AlterEgo
Veteran Member
And it is also effectively a monopoly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What would you cut then?
Tell your MP about it.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Guardian: "Penalised train passengers fight ticketing rules"
- Thread starter Squaddie
- Start date
- Status
And it is also effectively a monopoly.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
What would you cut then?
Tell your MP about it.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
What should be cut, then?
AndyLandy
Established Member
That's great if you can get an Advance fare that's really good value. The problem I have is that the cost of two Advance fares to give that flexibility will cost more than the walk-on fare. The whole thing just sits badly with me because I've watched fares (both walk-on and advance) skyrocket in cost over the last ten years, and losing my YP railcard a few years back has been a source of great resentment. Nowadays I'm buying Advance fares that are more expensive than a walk-on would have been a few years back.
Does the Government not pay for anything other than the railway and hospitals for kids?
If that's the case, I am starting to believe Labour was possibly right after all about the cuts being too hard.
As for advance tickets - why not just make it possible to pay extra for travel insurance. Or, assuming travel insurance wouldn't cover you simply waking up late and missing your booked train, add an optional fee that allows you to excess your ticket. Say £10 (the normal admin fee).
How many people would pay the £10 if they fully intend to get their booked train, compared to those who would buy an advance ticket but know that they might get another one? Remember, the fee only allows you to use the value of your ticket against another ticket (but I'd argue that you'd be allowed to use a railcard if you had one, so getting the same discounts as buying before travel) it won't just let you travel on a later train for free. Or, if it did, perhaps only if travelling within a certain time (e.g. 60 or 90 minutes) - and forfeiting any seat reservation.
If someone did a careful analysis, I'd bet that the industry could actually make a bit of money out of this and score LOADS of PR points. Many people would not pay the £10, and be happy as they'd make sure they were on time (as you would be for a flight). Some would be worried that circumstances could delay them (e.g. a meeting, late overrun of a sporting event) and gladly pay the £10. If they get their train, they're £10 down. If they don't, they're not landed with a full open single.
Advanced tickets with this fee wouldn't now be as cheap, but as it would be an OPTIONAL charge, it would not need to be included in advertisements. Another win.
People would then, hopefully, learn that if they skip that optional fee then they've got absolutely NO COMEBACK whatsoever. I know they don't now, but at least the industry is giving them a fair chance - and, as I said, they'd likely make a nice easy £10 on lots of ticket sales with no loss whatsoever.
I might even suggest this to ATOC, although hopefully they're reading this.
BTW, £10 was a figure plucked out of the air - it could be more or less, or even vary on the service, time of day, number of passengers etc. It wouldn't matter to train staff, as the ticket would be marked as allowing an excess or not, so that could be decided by the TOCs and retailers.
If that's the case, I am starting to believe Labour was possibly right after all about the cuts being too hard.
As for advance tickets - why not just make it possible to pay extra for travel insurance. Or, assuming travel insurance wouldn't cover you simply waking up late and missing your booked train, add an optional fee that allows you to excess your ticket. Say £10 (the normal admin fee).
How many people would pay the £10 if they fully intend to get their booked train, compared to those who would buy an advance ticket but know that they might get another one? Remember, the fee only allows you to use the value of your ticket against another ticket (but I'd argue that you'd be allowed to use a railcard if you had one, so getting the same discounts as buying before travel) it won't just let you travel on a later train for free. Or, if it did, perhaps only if travelling within a certain time (e.g. 60 or 90 minutes) - and forfeiting any seat reservation.
If someone did a careful analysis, I'd bet that the industry could actually make a bit of money out of this and score LOADS of PR points. Many people would not pay the £10, and be happy as they'd make sure they were on time (as you would be for a flight). Some would be worried that circumstances could delay them (e.g. a meeting, late overrun of a sporting event) and gladly pay the £10. If they get their train, they're £10 down. If they don't, they're not landed with a full open single.
Advanced tickets with this fee wouldn't now be as cheap, but as it would be an OPTIONAL charge, it would not need to be included in advertisements. Another win.
People would then, hopefully, learn that if they skip that optional fee then they've got absolutely NO COMEBACK whatsoever. I know they don't now, but at least the industry is giving them a fair chance - and, as I said, they'd likely make a nice easy £10 on lots of ticket sales with no loss whatsoever.
