Virgin rail 'bullies'

[colpepper]

The debate seems to rest on whether rail fans with the time and expertise to cherry pick anomalously low fares will lose those opportunities if a spotlight is shone on general pricing strategies.
I'd certainly forego a few bargain trips to the capital (the destination for most discounted trips) if that meant prices as a whole were re-thought. The very fact that a board is dedicated to the subject on a forum of rail buffs would indicate such fares are neither easy to access nor transparent.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

If "the 0930 Virgin Trains service to London Euston" was 10 minutes late it would still be "the 0930 Virgin Trains service to London Euston", but would no doubt be announced as "the delayed 0930 Virgin Trains service to London Euston.

In the same way, if "the 0930 Virgin Trains service to London Euston" was actually announced as "1 Golf 2 3" and it was 10 minutes late it would then be announced as "the delayed 1 Golf 2 3", I think more people would be confused by that as they search there various bits of paper to see if that is their train or not. And what if they were actually booked on "1 Golf 2 5", but, because they looked in a hurry because they were running late, they thought that 1G23 was their train?

I much prefer the [time/operator/destination] approach, not complicated at all in my mind.

 

[cuccir]

Unusually, I don't agree 100% with Yorkie's views on this!

But as per usual I have found that Greenback has pretty much hit the nail on the head.

The problem (if there is one - after all with rising passenger numbers we might argue that there isn't one) with this sort of case is that the passengers have paid a fare but, in using the ticket incorrectly, have left themselves open to a huge 'fine'. To a certain extent, it doesn't matter too much whether the error is genuine or whether the passengers have knowingly broken the T&Cs.

What many people will simply not accept as reasonable - and I'm inclined to agree - is that by getting on to a train that is twenty minutes earlier than the booked service, for which the cost of a ticket was identical, where there are plenty of spare seats*, a group of three people can incur a cost of £270.

Now I understand the arguments for this - that we need to protect the cheap advance fares as a 'buy-and-upgrade' scheme would be abused/would remove the demand-management aspect of advance fares, and that a similarly flexible plane ticket would be as if not more expensive - but these (valid) reasons do not justify such a high cost.

There are possible ways around this other than a simple 'upgrade your ticket' approach, and there are ways around other problems that come under the 'incorrect use of ticket' group (eg forgotten rail-cards, over-travelling, short-travelling, off-route, off-TOC etc). Plenty of people on here have suggested them. The catch is that, whilst customer numbers are rising, it is not in the interest of TOCs to take on the extra admin and hassle that such schemes would involve.

So I don't expect to see a change. I hope the passengers don't win their case, but there will be more like this to come.


* I realise that this last part is an assumption, but let's run with it for now

 

[yorkie]

cuccir - I am in total agreement that a cost of £270 is unreasonable.

Although with your last line, while I agree I don't 'expect' to see a change, I am hopeful that they do succeed in getting the system changed and that a court agrees £270 is unreasonable. (Did you mean to write "don't"?)

If you accept the contract then it is legally binding yorkie - no need for it to be tested. They accepted the contract, it was broken, and they get the punishment they agreed to.

So all contracts, no matter how unfair, are legally binding to the extent that you cannot contest them in court?

It's alright saying a new ticket must be purchased, but the general public won't realise that a new ticket means a ticket that is way in excess of the walk-on price. They can get walk-on tickets to travel on any train at any time at a cheap price (with their railcard) so is it reasonable for a passenger to be given a shock that the cost of a new ticket is not the £40ish they normally pay but £100+?

I'm not saying a new ticket shouldn't be purchased, or that an excess shouldn't be charged. On the contrary!

 

[colpepper]

The catch is that, whilst customer numbers are rising, it is not in the interest of TOCs to take on the extra admin and hassle that such schemes would involve.

Numbers are rising where private transport is next to impossible (ie. London destinations) or along commuting corridors into large cities. The social benefit of public transport has barely been explored since privatisation. For instance there is no compulsion to provide the cheapest place to place tickets even when they are specifically asked for.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

So all contracts, no matter how unfair, are legally binding to the extent that you cannot contest them in court?
!

Of course you can. But these have been around for years and used for gets, and I would be VERY surprised if it were overturned.

