They can now ban tickets?thebigcheese said:after an incident earlier in the day an e-mail had gone round banning the ticket I was using
They can now ban tickets?thebigcheese said:after an incident earlier in the day an e-mail had gone round banning the ticket I was using
I was travelling back through St Pancakes on the 9th at 23.00 with a ticket for Ebbsfleet and was told that after an incident earlier in the day an e-mail had gone round banning the ticket I was using; I just assumed that this update was the response (altho my ticket wasn't from Gravesend).
They can now ban tickets?
Three of us on valid tickets that SE's incompetentI wonder what the incident was?
They can now ban tickets?thebigcheese said:after an incident earlier in the day an e-mail had gone round banning the ticket I was using]
Three of us on valid tickets that SE's incompetentminionsgateline attendants plus one supervisor/manager didn't want to accept as valid, even after two printed itineraries, the National Rail website, SE's Twitter team, the Southeastern website and SE's customer service via phone all confirming we should be allowed to travel, for anyone that wasn't there. Two of us bought new tickets and are in the process of deciding how to proceed.
What did the third person do? I had to laugh when I read it.Three of us on valid tickets that SE's incompetentminionsgateline attendants plus one supervisor/manager didn't want to accept as valid, even after two printed itineraries, the National Rail website, SE's Twitter team, the Southeastern website and SE's customer service via phone all confirming we should be allowed to travel, for anyone that wasn't there. Two of us bought new tickets and are in the process of deciding how to proceed.
The third person might have been RJ, who might have just walked through the gateline as the staff might have realised not to mess with himWhat did the third person do? I had to laugh when I read it.
I mean if I was at work and someone told me something I'd more than likely believe them. Perhaps I'm to trusting of others and need to say no more and assume everyone else is always wrong.
So the ticket is only valid if RJ uses it! That makes it even more funny if you ask me. Does RJ have special tickets that are only valid when he uses them?The third person might have been RJ, who might have just walked through the gateline as the staff might have realised not to mess with him
So the ticket is only valid if RJ uses it! That makes it even more funny if you ask me. Does RJ have special tickets that are only valid when he uses them?
Were you denied travel? If so that's a breach of contact. The ticket was valid at the time you purchased it.Ah sorry I had just assumed. I was travelling back through St Pancakes on the 9th at 23.00 with a ticket for Ebbsfleet and was told that after an incident earlier in the day an e-mail had gone round banning the ticket I was using....
Were you denied travel?
While this advice will be true and appropriate in the majority of journeys, for completeness we should also note the exception - an exception which I suspect might just apply to this specific incident.
If the printed itinery and/or ticket booking system contained an error, which led to the itinery and/or ticket being sold when in fact it was never intended to be sold, then the proper remedy for the seller would be to authorise the exceptional ticket (or to refund it if the journey was impossible or if the passenger chooses to abandon it), and all of these actions presume that the passenger had been unaware of the error and had bought the ticket in all good faith and travelled in all good faith.
The exception arises when the passenger bought the ticket in the full knowledge of the error, but without pointing out the error or refusing the offer, willfully completed the transaction with the intention of taking advantage for themselves of the error, to the disadvantage of the Company and then, having obtained the ticket, took that advantage. This is a Fraud.
Now the average ticket inspector might not be aware of this, but when a ticket looks surprising such as these Ebbsfleet via London tickets, it is likely to be escalated, and if the passenger also produces an itinery "as evidence" it suggests that the passenger was aware of the anomaly. Admittedly it doesn't confirm the frauldulent intention, but the way in which the ticket and itinery are explained are very likely to confirm that intention (especially if comment is made about the companies abilities to manage their own systems or similar insights into the passenger's awareness of the error and intention to take advantage of it).
In short, presenting a printed itinery does not provide evidence to confirm and validate a contract where the contract was entered into fraudulently.
Now, having made that cautionary point clear, I will agree that if the itinery and ticket was NOT the consequence of an error (but only that the Company was unaware of the remarkable flexibility that it offered), then again, you would be correct in stating that the printed itinery illustrates the detailled terms of the contract.
If a guard did that deliberately to multiple passengers to reach revenue targets etc, then I would say yes. If it was unintentional, or as a result of a misunderstanding, then no.crehld said:To clarify, if the situation was reversed and I was sold a particular ticket in error, say an anytime rather than the off peak, but in paying I have accepted the terms to my disadvantage, does that constitute fraud on the TOCs part?
