

[SuspectUsual]

Apropos this, my parents travel on a two together railcard and had a bit of a curious one a couple of years ago.

They were travelling from Coventry to Sheffield, but my dad had to go via Wolverhampton to sort some admin stuff out.

They also both have West Midlands concessionary passes.

So they bought Advances from Birmingham to Sheffield using the railcard, and used their WM passes for the initial journeys with my dad leaving home a couple of hours ahead of my mum. However, my dad's train from Wolverhampton to Birmingham got snarled up in some delays near Dudley Port so he arrived at New Street too late for the XC their Advances were for. Meanwhile, my mum had been sat drinking tea and getting exasperated.

When they met up they found "someone in a uniform" and explained their situation and this chap wrote something on their tickets to allow them to travel on the next XC at no penalty to them.

Was this the right outcome or has the bloke done a couple of OAPs a favour?

(Oh, and they then claimed Delay Repay on both tickets and got paid out)

 

[father_jack]

I don't know if it's an unfair term but excessing away Railcard discounts should be allowed and made as easy as possible anyway, imho.

Unless the railway really dislikes its customers and wants to make their life difficult and put them off coming back.

If the railway will not make it possible to get Railcard to non-Railcard excesses online (this point generalises to all excesses of whatever type), then it should offer them onboard and live with the risk of Railcard fraud and 'pay when challenged' until it sorts itself out.

'Refund and replace' is not a reasonable alternative to offer people in the context of Advances.With respect

With respect, what I find is that in a "honest" case with "ye olde attitude test" passed with flying colours railcard discounts are often excessed away.

An example is where "dad" has bought an offspring a ticket on their Trainline account and Trainline has reapplied the 16-25 railcard here used on the last transaction on to a clearly grown man's ticket. Is it worth putting that passenger through the effort of doing a refund and repurchase (and possibly paying an admin fee) when you have other punters waiting to buy tickets with five minutes to the next train when you can just charge him 33% more ?

Or how about a lone female without enough money to buy a replacement ticket, but who has the excess to public rate when the railcard is expired ? It would be easy to have a safeguarding matter if they storm off from the station or at least have a gallon of tears and the staff being seen in a poor light by the other passengers intervening ? Easier to say "you're only paying what you should have paid all along"- you've made a fair compromise.

 

[jfollows]

They’re not “unfair terms”, they’re a discount under published terms and if you don’t comply with them, you’re not eligible.
The majority of arguments against come from people inventing rules and reasons which don’t exist.
Either comply with the rules or don’t buy the tickets.

PS I have a Two Together Railcard, have done so for a number of years, and have never tried to use tickets bought with one outside its terms and conditions.

 

[Gaelan]

They’re not “unfair terms”, they’re a discount under published terms and if you don’t comply with them, you’re not eligible.
The majority of arguments against come from people inventing rules and reasons which don’t exist.
Either comply with the rules or don’t buy the tickets.

PS I have a Two Together Railcard, have done so for a number of years, and have never tried to use tickets bought with one outside its terms and conditions.

In all but one case discussed here, the railway failed to live up to its end of the bargain. It’s entirely reasonable to expect the railway to show some grace in such a situation.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 16 Feb 2026 ==

If nothing else, where a single passenger traveling alone can demonstrate that the other half of their Two Together ticket is unused (for example, by presenting both tickets), I see zero reason not to allow travel. They’ve paid more than they would have for a single undiscounted journey.

 

[yorkie]

In all but one case discussed here, the railway failed to live up to its end of the bargain. It’s entirely reasonable to expect the railway to show some grace in such a situation...

I agree, it would be reasonable for the railway to show some grace.

Sadly, my expectations are somewhat lower, due to poor experiences on so many occasions. It shouldn't be this way. I have many memories of either myself or others being mistreated by train companies, and these don't go away easily.

If nothing else, where a single passenger traveling alone can demonstrate that the other half of their Two Together ticket is unused (for example, by presenting both tickets), I see zero reason not to allow travel. They’ve paid more than they would have for a single undiscounted journey.

Agreed; while not ideal, that would at least be some concession, but the train companies are reluctant to do anything approaching reasonable at times.

They’re not “unfair terms”, they’re a discount under published terms and if you don’t comply with them, you’re not eligible...

Even if a train is cancelled, heavily delayed, or a passenger is unexpectedly ill?

The majority of arguments against come from people inventing rules and reasons which don’t exist.
Either comply with the rules or don’t buy the tickets.

I'm pretty sure the purchases fully intended to comply with the rules of travel, but they didn't expect the trains to be cancelled/delayed or one of the passengers to become ill...

 

[AlterEgo]

They’re not “unfair terms”, they’re a discount under published terms and if you don’t comply with them, you’re not eligible.
The majority of arguments against come from people inventing rules and reasons which don’t exist.

It is quite obviously unfair if a train cancellation entirely outwith your control leaves you with the only recourse of paying more money.

 

[Adam Williams]

'Refund and replace' is not a reasonable alternative to offer people in the context of Advances.

This is the crux of the problem.

