Invalid itinerary but ticket sold

[island]

There's a fair chance a court would find the contract to be voidable for mistake – in the same way as the 1p TVs. But I don't believe that has been argued (or there is a very good chance it will ever get to a court capable of setting a precedent).

 

[Haywain]

An apology for failing to respect the principle that any itinerary from an accredited retailer is valid for travel, and an assurance that staff involved will be re-trained wouldn't be an unreasonable response.

Thanks for that but I was asking the OP what they expected or wanted from complaining.

 

[Bensonby]

This thread is fascinating and reminds me of “error fares” on airlines. My understanding of those is that often airlines realise they have been sold then cancel the tickets and refund them. Is there any scope for something similar happening on the railways?

 

[Watershed]

This thread is fascinating and reminds me of “error fares” on airlines. My understanding of those is that often airlines realise they have been sold then cancel the tickets and refund them. Is there any scope for something similar happening on the railways?

On e-tickets perhaps (another reason why I am not a fan of them!). But not for paper tickets, once issued/collected.

 

[realemil]

In complaining to Avanti what we're you expecting from them?

An apology of some sorts — but more importantly, some actual training to let staff be aware of said incidents if it were ever to happen in the future. Of course, none of which will happen.

If I'm reading it right, you had a seat reservation for your service?
A separate ticket which clearly states the service departure time, journey and seats?

Yet, the staff member refused to accept it?

Note: I occasionally use a loophole fare as well, and I make sure I have the reservation ticket in case of arguments (which luckily hasn't occured yet)

Yes, that’s correct. I had a whole separate ticket, which had that departure date, time, service, origin, destination and seats.

Talking of this specific case, I think it is glaringly obvious that a ticket for a short, direct journey isn't intended to be used via a place 200 miles away. There is no way anyone could possibly be confused into thinking this was genuine, nor would any person not seeking to take advantage of it ever think of doing it.

The chances of somebody getting confused is near impossible - yes. But the fact a ticket existed and was able to be purchased doesn’t mean it’s not valid

Many people who purchase these tickets don’t use the “return” portion if that makes sense

 

[ABB125]

An apology for failing to respect the principle that any itinerary from an accredited retailer is valid for travel, and an assurance that staff involved will be re-trained wouldn't be an unreasonable response.

I would be amazed if you get either of those, or indeed anything beyond a form letter.

Funnily enough, both the above requests were "overlooked" in a recent dealing I had with a TOC...

 

[yorkie]

Yes, I am less than convinced too. I just ordered fish and chips via an app and a menu item was showing as £0.00 and I would not have felt right about ordering it, it was a clear error (if I had wanted it I would have pointed it out and asked to pay for it once I arrived).

A comparison with physical goods and/or a zero price item isn't really fair.

It was reported that Carlisle to Nottingham tickets were recently on sale for £1.50 and this wasn't an error. Indeed, the only error there was that initially Railcard discounts weren't being applied, and the price for Railcard holders later reduced even further.

 

[iainbhx]

This thread is fascinating and reminds me of “error fares” on airlines. My understanding of those is that often airlines realise they have been sold then cancel the tickets and refund them. Is there any scope for something similar happening on the railways?

It depends on the airline. I have successfully used an Airline Error Fare a couple of times. It depends on cost versus damage to reputation. Most USA carriers will cancel, Europe is more of a mixed bag. It think it also depends how many they have sold before the fare is pulled.

 

[87 027]

My understanding is that retailers don't have to honour incorrectly displayed prices as under contract law they are technically an 'invitation to treat' rather than an offer and therefore acceptance does not occur until the retailer agrees to take your money. Retailers are within their rights to withdraw the item from sale rather than accept, although of course they may choose to honour the lower price for the sake of customer relations and reputation

 

[Watershed]

My understanding is that retailers don't have to honour incorrectly displayed prices as under contract law they are technically an 'invitation to treat' rather than an offer and therefore acceptance does not occur until the retailer agrees to take your money. Retailers are within their rights to withdraw the item from sale rather than accept, although of course they may choose to honour the lower price for the sake of customer relations and reputation

That's true and would be relevant if a train ticket retailer was posting out the tickets to you for example. More generally, many online websites have terms that any 'order' is not binding until confirmed/dispatched. However if you are able to pick up your tickets or are issued with an e-tickets, any error the retailer may have made is no longer capable of rescission other than in the most exceptional of circumstances.

 

[island]

That's true and would be relevant if a train ticket retailer was posting out the tickets to you for example. More generally, many online websites have terms that any 'order' is not binding until confirmed/dispatched. However if you are able to pick up your tickets or are issued with an e-tickets, any error the retailer may have made is no longer capable of rescission other than in the most exceptional of circumstances.