If you don't like the terns of the contract don't accept it!


EDIT - I see what you're saying about walk on fares. I agree the system could do with refinement but I don't think it's fair saying that we'll let you off with the cheapest fare. Fair for the customer, but unfair for the company.

 

[yorkie]

Of course you can.

Thanks for clarifying.

If you don't like the terns of the contract don't accept it!

What alternative do you suggest? driving? not travelling? The price of walk-on travel makes it prohibitive for longer journeys for many people, including myself. Does encouraging people to ditch the train benefit any of us in the long term?

 

[colpepper]

Does encouraging people to ditch the train benefit any of us in the long term?

No. The fact is rail pricing is for the convenience of TOCs, especially their share holders, not rail users. As an example of the free market it's an object lesson in monopoly abuse, there is no competition, no operators (AFAIK) are competing on price for the same service.
People have been bought off by a few dirt cheap fares into accepting the status quo.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Not travelling. If you cnt afford it don't do it. I would like an iMac. I cant afford one so I'm not buying one.

Of course, if people stop travelling then the TOCs are more likely to lower ticket prices. More likely than people taking vigilante action to try bs break the t&c's.

 

[Railjet]

Of course you can. But these have been around for years and used for gets, and I would be VERY surprised if it were overturned.

If you don't like the terns of the contract don't accept it!

On the contrary, there is a whole raft of legislation protecting the consumer which has been developed for this very reason - the fact that contracts can be one-sided and often unreasonably disadvantage the consumer.

 

[hairyhandedfool]

I'm still unsure what is unfair about "if you catch this particular train we will charge you less money for it and if you change your mind before the departure time you can change the ticket at a ticket office for a £10 admin fee plus the excess to the cheapest available fare".

What would you suggest the excess should be if the passenger books on a train at 1600 (off-peak not valid), but actually travels at 1200 (off peak valid)?

 

[Railjet]

I'm still unsure what is unfair about "if you catch this particular train we will charge you less money for it and if you change your mind before the departure time you can change the ticket at a ticket office for a £10 admin fee plus the excess to the cheapest available fare".

What would you suggest the excess should be if the passenger books on a train at 1600 (off-peak not valid), but actually travels at 1200 (off peak valid)?

I'm sure any court would take into account the fact that there was only 20 minutes' time difference between the train booked and the train caught. Clearly, if there were a few hours, and peak and off-peak were involved, the scenario is different.

But - in this case - is the penalty appropriate? From the OFT's Unfair contract terms guidance:

It is unfair to impose disproportionate sanctions for breach of contract. A requirement to pay more in compensation for a breach than a reasonable pre-estimate of the loss caused to the supplier is one kind of excessive penalty.

 

[ChrisCooper]

I think a big problem with the railways is the system where if you book in advance you not only can get much cheaper fares, but are also guarenteed (within reason) a seat and in most cases have some choice over that seat. On the other hand if you turn up on the day you not only pay much more, but could end up standing or in a less than desirable seat (a group might end up split up). It does seem slightly unfair that someone could buy a cheap first class ticket and for whatever reason end up on a different train to that booked, end up having to pay a higher fare (maybe even having had their ticket changed before boarding) and end up standing in standard class. The low cost airline or coach model that the railways tend to follow does fall down as in both of those cases everyone needs a seat, so by changing you are depriving someone of a seat on your original service and on the service you end up on. No so on the railways where standing is allowed and many passengers are turn up and go.

 

[DarloRich]

I know it is harsh but it is not an unfair system. The proportionality of the penalty is perhaps a point of debate, however I feel the penalty IS proportionate because the rules are quite clear. It isn’t a "black Art" of ticketing here. It is a simple case of an advance ticket being used on the wrong train. End of argument. Guilty.

The tickets are quite clear. You can only travel on your booked train. I look at like speed cameras - many people think they are unfair and designed to extract money, but it is still wrong to break the speed limit. You know this but you still chance it(we all do - and i think we will all, eventually, get caught)

We don’t have wrongness by degrees. We have right or wrong. If you start with one case of bending the rules ,where do you draw the line? Is being one train early ok? what about 2 or 5 or 10 - when is it ok not to follow the rules?

