Denied travel on ticket to Ebbsfleet via route that was permitted when booked

[Camden]

I think you rather may have missed the point of Dave's post...

I don't see how. Can you please explain your point?

 

[Merseysider]

Anyone fancy taking the off-topic discussion into a new thread?

 

[FenMan]

I really don't see how a "show us your medals"-type discussion is of help.

Anyone that visits this sub-forum can work out pretty quickly who is providing reliable advice and, when reading Dave's posts, often why the advice is reliable.

Whether the reliable advice comes from an enthusiast, or an industry worker or retiree is by the bye.

 

[Camden]

I really don't see how a "show us your medals"-type discussion is of help.

Anyone that visits this sub-forum can work out pretty quickly who is providing reliable advice and, when reading Dave's posts, often why the advice is reliable.

Whether the reliable advice comes from an enthusiast, or an industry worker or retiree is by the bye.

Given the information posted, I did consider the question of qualification relevant. I didn't personally accept the position posted as being a valid interpretation from my own understanding. As such if he had said he was a legal professional (and thus speaking from a position of authority on the matter) I would have to concede that I might be wrong in my understanding and reassess, however that he stated he isn't means I will stick to my own views.

Just because someone comes across as knowledgeable doesn't automatically mean they are going to be correct, even if they are correct a lot of the time. It was stated that what was posted is his opinion and I don't have any issue with that, just that I hold a different one. Hope that clarifies.

 

[najaB]

As such if he had said he was a legal professional (and thus speaking from a position of authority on the matter) I would have to concede that I might be wrong in my understanding and reassess, however that he stated he isn't means I will stick to my own views.

Apologies to all for the continued off-topic discussion, but I am unable to send Camden a private message....

As I suggested above, you seem to have missed the key point of DaveNewcastle's post - that he has no PII or right of audience before the court now that he is semi-retired. I'll leave it to you to determine what his profession was before retirement.

 

[talltim]

Apologies to all for the continued off-topic discussion, but I am unable to send Camden a private message....

As I suggested above, you seem to have missed the key point of DaveNewcastle's post - that he has no PII or right of audience before the court now that he is semi-retired. I'll leave it to you to determine what his profession was before retirement.

I think this thread should be retained for posterity as possibly the only example of DaveNewcastle being sarcastic....

 

[Merseysider]

Southeastern have agreed to settle.

Southeastern Customer Relations, PO Box 63428, London, SE1P 5FD
Tel: 0845 000 2222 or 01732 378751

Ref: 726796 / 1031213

Dear Mr Fassam

Thank you for your web form dated 19 April.

I can confirm that my colleague Gillian Wheeler has responded to your claim for compensation on 20 April.

You will receive a letter from her shortly, and cheque will arrive soon afterwards for the amount of £10.55, which is for the ticket you purchased for travel between St Pancras International and Ebbsfleet International. This has been settled as a gesture of goodwill, as you didn't have a valid ticket for travel between St Pancras International and Ebbsfleet International. Please be advised that the routes mentioned in the email confirmation were suggested routes, and not routes that had to be taken. All routes are suggested with the proviso that passengers have a valid ticket for travel.

Please also note that we have a great number of correspondence to attend to at Customer Services, and as such cannot be held to deadlines by passengers writing in to us.

Thank you for contacting Southeastern.

Yours sincerely


Greg Woodrow
Customer Relations Officer
Southeastern

(I offered them a 10 day period to settle the matter without prejudice, which they appear to have decided is the best option).

They still don't accept the validity of an itinerary, or the idea of a contract to travel, but that's a battle for another day.

If it happens again then I can point to this case as prior evidence and take it straight to Transport Focus.

 

[bnm]

They haven't got a clue have they?

What a wunch of...

 

[WelshBluebird]

Talk about making it up on the spot!
Are they seriously trying to say routes that are offered to the passenger may not actually be valid? haha. It could almost be a funny joke if it wasn't so ridiculous.

 

[Merseysider]

Thankfully I'm not from that neck of the woods so I probably won't be using SE again unless I go exploring

But the whole saga just points to a culture of "we are right and you are wrong even if you are right."

 

[furlong]

I seem to have missed the crucial bit of information here: Precisely what invalid ticket were you attempting to use? Where did this referenced email come from that only gave suggested routes rather than routes known to be valid with a specific ticket? Was that email badly-worded?

 

[Merseysider]

I seem to have missed the crucial bit of information here: Precisely what invalid ticket were you attempting to use? Where did this referenced email come from that only gave suggested routes rather than routes known to be valid with a specific ticket? Was that email badly-worded?

No invalid ticket was used. As stated earlier in the thread, several members including myself were travelling Strood - Ebbsfleet via St Pancras. We had booked on the SE website. The SE website told us to travel via London. So travel via London we did.

This referenced email came from Southeastern. Was it badly worded? I don't know. Or does it reflect upon a far greater problem or that this incident was a one off? I don't know.