I am not sure this is correct. The fact that a ticket, electronic or otherwise, may have already been put at the disposal of the customer is not (on its own) a bar to the retailer invalidating that ticket. This has certainly been done in the past with error air fares. Transport tickets are not goods, but evidence of a contract for services, and if the contract has been legally rescinded, such as due to the law of mistake, then the tickets are just pieces of paper.

I accept, however, that it may be logistically impracticable for the retailer to retrieve or otherwise prevent the use of a paper ticket that the passenger has already collected.

 

[Mikw]

I guess the only question that matters is "is it illegal or not?"

If it isn't then the customer is surely pefectly within their rights to pay their money for what's being advertised and getting it.

 

[Dai Corner]

I guess the only question that matters is "is it illegal or not?"

If it isn't then the customer is surely pefectly within their rights to pay their money for what's being advertised and getting it.

It might not be illegal but it's morally dubious, especially now Governments (all of us as taxpayers) are effectively paying. People weren't buying a ticket from University to New Street, finding they were issued with tickets and reservations via Edinburgh and deciding to take an impromptu trip. They were manipulating the ticket retailer's systems to exploit a known error.

Is it ok to not mention that you've been charged too little tax or paid too much pension/benefits if you know that to be the case?

 

[richw]

Talking of this specific case, I think it is glaringly obvious that a ticket for a short, direct journey isn't intended to be used via a place 200 miles away. There is no way anyone could possibly be confused into thinking this was genuine, nor would any person not seeking to take advantage of it ever think of doing it.

I’m in agreement with you. I always understood if it’s a clear and obvious error the consumer should have noticed when entering the contract and therefore it wouldn’t be a Valid contract. This was covered on a course I attended 10-15 years back so can’t remember the exact details. I would say it’s a clear and obvious error and so the consumer should have noticed this!

 

[island]

I guess the only question that matters is "is it illegal or not?"

If it isn't then the customer is surely pefectly within their rights to pay their money for what's being advertised and getting it.

The only entity that can definitively answer this question is a Court.

The main case law in this field is Hartog vs Colin & Shields, [1939] All ER 566, where Judge John Edward Singleton ruled in a case regarding the purchase of hare skins from Belgium. The defendant seller expressed their price in a written offer as a price of 10d per pound (weight) rather than 10d per skin, which it had intended to do and which was the market custom at the time. The claimant buyer took up the offer, and with each skin weighing about 5 ounces, enjoyed a price that was about 5/16 of the market price for the skins. The defendant seller rescinded the offer claiming a unilateral but very obvious mistake. Judge Singleton held that it must have been obvious that the quoted price was an accident, and the buyer must have realised this and yet "snapped up" the offer. The claimant buyer's claim for damages for non-performance of the contract was dismissed.

There is a pretty clear read-across from this case to the instant case. The passenger saw a price for a journey which was obviously a mistake and "snapped it up". The passenger cannot have reasonably supposed that it was the intention of the seller to sell the ticket for the journey via such a circuitous route for such a low price. As richw and Bletchleyite say above, it does not seem to me there was a valid contract.

 

[AlterEgo]

Yeah you’re not going to get anything from a complaint. Using error fares is very much at your own risk regardless of your legal rights. It’s obviously and clearly a mistake, and one which was known about and which people exploited. Once the journey has started however I don’t really think there is much the retailer or TOC can do about it.

 

[Flying Snail]

The only entity that can definitively answer this question is a Court.

The main case law in this field is Hartog vs Colin & Shields, [1939] All ER 566, where Judge John Edward Singleton ruled in a case regarding the purchase of hare skins from Belgium. The defendant seller expressed their price in a written offer as a price of 10d per pound (weight) rather than 10d per skin, which it had intended to do and which was the market custom at the time. The claimant buyer took up the offer, and with each skin weighing about 5 ounces, enjoyed a price that was about 5/16 of the market price for the skins. The defendant seller rescinded the offer claiming a unilateral but very obvious mistake. Judge Singleton held that it must have been obvious that the quoted price was an accident, and the buyer must have realised this and yet "snapped up" the offer. The claimant buyer's claim for damages for non-performance of the contract was dismissed.

There is a pretty clear read-across from this case to the instant case. The passenger saw a price for a journey which was obviously a mistake and "snapped it up". The passenger cannot have reasonably supposed that it was the intention of the seller to sell the ticket for the journey via such a circuitous route for such a low price. As richw and Bletchleyite say above, it does not seem to me there was a valid contract.

The market custom price for a hare skin in 1939 has very little in common with the pricing of transportation in 2022.