I am not saying the penalties are insignificant; clearly they are. However you know this when you buy an advance ticket. If you want a cheap fare name your train, if you want flexibility then pay for it.

I know it is not nice to send nasty legal type letters to a 14/15 year old boy. But again is being a minor, travelling without a ticket, ok? He is only X years old so let him off. Sorry but life isn’t like that. He did the "crime" so he does the time. He is above the legal age of responsibility therefore is responsible for his actions.

Now IF a Virgin staff member checked their tickets, saw they were for the 0955 and STILL said yes you can get on the 0933 then I think they are in the right and should fight. More likely they either saw a Virgin train and got on without checking, or knew it wasn’t their train but tried it on, or more likely, I believe, (and many of us have done this!) just asked is that the London train, without showing a ticket or asking is this the 0955 train to London!

I think Virgin SHOULD peruse them. They were fare evading, perhaps unintentionally, perhaps not and therefore should be subject to the penalties. Surely the proportionality of the penalty can be the only ground for action? Although I am not sure that the Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 applies to penalty clauses (I will have to check)

 

[hairyhandedfool]

Some people in this thread are calling for a standard 'get out' clause which makes no differentiation between 20 minutes early, 6 hours early or perhaps even 6 hours late.

'The penalty' as you refer to it, is not compensation, it is just a ticket that you would have to buy if you didn't have a ticket for that train. Now correct me if I'm wrong, but they didn't have a ticket for that train, did they?

 

[Anvil1984]

I believe that the excess charged was correct by the book and morally. Sorry but if you board a train and hope for the best you deserve the full whack, if they had attempted to rectify it at the booking office before travel then you should have the right to upgrade to the normal relevant fare. If in doubt you should visit the booking office first.

If a Virgin member of staff actually authorised them to travel I would differ and action should be taken but as we all get asked at stations the usual question is just "when is the next train at xxxx"

 

[DarloRich]

I'm still unsure what is unfair about "if you catch this particular train we will charge you less money for it and if you change your mind before the departure time you can change the ticket at a ticket office for a £10 admin fee plus the excess to the cheapest available fare".

What would you suggest the excess should be if the passenger books on a train at 1600 (off-peak not valid), but actually travels at 1200 (off peak valid)?

Agreed - in fact this is one of the things a court should consider (IMO) is whether the customer received an inducement to accept the term. Were they given the opportunity to pay a higher price without the exclusion clause.

Obviusly there are many others but that might be important here

 

[mrcheek]

One thing nobody is considering here: the poor people who tried to book cheap advance fares on the 0951, but found they were all gone, so had to pay the higher fare.
Stephanie Spacey should have to compensate them as well.

 

[Darandio]

One thing nobody is considering here: the poor people who tried to book cheap advance fares on the 0951, but found they were all gone, so had to pay the higher fare.
Stephanie Spacey should have to compensate them as well.

Exactly. I think she should be sued for it.

 

[Railjet]

One thing nobody is considering here: the poor people who tried to book cheap advance fares on the 0951, but found they were all gone, so had to pay the higher fare.
Stephanie Spacey should have to compensate them as well.

What a ridiculous argument. What about people who buy cheap advance tickets and don't use them - should they compensate people who couldn't get the cheap tickets as a result?

 

[mrcheek]

What a ridiculous argument. What about people who buy cheap advance tickets and don't use them - should they compensate people who couldn't get the cheap tickets as a result?

no, because the people who decide not to use them have at least paid for a ticket, decided not to use it, and taken a personal loss.

Those who are defending Mrs Spacey seem to think that all she should pay is the correct fare upgrade (which she had the option to do so, and refused, hence the legal action against her), as if nobody else has suffered as a result.

 

[MikeWh]

What a ridiculous argument. What about people who buy cheap advance tickets and don't use them - should they compensate people who couldn't get the cheap tickets as a result?

no, because the people who decide not to use them have at least paid for a ticket, decided not to use it, and taken a personal loss.

Got to ask on that point then, do you agree that someone who wants to get out early and just not use some of their seat is being unfairly treated when they are asked to buy a whole new ticket for the journey they've made?

 

[jon0844]

I don't think that if you allowed someone to 'upgrade' on the train that they'd suddenly opt to just reserve any train to get a cheap fare and then upgrade on the train, or claim a refund on the advanced ticket later (with or without an admin fee).