I might even suggest this to ATOC, although hopefully they're reading this.
BTW, £10 was a figure plucked out of the air - it could be more or less, or even vary on the service, time of day, number of passengers etc. It wouldn't matter to train staff, as the ticket would be marked as allowing an excess or not, so that could be decided by the TOCs and retailers.
Last edited:
MarkyMarkD
Member
Whilst that all sounds fine and dandy, I can point to many, many situations where the fare on an advance 60-90 minutes later than a very cheap train, is hugely more expensive.
If you allow a £10 (or whatever) upgrade fee, then that destroys the pricing structure as nobody will book the "correct" train in the first place! They'll book the £10 advance at 0600 when really they intend to travel on the £60 train at 0730, and simply pay the £10 upgrade fee.
So, it won't work. Honest!
If the upgrade fee merely gave the right to offset the cost of the Advance against a full-priced single, then I guess that would work. But I'm not sure most passengers would see that upgrade fee as worth paying. It would represent an insurance premium on the value of the original Advance fare, which would otherwise be lost.
If you allow a £10 (or whatever) upgrade fee, then that destroys the pricing structure as nobody will book the "correct" train in the first place! They'll book the £10 advance at 0600 when really they intend to travel on the £60 train at 0730, and simply pay the £10 upgrade fee.
So, it won't work. Honest!
If the upgrade fee merely gave the right to offset the cost of the Advance against a full-priced single, then I guess that would work. But I'm not sure most passengers would see that upgrade fee as worth paying. It would represent an insurance premium on the value of the original Advance fare, which would otherwise be lost.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
No - I think John means the £10 would allow it to be excessed after a missed train, rather than it being a flat fee. You'd still need to pay the excess.
All I'll say is that there is a great deal of merit in the idea and it's not the first time I've seen it suggested.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
^^^^^
SS4
Established Member
I don't think it'll work to allow a free transfer within a certain time limit for the reasons MarkyMarkD established a couple of posts above. The only way it would be in any way feasible is to combine it with (super) off-peak restrictions yet that would be a behemoth worse than what we have now!
Excessing the ticket doesn't seem like a bad idea along John's idea although I'd like to see it excessed to the walk on fare plus £5/£10 admin fee. If you have a flat excess you'll get people snapping up the quota of advance tickets knowing full well they can pay an excess to the walk up if need be denying those tickets to those who actually wish to travel at that time.
(Minor) Flexibility is gained at the cost of those who don't need it and there'd be essentially no penalty for it.
Too many people want to have their cake and eat it - the cheap ticket combined with flexibility. I'm sorry, if you need flexibility you buy a flexible ticket
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
How come millions of people manage to make advance journeys without hassle? Let's show these moaners up for what they are!
Last edited:
The £10 fee is a nice bit of extra money for the railway industry, as I'm sure more people wouldn't use this feature than would - but many people would pay for the peace of mind, just as you might insure many other things.
It's a calculated risk by the industry, but I doubt everyone will seek out the cheapest advance but not intend to take it, then pay just £10 and the fare they should have bought in the first place! Why waste £10? And how many times would someone do this?
Most people would still take the risk, I'm sure, as £10 might double the price of some advances.
Only those who pay the fee can then be given the same choice of tickets as if they'd bought at a ticket office or TVM. It would seem unfair to only offer the most expensive tickets, and hardly an incentive for people to shell out the extra fee (as against buy up lots of advance tickets, then not use them - leading to empty reserved seats).
The fee paid in advance would replace on on-board admin fee. You could certainly consider a tier system for the fee, based perhaps on what the price of the advance was (£10 for tickets up to £10, £15 for tickets up to £20 or whatever).
I'd leave that up to someone who could do some proper research.
I'm still struggling to see how someone would simply snap up advance tickets and pay the extra fee in advance when they might not need it. And if they did this every time, and more often than not travelled on the booked train, the industry has won anyway.
Nobody HAS to do anything like this, but it would benefit both the industry and passenger.
It's a calculated risk by the industry, but I doubt everyone will seek out the cheapest advance but not intend to take it, then pay just £10 and the fare they should have bought in the first place! Why waste £10? And how many times would someone do this?
Most people would still take the risk, I'm sure, as £10 might double the price of some advances.