I have no idea about the hare skin market but it is not beyond reason to assume there was a clear fixed price for such commodities in 1939. However in 2022 where a passenger can take an identical journey to someone else while paying 10 times less completely within the fares structure the railway sets then it is a much less compelling argument that the passenger MUST realise that the fare offered is wrong. Indeed in this time it is a reasonable argument that due to the complexity and ever changing fares, formats, rules, discounts and offers that transportation providers engage in it cannot be laid at the customer's feet to judge what is or is not an error as long as an official sales channel offers it.

Either way, while it is arguable that the railway could withdraw the ticket before it has been used (assuming that is technically possible), once the customer has started the journey there is no doubt that the railway has engaged in the contract and are liable to fulfill their part by accepting his travel throughout.

 

[Haywain]

It’s obviously and clearly a mistake, and one which was known about and which people exploited.

One thing that did become clear from the latest ‘bug’ problem is that Trainline fixed it but made no attempt to inform train operators of what had happened.

 

[Dai Corner]

One thing that did become clear from the latest ‘bug’ problem is that Trainline fixed it but made no attempt to inform train operators of what had happened.

What should Trainline say to TOCs?

"We've fixed a bug in our systems which people were exploiting to buy such-and-such tickets more cheaply than the fares you set. Please honour the tickets and warn passengers that the fare was an error. We'll compensate you for all such tickets sold."?

 

[Watershed]

What should Trainline say to TOCs?

"We've fixed a bug in our systems which people were exploiting to buy such-and-such tickets more cheaply than the fares you set. Please honour the tickets and warn passengers that the fare was an error. We'll compensate you for all such tickets sold."?

That would be a reasonable outcome, yes, which may result in a Retail Brief meaning that staff are aware and know to accept the ticket. Of course Trainline would rather sweep it under the rug, thus causing problems for their customers and further tarnishing their reputation. They really don't help themselves.

 

[Dai Corner]

That would be a reasonable outcome, yes, which may result in a Retail Brief meaning that staff are aware and know to accept the ticket. Of course Trainline would rather sweep it under the rug, thus causing problems for their customers and further tarnishing their reputation. They really don't help themselves.

Trainline could go on to say that they'll offer every assistance to identify and prosecute blatant and repeated exploitation of their 'bug' if TOCs so request.

 

[island]

I have no idea about the hare skin market but it is not beyond reason to assume there was a clear fixed price for such commodities in 1939.

Actually, there was a dizzying array of prices depending on quality, animal, size, etc.; see https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Fouke_Fur_Company_price_list_1922.jpg for a sample price list from the period.

However in 2022 where a passenger can take an identical journey to someone else while paying 10 times less completely within the fares structure the railway sets then it is a much less compelling argument that the passenger MUST realise that the fare offered is wrong. Indeed in this time it is a reasonable argument that due to the complexity and ever changing fares, formats, rules, discounts and offers that transportation providers engage in it cannot be laid at the customer's feet to judge what is or is not an error as long as an official sales channel offers it.

Your argument might hold some water in a circumstance where a passenger searched for a point to point journey and was surprised that an exceptionally low price showed up to book that journey by the most direct route.

This is not such a circumstance. The OP went out of their way to use a system that they knew was offering direct-route prices for journeys by extremely circuitous routes, and had to take a specific series of steps to obtain them. It is a very clear read-across to the case I cited, for the reasons I gave in post 45.

Either way, while it is arguable that the railway could withdraw the ticket before it has been used (assuming that is technically possible), once the customer has started the journey there is no doubt that the railway has engaged in the contract and are liable to fulfill their part by accepting his travel throughout.

Do you have a legal basis for this assertion or is it just what you feel should happen?

If a customer has entered into a voidable contract the train company can void it (by withdrawing the ticket, or otherwise) at any point until it has been completely performed. Whilst it would likely be estopped* in equity from recovering an additional fare for the journey already made before the moment of voiding, it's quite possible that a court would approve the TOC charging the customer the going fare (or at least a fare based on quantum meruit**) for any further travel that passenger desires to make. And should such a journey is finished without the TOC or its agents objecting, it would seem to me very difficult for them to recover anything afterwards.

This is less certain than the previous point, and naturally, the court of public opinion would judge the TOC very dimly in this scenario, so that is probably the court in which the OP should seek to play out their dispute.

*Estoppel is a doctrine in the law of equity preventing, amongst other things, a party to a contract from recovering damages or payments where it has clearly acquiesced to the breach. As with all equitable remedies, it is applied only at the discretion of the court, and is not an entitlement.

**Quantum meruit, or "what one has earned", is a maxim that where a person has engaged to purchase goods or services from another for a specific price, and the goods taken or services used end up being different or the price is not agreed in advance, the provider is entitled to recover a reasonable amount for what they have provided.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A comparison with physical goods and/or a zero price item isn't really fair.