The forum ticketing site actually won't charge any Change of Journey admin fees if the date & time remain identical to try and avoid penalising customers who've made a simple mistake (e.g. selecting wrong Railcard) and want to do a straight swap, but the problem with re-book & refund is that it's very likely your original Advance tier will have sold out in the time between purchase and re-book. This also doesn't help at all if you accidentally forgot to apply a Railcard initially, because you won't get the difference back when you replace with a new, cheaper booking - that's how the Change of Journey process has to work. Your only hope is to notice shortly after purchasing and arrange for a same-day void refund.

Ideally we'd have E-Ticketable excesses that could be issued by online retailers in a self-service manner.

 

[Egg Centric]

I don't think it's unfair in the legal sense, in that the T&Cs are made clear.

I do think it's absolutely irrational. As far as I know there is no scenario in which someone can gain an advantage by using a two together railcard and buying two tickets, as opposed to just buying a full price one themselves. What possible harm is being caused by 1 fewer passenger travelling? In my case it was fortunately academic but the "common sense" option not being available was distinctly annoying. I assume that the reason for this is to prevent two together discounts being used on open tickets but this doesn't make logical sense (since it's detectable with e-tickets) unless the halves are CCST - this is a rare-ish scenario now and there's a way around that too - if it's a physical ticket, insist that the single passenger has both of them.

Tangentally, it also seems to me that there is far too little discretion given to retailers (and possibly TOCs) to resolve things according to their definition of customer service.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A fundamental flaw with Two Together Railcard discounts is that there appears to be no formal mechanism to 'excess away' the discount, in the event that one passenger is no longer able to travel. Should this be an entitlement, and is disallowing this option an unfair term?

Discuss...

To me one person should be allowed to travel alone holding both sets of tickets. That would seem to reasonably deal with the issue.

 

[AlterEgo]

I don't think it's unfair in the legal sense, in that the T&Cs are made clear.

That isn't the test of an unfair term. From the Consumer Rights Act:

A term is unfair if, contrary to the requirement of good faith, it causes a significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations under the contract to the detriment of the consumer.

You can sign up to and read the terms and they may still be unfair.

In the event that a train is cancelled and one of the party of two is forced by the railway's own failure to provide the service to abandon the journey, it absolutely must be an unfair term that the other person's rights are undermined to the extent they need to buy new tickets or even an excess fare (detriment to the consumer). That is bad faith and a serious imbalance in the contract.

 

[TonyR]

They’re not “unfair terms”, they’re a discount under published terms and if you don’t comply with them, you’re not eligible.
The majority of arguments against come from people inventing rules and reasons which don’t exist.
Either comply with the rules or don’t buy the tickets.

PS I have a Two Together Railcard, have done so for a number of years, and have never tried to use tickets bought with one outside its terms and conditions.

What do you suggest in the case of forced non-compliance. i.e. the problem is of the TOC’s making not the ticket holders? That was our case when a train cancellation made it no longer sensible for one of us to travel and the options for the other person to travel would incur penal costs.

 

[jfollows]

You either get a full refund and don’t travel, or you travel together on earlier or later trains, and if neither of these suit you then you need to consider buying different tickets in the first place.

 

[Harpers Tate]

As regards specifically "two together" I'd suggest that the fairest way for the Railway to handle situations where only one travels is to simply allow it. The Railway has effectively already had a 50% uplift in the revenue compared to one traveller alone, all other things equal.

.....no formal mechanism to 'excess away' the discount.....

This (IMO) should be an option for all and any railcard discounted fare - at the very least if the passenger makes such a request prior to boarding, if not otherwise.

 

[TonyR]

This (IMO) should be an option for all and any railcard discounted fare - at the very least if the passenger makes such a request prior to boarding, if not otherwise.

In theory yes, but often finding someone to ask is a challenge and the usual answer is to ask the train manager at which point you will have had to board the train to ask them and risk a penalty fare.

 

[pdq]

Are there any scenarios where 2 x Two Together tickets are cheaper than 1 x undiscounted? If not, then one person holding the two tickets plus railcard really ought to be sufficient in a pragmatic world.

I guess there's a tiny window for fraud if I and my two together friend travel separately on discounted flexible tickets whilst each holding both tickets (only possible with e tickets). Given the rarity of this scenario and that at a ticket scan would easily highlight this and leave a digital footprint, I can't see this being an argument against pragmatism.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Are there any scenarios where 2 x Two Together tickets are cheaper than 1 x undiscounted?

I can't think of any. This situation can arise with the Family and Friends Railcard but it can't arise with any others.

If not, then one person holding the two tickets plus railcard really ought to be sufficient in a pragmatic world.

I agree completely.

I guess there's a tiny window for fraud if I and my two together friend travel separately on discounted flexible tickets whilst each holding both tickets (only possible with e tickets). Given the rarity of this scenario and that at a ticket scan would easily highlight this and leave a digital footprint, I can't see this being an argument against pragmatism.

That's the exact same issue as any duplication of e-tickets. It probably happens, but like illicit refunds it's caused entirely by the railway's inability to manage guards so they actually do their job and ensure tickets are scanned (see the thread on that specific matter).