 

[Tetchytyke]

But the whole saga just points to a culture of "we are right and you are wrong even if you are right."

Isn't it fabulous that these chancers own IPFAS?

 

[furlong]

Well, as a reader of this thread, I just see a quotation from SE stating unambiguously that you did not have a valid ticket. You won't persuade readers like me that SE is doing anything wrong if you're not even willing to reveal what ticket you attempted to use or the wording of the email you unsuccessfully tried to rely upon to get you out of trouble!

 

[First class]

No invalid ticket was used. As stated earlier in the thread, several members including myself were travelling Strood - Ebbsfleet via St Pancras. We had booked on the SE website. The SE website told us to travel via London. So travel via London we did.

This referenced email came from Southeastern. Was it badly worded? I don't know. Or does it reflect upon a far greater problem or that this incident was a one off? I don't know.

The ticket obviously wasn't supposed to be valid, (otherwise SouthEastern etc wouldn't have replied like that), and, to be honest, for you guys to use it, would suggest that you all thought it was a way to obtain a cheaper ticket for your intended journey, being "creative".

You said at the beginning that customer services, twitter etc all agreed that your ticket was valid? Did such communication come from a different date/incident, not directly associated to this problem? If so, you can't rely on such correspondence as things obviously change.

As for the journey planner TELLING you to travel via London. Did this come up as the default route OR did you specify a "via" point, to get it to route you via London?

I'm sceptical about how much validity can be interpreted from a self created itinerary. If it clearly lists a specific time train, on a specific date, fair enough. If it was an earlier/later etc train, then I think the validity argument goes out the window, similarly unless you actually bought the ticket (for that service) at the time the itinerary was produced, I don't see how you can have a claim, as an itinerary alone is not a contract. If the ticket+itinerary was obtained together, then fair enough, validity cannot be disputed. But ticket from station + online itinerary = very dubious IMO.

 

[thebigcheese]

Well firstly I think I should mention that I always enjoy reading Davenewcastle's posts.

On topic we seem to have two different tickets under discussion - Jake's ticket was Strood - Ebbsfleet via St Pancras which he was able to get a valid itinerary for.

I haven't revealed my ticket (on this thread at least) but it does still appear on NRE and the South Eastern website without the need for via points so I consider it perfectly valid. I had an issue using it back in September 2014 and upon complaining to SET I got a £10 RTV and confirmation in writing that the ticket was valid so I do feel rightly justified in complaining every time I get stopped.

 

[Merseysider]

If the ticket+itinerary was obtained together, then fair enough, validity cannot be disputed. But ticket from station + online itinerary = very dubious IMO.

Ticket + itinerary were purchased together.

Apologies for my answers being short, I'll respond properly to some of the points raised when I'm home.

 

[First class]

Well firstly I think I should mention that I always enjoy reading Davenewcastle's posts.

On topic we seem to have two different tickets under discussion - Jake's ticket was Strood - Ebbsfleet via St Pancras which he was able to get a valid itinerary for.

I haven't revealed my ticket (on this thread at least) but it does still appear on NRE and the South Eastern website without the need for via points so I consider it perfectly valid. I had an issue using it back in September 2014 and upon complaining to SET I got a £10 RTV and confirmation in writing that the ticket was valid so I do feel rightly justified in complaining every time I get stopped.

If its valid then why not share? If SouthEastern don't believe it's an error then they won't change it, especially if you've already told them.

If it's taking advantage of an error, then see DaveNewcastle's post!

 

[thebigcheese]

I'm sceptical about how much validity can be interpreted from a self created itinerary. If it clearly lists a specific time train, on a specific date, fair enough. If it was an earlier/later etc train, then I think the validity argument goes out the window,

I had that query and contacted National Rail Enquiries back in March 2014. The Customer Relations Manager from ATOC replied as follows:

Thank you for your email to National Rail Enquiries, which was passed to us here at the Association of Train Operating Companies as it falls within our remit.

I have responded to your questions in turn, below:

The National Rail website states under the heading 'Routing Information' that
"Your ticket may indicate a route or train company that you must use to complete your journey. In all other cases you are allowed to use any permitted route for the journey you are making" and "any ticket offered in connection with the timetable or itinerary produced by the journey planner will be accepted as a permitted route"

With relation to an anytime day single ticket which is valid at any time my question is regarding the 'itinerary produced' section of the above statement. If I can produce an itinerary for a journey which involves 2 or more separate train services on a single ticket using the NRE journey planner within which the first train departs at 09.00 does the existence of this itinerary mean that the route is valid throughout the day; including train services that depart at 9.30, 10.00 etc or would I need to produce a separate itinerary for each journey?

No, you would be able to use the first ticket, as an Anytime ticket allows a reasonable break of journey between the destination stations.

