It may not appear complicated to those whose profession it is to administer the situation and are disposed to a certain kind of didacticism (or plain pedantry), but that's because they're steeped in the rulebook and even then, this board throws up a mass of anomalies from those who aren't fare cheats but are railway enthusiasts who want to get where they're going at the best legal price.
I'm sorry, what is complicated about:
"Reservations are required for the journey and you must travel on the train shown on your ticket or reservation confirmation.These tickets are subject to availability on selected trains. Advance tickets are non-refundable.
That is the T&C from the FGW website
http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/Content.aspx?id=289
Millions of people a year manage to use them with no problem. The people who I charge don't as a rule strike me as stupid or educationally challenged. Some of them (like our company director) seem very clever. The "it's too complicated" argument in 90% of cases is just b*ll*x. It's an easy excuse for those who don't want to take responsibility and be treated like an adult. If someone is traveling across the country and changing trains several times, it might have some force. If they are getting on a train in Paddington and going to Swindon - that is not complicated, or difficult. I know people with learning difficulties that manage it regularly, don't try and tell me that some businessman in a suit in 1st class can't understand it, which is what happens (and the excuse that Colpepper is making for them).
I see no problem with charging the people who decide to travel on another train. I probably get 3-4 people a day come up to me on the platform and say "I'm booked on the XXXX train, can I get on this one?" They KNOW the ticket restrictions. When I tell them that I will have to charge them the difference between what they paid and the price of the flexible ticket for that train, I'm often subject to some kind of argument or abuse. These people do want the flexibility, but don't want to pay for it. They can't have both.
The subtext is that if you want to travel economically you are running the gauntlet and should be ready for all kinds of bother in doing so. Best to cough up full whack and avoid having your collar felt. That doesn't meet my perception of what a railway is all about.
My job (amongst other things) is to try and enforce the T&C that a passenger accepts when they decide to use the train. If they don't like them, then they need to find an alternative that appeals to their personality more. What I don't need when doing this is to spend an inordinate length of time arguing with some bully who thinks that if they shout, bluster, and threaten, they can get their own way (which, IMHO, is what describes the woman in this case - and people who threaten me and my colleagues with their solicitor, directly or indirectly.). Apart from everything else, that is taking me away from a vulnerable passenger who might actually NEED my help and advice. So a failure to provide Customer Service is caused by a passenger who thinks they don't have to pay, but the TOC gets the blame regardless.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Point is as in the case of the proffessor at Darlington if ticket is bought by your employer can you then legally be judged to be in breech of T&C you have personally not seen or read them.
Sadly East Coast didn't let it go to court for a legal judgement to be made in that case
I have had a court case with something similar once, some mail-order car-parts I had ordered were delivered damaged, but were fitted to a car by the garage they had been delivered directly to. When I tried to return them, I was told that as they had been fitted and altered, they were accepted. When I took the supplier to small claims, I was told that the garage was acting as my agent, they had accepted them on my behalf, and even though the parts had been damaged before dispatch (the boxes were intact, but the contents scratched and dinted), the onus was on my agents to inform me that there was a problem.
In that case, the university was acting as his agent, and should have had a duty to inform him of the T&C that they had accepted on his behalf. If the good Professor had felt he had a case (and I'm sure that he had access to the best advice), then I think he would have proceeded to court.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
The ticketing system is indeed complex, in terms of the restrictions attached to many tickets and the various types of tickets on offer, but the Advance tickets have the simplest restrictions of all. They should not be difficult to understand - yoiu can only travel on the service that you are booked on.
In this case it all boils down to the rules do not apply to me attitude that is so prevalent in society today, and I have little sympathy for the people concerned, as they knew full well that they were not catching the correct service.
Exactly, unfortunately some posters on here think that they never have to take responsibility, it is always someone else's fault for interpreting the rules too strictly, or not explaining them in words of one syllable (and then saying "But you know what, you're special, you can do what you want).
). The railway bylaws have been in place for well over 100 years now, and have been challenged in court many times. In simple open and shut cases like this, there is very little to argue. The court hearing will go something like this - 