Only those who pay the fee can then be given the same choice of tickets as if they'd bought at a ticket office or TVM. It would seem unfair to only offer the most expensive tickets, and hardly an incentive for people to shell out the extra fee (as against buy up lots of advance tickets, then not use them - leading to empty reserved seats).
The fee paid in advance would replace on on-board admin fee. You could certainly consider a tier system for the fee, based perhaps on what the price of the advance was (£10 for tickets up to £10, £15 for tickets up to £20 or whatever).
I'd leave that up to someone who could do some proper research.
I'm still struggling to see how someone would simply snap up advance tickets and pay the extra fee in advance when they might not need it. And if they did this every time, and more often than not travelled on the booked train, the industry has won anyway.
Nobody HAS to do anything like this, but it would benefit both the industry and passenger.
swj99
Member
- Joined
- 7 Nov 2011
- Messages
- 765
Anyone know if the Distance Selling Regulations apply to contracts for the purchase of a train ticket ? They don't appear in the list of exceptions.
Perhaps they're thinking of challenging the terms and conditions under sections 1 & 2 of The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, which says....
&
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Railway tickets most certainly do not fall under Distance Selling Regulations. They are listed in the exceptions under "travel tickets" or something similar. I'll find the reference in a moment.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Found on MSE:
"Transport Tickets are among those services that are exempt from the Distance Selling Regulations requirements to:
- provide pre-contractual information
- written and additional information
- the right to cancel
- the obligation on the supplier to carry out the contract within a maximum of 30 days"
I know for a fact that this is correct, but I'm unable to bring up a reference to it in law - could some kind soul please help?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Found on MSE:
"Transport Tickets are among those services that are exempt from the Distance Selling Regulations requirements to:
- provide pre-contractual information
- written and additional information
- the right to cancel
- the obligation on the supplier to carry out the contract within a maximum of 30 days"
I know for a fact that this is correct, but I'm unable to bring up a reference to it in law - could some kind soul please help?
OwlMan
Established Member
I think you will find that this does not apply to tickets sold by NR TOCs as they are subject the regulatory and statutatory provisions of the Railways Acts, The TOC franchises and the Ticket & Settlement agreement.
.
A cynic (moi?) might infer that the railway industry knows that its Ts & Cs are so weighted in its favour that they have to be taken out of the reach of fair consumer law.
And an even bigger cynic like moi would postulate that the onerous conditions on advance tickets (such as a compulsory reserved seat, and having to have the reservation plus the ticket to be valid, and disallowing any break of journey) are loaded so that the occasional passenger who makes a mistake and is charged a ludicrous full fare rather than an upgrade makes up a nice chunk of profit for the TOC to be offset against other advance ticket sales and those naughty split ticket specialists.
I say again, there is NO reason why someone on an advance ticket from London to Durham should not be allowed to leave the train at Darlington and there is NO reason why someone who misses a Manchester to London train at midday should not be allowed to board the next one (or indded if they turn up early should not be allowed to board an earlier one); there is no loss, no fraud, nobody inconvenienced in these cases; the issue is surely the fact that the TOC stand to gain vast sums of money from passengers' misunderstanding and/or misfortune, and it's this which gives ready ammunition for the press and consumer groups.
People on this site appear to be largely rail industry employees or train enthusiasts and don't seem to appreciate that ordinary people think they are been scammed when a journey sold rather loudly for £11.99 suddenly costs upwards of £100 because they haven't complied with some condition. And they're right.
I say again, there is NO reason why someone on an advance ticket from London to Durham should not be allowed to leave the train at Darlington and there is NO reason why someone who misses a Manchester to London train at midday should not be allowed to board the next one (or indded if they turn up early should not be allowed to board an earlier one); there is no loss, no fraud, nobody inconvenienced in these cases; the issue is surely the fact that the TOC stand to gain vast sums of money from passengers' misunderstanding and/or misfortune, and it's this which gives ready ammunition for the press and consumer groups.
People on this site appear to be largely rail industry employees or train enthusiasts and don't seem to appreciate that ordinary people think they are been scammed when a journey sold rather loudly for £11.99 suddenly costs upwards of £100 because they haven't complied with some condition. And they're right.
craigwilson
Member
Not every Advance includes a compulsory reserved seat. A few TOC's including my local company, do not reserve you a specific seat.