It was reported that Carlisle to Nottingham tickets were recently on sale for £1.50 and this wasn't an error. Indeed, the only error there was that initially Railcard discounts weren't being applied, and the price for Railcard holders later reduced even further.

If it was simply wrongly priced, I would agree. But no reasonable person would ever consider that a ticket for a short local journey in Birmingham should be valid via Scotland, so this was clearly taking advantage. Not illegal, but certainly morally questionable - tax avoidance rather than evasion, I suppose.

 

[mike57]

My understanding is that when you pay for something (i.e. money changes hands) both parties agree the price i.e. it becomes an enforcable contract. In the case of an online purchase this happens when the payment goes from 'pending' to a debit on your account. At that point both parties have the accepted price. That is certainly how other disputes over mis priced stuff has played out. How this would play out with something like a 'via strange places' ticket I do not know, but I could see a court taking the view that as long as you were able to to travel from the start to finish point then the ticket provider has completed their part of the bargain, and I dont think there is any right to break of journey on an advance ticket, so you could be 'rerouted' via the quickest/shortest route, and you would not have any recourse.

 

[island]

My understanding is that when you pay for something (i.e. money changes hands) both parties agree the price i.e. it becomes an enforcable contract.

This is true subject to provisions in the contract to the contrary (and there usually is such a term stating that the contract only comes into existence when the retailer ships the order/issues an order confirmation), but does not change the possibility that a contract may be void or voidable for other reasons.

In the case of an online purchase this happens when the payment goes from 'pending' to a debit on your account.

This is not generally true.

I dont think there is any right to break of journey on an advance ticket, so you could be 'rerouted' via the quickest/shortest route, and you would not have any recourse.

That is certainly true.

 

[Bletchleyite]

That is certainly true.

Also that no reasonable person would seek to travel from University to New St via Edinburgh (or whatever it was) - someone deciding to make that journey would buy a return from University to Edinburgh and finish short at New St when they got back. A reasonable person might think they could travel, say, from Liverpool to Preston via Manchester* and intend a break of journey there, and that would be something where I would be in support of the passenger in terms of this sort of example, but this one is so ridiculous that deliberately looking for such anomalies is heading into the (moral, not legal) territory of fraud. I don't think it legally is fraud, but if you managed to wilfully confuse a booking clerk (rather than a computer) into issuing that then I think there would be an argument that it did apply.

These aren't unusual, though. I seem to recall Clive Feather** on uk.railway, long before electronic booking engines existed, pursuing the idea of a very short ticket (Finsbury Park to somewhere, if I recall) being valid for a rather long and circuitous trip. I forget how far he got with it, though. I half recall the TOC accepted he was right but then shoved a geographical route on the fare to kill it that way.

* The Southport one is a bit silly due to how far west Southport is, but I think that one is borderline-reasonable, and indeed I did it once during a strike, and quite openly so, as I recall a discussion ensued at the booking office about how I proposed to do it when there were no Liverpool or Ormskirk to Preston trains that day. As it turns out, staff were found to put Ormskirk-Preston back on so I had to go the short way back, comparable to the above mentioned re-routing. In normal circumstances I suspect if one presented at a Merseyrail booking office asking to do that and they were competent, a return to Manchester would be sold, as that is (clearly and intentionally) valid for that circuit and doesn't cause any fare anomalies.

** Posting in his real name if you want to verify it or read more.

 

[Haywain]

What should Trainline say to TOCs?

"We've fixed a bug in our systems which people were exploiting to buy such-and-such tickets more cheaply than the fares you set. Please honour the tickets and warn passengers that the fare was an error. We'll compensate you for all such tickets sold."?

Most of that, yes.

 

[Hadders]

These aren't unusual, though. I seem to recall Clive Feather** on uk.railway, long before electronic booking engines existed, pursuing the idea of a very short ticket (Finsbury Park to somewhere, if I recall) being valid for a rather long and circuitous trip. I forget how far he got with it, though. I half recall the TOC accepted he was right but then shoved a geographical route on the fare to kill it that way.

IIRC it was Finsbury Park to London Terminals which was a mapped route via Cambridge and into Liverpool Street in the first edition of the Routeing Guide.

 

[plugwash]

One thing that did become clear from the latest ‘bug’ problem is that Trainline fixed it but made no attempt to inform train operators of what had happened.

Do retailers have any liability to the TOCs for these ****ups?

 

[Haywain]

Do retailers have any liability to the TOCs for these ****ups?

Financially it may be questionable but as the largest retailer of rail tickets there is, I believe, a moral obligation to at least inform train companies of such cock-ups.