False ticket information on Southeastern's website

[Bungle73]

Just going through the booking engine (looking something up), and it says this:

Tickets for high speed services

Tickets which display NOT VALID ON HS1 are not valid on high speed services.

Tickets for travel on high speed services must display Plus High Speed on them.

Please note that there is no first class accommodation on high speed services.

The second paragraph is false, as tickets marked "Any Permitted" are also valid on HS services, as long as it is a valid journey.

 

[yorkie]

Agreed.

If only there was an ombudsman/regulator to take such complaints to, who could actually enforce the rules?

If only there was an effective, knowledgeable Passenger Watchdog who we could refer such matters to, and fight our corner?

As there are neither, then unless anyone has loads of cash to sue them, Southeastern are not going to change their ways!

 

[Clip]

They do seem to have changed the wording on the part of the website talking about HS1 tickets:-

For example, a ticket from Margate to St Pancras International would require a supplement in order to travel on the high speed service between Ashford and St Pancras International.

Yet when you use their own booking engine to book such a ticket there is nothing to say you need an upgrade as you do not need one.

Someone needs to have a word with them about that.

Although in ref to the OP it does say this on the page

High speed ticket details
The following ticket descriptions entitle you to travel on high speed services:

PLUS HIGH SPEED – this is shown on either a walk up or supplement ticket.
UPGRADE + HS – this is shown on a supplement ticket and must be accompanied by a Southeastern ticket that is not valid on high speed services. Please note Earlybird ticket holders are not eligable for a high speed upgrade.
ANY PERMITTED - in the case of long distance through tickets, i.e. destinations beyond St Pancras.
Please note there is no first class seating on high speed services

 

[Mojo]

Southeastern like making things up.

A route which is a mapped route in the NRG, and shown as valid on one ticket on both the National Rail journey planner and WebTis (which includes Southeastern's own website) is supposedly not valid, according to "our fares manager Mr Simon Byatt."

On a different ticket, they also don't like you taking the shortest route by train even though again their own website sold me that ticket and I travelled on the exact train shown on the itinerary. They told me twice that it was not valid and also told Passenger Focus twice that it was not valid (who in turn told me that it was not). When I eventually got through to someone at Passenger Focus who understood, he managed to get them to admit that it was valid, but they still will not compensate me or put it in writing. In any case, they have withdrawn the validity for the journey I undertook at the time.

 

[RJ]

There is a clause in the franchise agreement stating that any ticket shown as valid via the CTRL in the National Routeing Guide (NRG) must be accepted. As such, whatever is on their website or peddled by their representatives is an irrelevance unless it corroborates what the NRG says.

Earlier this week, I recommended the following action to Southeastern in an attempt to prevent recurrences of what is happening to fare paying passengers with valid tickets;

Staff to be appropriately trained up on tickets. This invovles making them aware of the existence of the National Routeing Guide, the National Rail Conditions of Carriage (NRCoC) and their relevance to permitted routes. This would encompass making them aware of seemingly anomalous fares being valid and being encouraged to pass such matters on for investigation ahead of unnecessarily brutal enforcement or committing customers to debts.

This was Southeastern's response;

A part of their training relevant staff are trained to identify and authorise tickets. Due to the inherent complications involved in fares and routing we can not guarantee that a mistakes will never be made. The established appeals and escalation procedure allows for these mistakes to be rectified. However, we appreciate your advice and a copy of your email has been passed to the Head of Revenue and Security.

The NRCoC is a legal contract between the passenger and TOC. It is also Schedule 24 of the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement which is a fundamental component of their franchise agreement. Each instance of a ticket inspector making a mistake by rejecting a valid ticket represents a breach of that contract and non compliance with the terms of their franchise. If more passengers went down the road of suing them and initiating a remedial process through submitting written reports to the DfT, the management may see fit to invest in equipping its staff with the competencies required to avoid creating difficult and costly problems.

I favour a "Be right first time" approach over Southeastern's preference to make mistakes then rectify them only if challenged. This is a dangerous strategy when they have a senior member of retail staff who cannot objectively determine the validity of all tickets by using the relevant literature. Plus an appeals entity (IPFAS) with the same problem.