It would be foolish to believe that the income from passengers who need to buy a new ticket is not taken into account in the pricing of these types of tickets. It is bound to be an integral part of the business plan and pricing strategy.
Without that income, the economics of Advance tickets would eb completely different. I am no fna of them myself, I would prefer to have more reasonable walk on fares with far less of a price difference between the lowest Advance fares and full price unrestricted tickets. But it seems that the majority do nto agree with me!
Unfortunately, one of the consequences of having cheap Advance fares is that they must be highly restrictive to make economic sense.
There is a reason, which has been mentioned several times in this thread; the pricing of Advance tickets cannot work any other way. The whole premise of these type of tickets is market pricing and yield management. It is a fine line, yes, but one which needs to got right in order to maximise revenue. In theory, at least, this will lead to lower subsidy, or perhaps it should be that if it is wrong, higher subsidy will follow.
There is a loss, because the business case is based on the assumption that those who want flexibility have to pay higher fares. I don;t like it, but that is the way it must be for the concept of Advances to work.
How strange to find rail enthusiasts on a site dedicated to discussing railways! It doesn't mean that an enthusiast is unable to understand economics, unlike some of the people who seem to want to pay very low fares and be able to catch any train with impunity.
There is nothing that I would like more, by the way, than to get a totally flexible ticket to travel the length of the country for £10. But others do not seem to be happy to have increased income tax or VAT levels in order to pay for the railway system that would allow this.
transmanche
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,018
Unless one of those Acts *specifically* says that The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 do not apply to the sale of railway tickets, then I see no reason whatsoever why those regulations would not apply to TOCs - as they would to any other business.
MarkyMarkD
Member
Unfortunately, consumers often have no clue about economics. And they think that when they get to travel on a train journey which would, on a flexible ticket, cost £100, but they are able to pay a "bargain" £11.99 (and btw I've never seen a train fare of £11.99!) in exchange for the simple and straightforward conditions of:
(1) travelling on the train they chose; and
(2) travelling the full route that they chose
it's somehow then reasonable to moan without end when they change their mind about travelling at the chosen time or on the chosen route.
Really, anyone who does NOT understand that an Advance ticket imposes the two - simple - conditions described above shouldn't be allowed on a train on their own because they aren't safe out in public.
As for UTCCR, Advance ticket conditions are not unfair or unreasonable. There are other aspects of rail ticketing law which are far more dubious under UTCCR, but having to travel on the right train on an Advance ticket, or that ticket being worthless, is not remotely vulnerable to a UTCCR challenge.
transmanche
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,018
Has anybody actually asked for that, or suggested it would be a good idea?
Why not have something like the EasyJet 'rescue' option? TOCs need to listen to their customers like EasyJet did, or indeed any other successful business - especially when customers feel they are being ripped off.
OwlMan
Established Member
Because of the exempitions I quoted earlier in the Unfair Terms....Act it does not need to be stated in the railway acts etc
It is quite clear that the act does not apply to terms which reflect mandatory statutory or regulatory provisons;
which the sale of National rail tickets clearly comes under.
Fior example the NRCoC is agreed by the Government why does it need to come under other legislation.
Which is probably why passenger focus/trading standards will not bring a case
Peter
Last edited:
Of course not. Passengers should comply with the NRCoC. If passengers breach the conditions TOCs should take the appropriate action and they have the necessary firepower to do so.
However, if the TOC breaches the NRCoC, a lone passenger is left rather, well, alone - one person against a large company. Which is why I say Passenger Focus should be concentrating on ensuring the TOC always complies with the NRCoC in the first place.
transmanche
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,018
Just because the NRCoC is 'agreed' by government does not necessarily mean it is also a 'mandatory statutory or regulatory provision'. It's likely that it would be the case if government was responsible for drafting and maintaining the NRCoC, but not if they merely 'agree' to them.
ralphchadkirk
Established Member
It would have to be tested to say for certain one way or the other.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
We have this debate on this forum quite regularly.
Its a simple question: Do the consumer regulations apply to train tickets?
There are a great many people who claim that they do.
In my opinion, their claim is rhetorical and based on deeply held beliefs. I have seen no evidence, citations nor authorities to support that claim. I have not seen any successful Judgements in any Court which supports that claim.
In my opinion, the sale of rail tickets for passenger travel on the rail network of Great Britain provided by the TOCs is not captured by those Consumer Regulations.