So by that logic, if a Brighton to Southampton routed Not via London, which undercuts the Clapham Jn to Southampton fare, is purchased for travel from Clapham Jn to Southampton, the passenger is gaining an advantage, avoiding part of the payment of the fare and potentially committing fraud? (these stations are examples but many other possibilities exist)It is not the errors that constitute the fraud, it is the dishonest intention to obtain an advantage, knowing that the service is made available on the basis that payment is due, but avoids making part of the payment, and then, the act of taking that advantage, to the disadvantage of the Company.
The errors you mention (and which are the subject of this thread) merely create an opportunity for exploitation which the person concerned willfully exploits.
[for the avoidance of doubt, I am not asserting that any fraud has been committed, I am simply warning that the advice given above by yorkie should include a caveat in respect of the exceptional circumstances when it will be inapplicable].
It is not the errors that constitute the fraud, it is the dishonest intention to obtain an advantage, knowing that the service is made available on the basis that payment is due, but avoids making part of the payment, and then, the act of taking that advantage, to the disadvantage of the Company.
The errors you mention (and which are the subject of this thread) merely create an opportunity for exploitation which the person concerned willfully exploits.
[for the avoidance of doubt, I am not asserting that any fraud has been committed, I am simply warning that the advice given above by yorkie should include a caveat in respect of the exceptional circumstances when it will be inapplicable].
There are different categories of 'errors in a contract' and one of these is a 'unilateral error' in which one party is unaware of it (e.g. a typo, a wrong numeral, imprecise phrasing, wrong digital coding, wrong picture attached, wrong sample sent, missing clause, etc. etc.) and which can void the contract.Genuine question. At the point of a ticket sales both sides enter into a contract and both sides agree to the terms of said contract, no?
So the fact there is an error in the contract is irrelevant, as both sides have agreed to it. One of the parties may not have intended the error, but in selling the ticket with associated routing and itinerary but parties confirmed their acceptance of said terms, errors and all.
. . . .
... shortly after, and apparently as a direct response to, an incident where many passengers were given itineraries that were not permitted routes, as a result of 'errors'.When you book your journey online, any ticket offered in connection with the timetable or itinerary produced by the journey planner will be accepted as a permitted route.
I'm sorry if I've failed to make myself clear.So by that logic, if a Brighton to Southampton routed Not via London, which undercuts the Clapham Jn to Southampton fare, is purchased for travel from Clapham Jn to Southampton, the passenger is gaining an advantage, avoiding part of the payment of the fare and potentially committing fraud?
In recent years, the only instances of alleged ticket fraud that I can think of, based on exploiting errors, have been resolved through negotiation and mediation.Has anyone ever been prosecuted on this basis, specifically pertaining to rail fares? There are so many anomalies in the system, where is the line between a valid fare and an error drawn and who decides where that line is drawn?
DoneEdit: Perhaps it's time this was split off into a new thread, so the current one can focus solely on the Routeing Guide?
Apologies for the confusion, I've removed Strood from the title. Feel free to amend if you can think of something better.It's a tricky one as my ticket wasn't a Stood - Ebbsfleet one but a ticket that shows a route via St Pancakes without a via point needing to be entered on NRE so I would consider it to be perfectly valid.
I absolutely agree.I think it's difficult to claim that using a ticket that is much cheaper than it's component parts added together is fraud as the railway system does not claim to operate on a price-per-mile basis and ticket price does not determine validity. It would be infeasible for me to know the ins and outs of their ticketing system to know if a genuine error had occurred - SET do seem perfectly happy for kids to travel (with an adult) for a quid anywhere on their network off-peak so I think it would be difficult to justify that such a low price for travel would always constitute an error.
I hope you haven't drawn the conclusion that I was attempting to make that claim!I think it's difficult to claim that using a ticket that is much cheaper than it's component parts added together is fraud as the railway system does not claim to operate on a price-per-mile basis and ticket price does not determine validity. . . .
I can't imagine why that might even be considered as a candidate for 'an error'.. . . . SET do seem perfectly happy for kids to travel (with an adult) for a quid anywhere on their network off-peak so I think it would be difficult to justify that such a low price for travel would always constitute an error.
I'm telling you that you would be incorrect in giving blanket advice to all passengers that by carrying with them a printed itinery corresponding to the ticket they hold, that printed itinery will, necessarily, and in every situation, assure them that they must be permitted to travel via that itinery.It's still very unclear to me what you are saying.