 

[First class]

I had that query and contacted National Rail Enquiries back in March 2014. The Customer Relations Manager from ATOC replied as follows:

That was over a year ago, I note. If you print an itinerary off for one of these "creative" tickets today, and they change the permissions etc in the future, will you just show an itinerary from a year ago and say it has to be accepted?

Either way, without buying the ticket at the same time as the itinerary, I see no reason why an itinerary has to be accepted.

"any ticket offered in connection with the timetable or itinerary produced by the journey planner will be accepted as a permitted route"

I'd get them to define that further in any event. My interpretation is that if you go on to buy the ticket based on that itinerary, you're fine, (e.g. Southeastern website gives you the itinerary and ticket in one transaction), but toddling off elsewhere to buy isn't as clear cut.

 

[RJ]

If its valid then why not share? If SouthEastern don't believe it's an error then they won't change it, especially if you've already told them.

If it's taking advantage of an error, then see DaveNewcastle's post!

Previous experience suggests that they will press for changes after wrongly stating a ticket isn't valid on HS1, i.e Tilbury tickets and Gravesend to Ebbsfleet via Stratford International.

As for the ticket being used, it isn't actually compulsory for the details to be posted. If we've been told it's permitted in the Routeing Guide as well as the journey planner, that's enough for the story to run really. That said, Southeastern and ATOC will be aware of it so there isn't much benefit to be derived from withholding the details.

 

[thebigcheese]

That was over a year ago, I note. If you print an itinerary off for one of these "creative" tickets today, and they change the permissions etc in the future, will you just show an itinerary from a year ago and say it has to be accepted?

I believe that the passenger has a responsibility at the time of buying the ticket to make sure that it permits them to travel the route they wish to take.

Either way, without buying the ticket at the same time as the itinerary, I see no reason why an itinerary has to be accepted.

The ticket states travel has to be in accordance with the National Rail Condition of Carriage which condition 13 (entitled "The route you are entitled to take") refers to the National Routing guide and this states on it's front page

PLEASE NOTE this guide is of necessity a complex document and the Journey
Planner should be used to validate any intended route (including relevant ‘via’ points)
to ensure that it can be used with your ticket. This is especially necessary if using
this guide to identify whether an indirect or unusual route is valid for use.

I can see no requirement under the conditions that the ticket was issued for the itinerary to have been produced at the same time as the purchase

 

[bnm]

Does 'collector' work for Southeastern? :roll:

If not I'd suggest applying for a position there. He'd be right at home.

 

[Merseysider]

One question I would like answering definitively is as follows.

Does the material contained within the Routeing Guide, and itineraries provided by NRE / TOC websites (separate to the ticket purchase) constitute part of the contract to travel, given they're referred to in the NRCoC, which all tickets (and thus contracts) are subject to?

 

[infobleep]

If the routing guide shows a valid route for a ticket and no easement prohibits travel, surely it doesn't matter whether it undercuts other fares and the person knows about this fact or not.

A slightly different example might be Shalford to London zones 1 - 6. That is more expensive than Guildford to London zones 1 - 6 but it enables someone travelling to Lewes semi-regularly to save money as they only need to buy a ticket from Redhill rather than boundary zone 6. If someone buys that season ticket just to save money to Lewes, is that any less different to buying a season ticket that undercuts other season tickets? The season ticket is more expensive but combined they are saving money and they are only buying it to save money overall.

 

[RochdalePioneers]

Surely if their own route planner shows it as a valid route, by definition it's a valid route? Was under the impression that any ticket itinerary churned out by NRES was by definition a valid route

 

[infobleep]

Surely if their own route planner shows it as a valid route, by definition it's a valid route? Was under the impression that any ticket itinerary churned out by NRES was by definition a valid route

That is what I thought.

 

[yorkie]

I don't think you should settle for this derisory offer. They are refusing to accept the ticket was valid. I thought you were charging them an admin fee; they need to pay that in my opinion.

I wonder if Mr Boden & his minions are throwing another "wobbly" at the prospect of passengers using his "shiny new trains" without paying the premium?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They haven't got a clue have they?

What a wunch of...

Indeed.

 

[Merseysider]

I don't think you should settle for this derisory offer. They are refusing to accept the ticket was valid. I thought you were charging them an admin fee; they need to pay that in my opinion.

I wonder if Mr Boden & his minions are throwing another "wobbly" at the prospect of passengers using his "shiny new trains" without paying the premium?

I would be charging them an admin fee and making sure all hell broke loose if they hadn't have settled within 10 working days. As it stands I'm extremely busy with Uni essays, revision & the s/p project so would be annoying to have to chase it up. They won't get a second chance though if their gateline staff screw up again

 

[yorkie]

Talk about making it up on the spot!
Are they seriously trying to say routes that are offered to the passenger may not actually be valid? haha. It could almost be a funny joke if it wasn't so ridiculous.

Yes! This is what they're like! With managers like Mr Boden, it's no wonder the underlings write claptrap junk letters containing false statements.