This belief crops up on here so often that I regret that I am unable to find the time to correct it on every occassion.
Perhaps by its repetition it seems to aquire some sense of fact; but it remains a belief, not a fact, and has no evidential basis.
SS4
Established Member
And a bigger cynic like me would think £20 London to Scotland is suspiciously cheap and meticulously check the terms and conditions. I don't doubt for a second that TOCs see it as a form of revenue but not that they plan it, like Dick Dastardly plants traps for wacky racers
It's denying a sale from Darlington to Durham. Break of journey is forbidden because they'd not be able to stop someone re-joining the train in peak hours.
What if the earlier train is a different TOC? If a passenger is late due to the railway they honour the ticket on the next train anyway, if the passenger couldn't be arsed to get out of bed that's not the railway's fault. You allow stopping short and you must allow break of journey with all the implications thereof.
The Railway will never get a good press, it's not even worth trying. It's the epitome of naivety if you think the Press will be interested or even hear about it if a guard let a customer on a later train.
Bad news shifts more papers - check the headlines for the rest of the week and I can practically guarantee it'll be bad news.
Prove it. Prove they're being scammed when they knew what they were buying! But you can't because you know full well they've not been scammed. :roll: Unfortunate maybe but not scammed. Would you suggest the same thing if a young man forgot his 16-25 railcard?
So if I ring a friend in Australia I have the right to moan when my phone bill is sky high? Of course not, I took out the contract knowing full well inclusive minutes were domestic only. Similarly, someone with an advance ticket, by ticking the box, is saying that they understand the terms of purchase one of the most prominent being that one must use that service. Break of Journey I could understand since that restriction is hardly publicised.
Trouble is of course is that the railway does not know when an occasional passenger has made a genuine mistake and when someone is trying it on and the latter can be very convincing so equal treatment is needed because it's impossible to differentiate them and harsh treatment is needed to discourage fare dodging.
I see you've came up with a lot of rhetoric but not a thing on how you'd fix the problem whilst remaining fair to those who do obey the conditions, keeping a source of revenue for the TOCs, maintaining cheap prices and not punishing those who may get it wrong. I await your proposal...
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
There is really nothing wrong with Advance tickets. It's just that people who have been caught out think if they cause a big enough fuss and hold the TOC to ransom they'll get their money back and essentially travel for free even getting some freebies.
The responsibility really lies with the Press to ascertain the facts and just not publish the story or present the facts and only the facts. Isn't it strange that very, very, very, very, very few of these cases have genuinely been the TOCs fault? Funny that...
I haven't said that anyone has. I would liek this to be the case myself, but I accept that it will have to be paid for in other ways. It is also the case that flexibility, in whatever form, will have to be paid for too. Maybe what I would prefer is more extreme, but the principle is the same.
transmanche
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,018
And I have seen no evidence, citations or authorities to support the contrary claim. The way I see it, the regulations apply unless it can be shown otherwise.
AlterEgo
Veteran Member
Then your argument is wholly academic as nobody seems willing to test it. Not even Trading Standards. Funny that. Passenger Focus would not bring a court case against a TOC as that would be contrary to their remit - part of which is actually fostering a decent working relationship with TOCs.
Passenger Focus are not a regulator. They cannot compel a TOC to do anything. They cannot levy a fine against a TOC.
Passenger Focus are the rail consumer watchdog, and it is very much in their interest to maintain a cordial relationship with both consumer and the wider railway industry. They're a middleman - a mediator in an escalated complaints process. I get weary of reminding people of their remit, which is unfortunately not quite as wide as many people (myself included) would like.
Passenger Focus are not a regulator. They cannot compel a TOC to do anything. They cannot levy a fine against a TOC.
Passenger Focus are the rail consumer watchdog, and it is very much in their interest to maintain a cordial relationship with both consumer and the wider railway industry. They're a middleman - a mediator in an escalated complaints process. I get weary of reminding people of their remit, which is unfortunately not quite as wide as many people (myself included) would like.
transmanche
Established Member
- Joined
- 27 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 6,018
Possibly because no-one has taken the issue to trading standards? OFT would probably be the best place to lobby for action; but such cases are lengthy, complex and expensive.
Skymonster
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2012
- Messages
- 1,740
- Status