The 'upgrade' is simply too expensive, but lessens the blow should you find yourself having had your meeting cancelled and you now want to go home now instead of in a few hours time, or a meeting overran and you missed your train by a matter of seconds. It doesn't have to be a business meeting, in case we assume that businessmen and women will always buy a full price ticket - which isn't the case, as staff here are told to get advanced tickets, even if they can't be sure when they need to come back.

Given you should expect that, except for exceptional circumstances, you will have your ticket checked* - what possible advantage do you have in buying the advanced ticket? If you think you won't be checked, why get a ticket at all? Or simply buy a totally invalid ticket (YPRC, Disabled railcard etc) and claim ignorance. (* As you will on a train that has advanced/reserved seating).

Even your seat reservations are invalid, so you've gained nothing over simply paying the full price on the train anyway.

And I can change my advance ticket on a low cost airline - but so far have never done so. I recently wanted to take an earlier flight home from Dublin, with seats available, on Aer Lingus and it came to about £500 from a ticket that was originally about £60.

That was with an admin charge AND the difference between the last-minute fare. Funnily enough, I didn't do it - and with airline security and boarding procedure, I couldn't just go ahead and do it anyway as I could on a train.

So, while people will be outraged at having to pay extra to travel earlier (and Aer Lingus could even sell our seats on the flight I'd no longer take two hours later) it won't interest the media as nobody actually got made to pay it. On the railway, you could just say 'f**k it' and board anyway - and then you've got the Daily Mail story when caught.

 

[Railjet]

no, because the people who decide not to use them have at least paid for a ticket, decided not to use it, and taken a personal loss.

If they've taken a personal loss or not, it's completely irrelevant as to whether other potential passengers should be compensated. What do they care? They've been equally wronged in both cases. The argument is just illogical.

 

[mrcheek]

If they've taken a personal loss or not, it's completely irrelevant as to whether other potential passengers should be compensated. What do they care? They've been equally wronged in both cases. The argument is just illogical.

as are most of the arguments in favour of Mrs Spacey, as they fail to take into account the effects on other people of her attempted scam, and the fact that if she got away with it, you are giving carte blanche for other people to keep trying the same scam.

Maybe she should also be made to compensate every other passenger on the 0931, who paid the correct fare while she did not.....

 

[Zoe]

Just because rail travel is perceived to be, and in most cases is, "turn-up-and-go" doesn't mean that it always is.

I remember Virgin making a big thing about the introduction of the VHF, comments like "throw away the timetable, there's a train every 20 minutes" but this seem to be somewhat negated by the fact that the walk-up fares are so expensive and that most people will book in advance and so end up restricted to a single train each day.

 

[Railjet]

as are most of the arguments in favour of Mrs Spacey, as they fail to take into account the effects on other people of her attempted scam, and the fact that if she got away with it, you are giving carte blanche for other people to keep trying the same scam.

Maybe she should also be made to compensate every other passenger on the 0931, who paid the correct fare while she did not.....

You're making libellous assumptions again. Easy in an anonymous world.

How about this woman. Apparently, she was found shoplifting - had she not gone to court, she couldn't have cleared her name, and in your eyes, no doubt, would have been another scammer.

 

[colpepper]

I can't believe some of the comments here. Rail users are customers, if there was anything like a competitive market rail travel pricing wouldn't be at current levels. It's a monopoly pure and simple and TOCs will sue anyone who tries to take away their unique advantages.

 

[Zoe]

I can't believe some of the comments here. Rail users are customers, if there was anything like a competitive market rail travel pricing wouldn't be at current levels. It's a monopoly pure and simple and TOCs will sue anyone who tries to take away their unique advantages.

It's not a monopoly on travel though, there are other ways to travel including car, air or coach.

 

[Railjet]

I can't believe some of the comments here. Rail users are customers, if there was anything like a competitive market rail travel pricing wouldn't be at current levels. It's a monopoly pure and simple and TOCs will sue anyone who tries to take away their unique advantages.

I agree with all of that except to add a proviso to the last sentence. TOCs will sue anyone who tries to take away their unique advantages, only if they are sure they will win.