Are the terms and conditions of a ticket based on the wording at the time of sale or on what the wording *should* have said?

[AdamWW]

I bought a TfW multiflex ticket recently and the "travel conditions" presented when I purchased it said nothing about break of journey restrictions. When I've previously looked on the web, I've not been able to find anything about such restrictions either.

I was told today that break of journey isn't permitted, that it was an error that it wasn't mentioned before, was shown that when doing a purchase now the restriction is mentioned, and required to activate another ticket to continue my journey.

For those who understand these things, is this position, i.e. that I am bound by what they meant to say, not what they did say when I bought my ticket, correct?

Looking at the web site now, the terms and conditions have been changed to add a break of journey restriction and also a rule that a ticket is only valid for 3 hours, despite the fact that this isn't mentioned when you buy the ticket or activate it (and it still shows as active for the rest of the day).

So - again - when buying a ticket am I expected to assume that the information I'm presented is incomplete and search on the web site for a more comprehensive set of terms and conditions?

Neither of these positions seems reasonable to me.

I'm asking here out of curiousity because I do not think I have the energy to try to get someone at TfW to take a complaint seriously.

I'd also argue that it's a bit misleading to describe it as 12 tickets for the price of 10 because it is (no longer) comparing like for like (particularly as they explicitly compare them to anytime tickets).

 

[Watershed]

The conditions that you were told when purchasing your tickets is what counts, as that is when the contract is formed. For any change to these conditions to have taken effect, TfW would need to have notified you of their proposal to vary the terms, and you would have had to agree to that variation.

I think we can be safe in assuming that this didn't happen, and therefore the original terms - with no limitation on validity or break of journey - remain in force for any MultiFlex tickets you've already bought, whether activated or not.

Whoever told you that break of journey isn't permitted clearly doesn't even understand the basics of how contracts work, although I can't say I'm particularly surprised by this as the retail briefs issued by TOCs are often factually or legally incorrect, and the degree of training on ticket validity for frontline staff is minimal to non-existent.

Unfortunately I'd also have to concur with you that raising a complaint is likely to be an exercise in frustration. I would only do so if this change causes you a financial loss (e.g. you're forced to buy a new ticket that you shouldn't have needed to buy), as a complaint would be the first step towards recovering your losses (ultimately in Court or through a chargeback/section 75 claim, if need be).

 

[MotCO]

If the website has now been changed, how can you prove what the conditions were when you bought the tickets? I accept that the conditions prevailing when you bought the ticket should stand, but the difficulty is in proving it.

 

[crablab]

If the website has now been changed, how can you prove what the conditions were when you bought the tickets?

For a Mastercard chargeback, it is for the Acquirer to show that restrictive terms were clearly displayed and actively consented to prior to the transaction completing (ie. Authorisation).

 

[Watershed]

If the website has now been changed, how can you prove what the conditions were when you bought the tickets? I accept that the conditions prevailing when you bought the ticket should stand, but the difficulty is in proving it.

If nothing else, the HTML of the website would have a "last changed" date. If it came to it, you'd put TfW to strict proof of what the site said previously. They would be in quite a lot of trouble if they lied about not having changed the content.

 

[Gaelan]

If nothing else, the HTML of the website would have a "last changed" date. If it came to it, you'd put TfW to strict proof of what the site said previously. They would be in quite a lot of trouble if they lied about not having changed the content.

Not necessarily meaningful - many web servers do provide a "Last-Modified" header (not technically part of the HTML, but that's just being pedantic), but it's quite common for this to be more recent than the last time a substantive change was made, and may well just be the current date at the time the page is requested.

Indeed, I've just requested https://www.nationalrail.co.uk/1K and it's come back with a Last-Modified header of "Tue, 16 May 2023 22:59:31 GMT", i.e. the time of the request.

 

[bspahh]

I bought a TfW multiflex ticket recently and the "travel conditions" presented when I purchased it said nothing about break of journey restrictions. When I've previously looked on the web, I've not been able to find anything about such restrictions either.

When did you buy the ticket?

At archive.org there is a snapshot from April 5th 2023 where it has a Terms and conditions section which says:

• Break of journey is not permitted, but can be used for alighting short.

That is not mentioned in the snapshot from December 15th 2022

 

[AdamWW]

If the website has now been changed, how can you prove what the conditions were when you bought the tickets? I accept that the conditions prevailing when you bought the ticket should stand, but the difficulty is in proving it.

Well the staff member who said that my ticket was no longer valid agreed that the information was previously incorrect, but as I said above took the view (and had I presume been told to take the view) that the conditions are what they want them to be, not what I was told at the time of purchase.

When did you buy the ticket?

At archive.org there is a snapshot from April 5th 2023 where it has a Terms and conditions section which says:

That is not mentioned in the snapshot from December 15th 2022

Interesting. I purchased after that.

But it wasn't on the "Travel conditions" that you can click to be shown when you purchase a ticket. I took a screen shot but of course I can't prove the date it was taken.

I don't imagine a pop-up like this would be available in an archive.

I wonder if they did actually change the rules and updated the web site, but failed to update the information provided when purchasing?

So I go back to one of my original questions. Can I rely on the information provided when I buy the ticket, or am I required to go digging around on their web site to see if there are further restrictions that they chose not to make readily available? Every time you purchase a ticket in case they've just changed?

I did previously look through the web pages, but I don't think I should have had to and I really don't think I should have to for every purchase.

I think there is a far bigger problem now than the break of journey restrictions, in that the app says that once activated a ticket is valid all day and shows it as such, but the web site says they are only valid for 3 hours. I hope they would find it hard to argue that a ticket showing "active" is actually invalid. (Though if you leave a ticket showing on the app and come back the next day it often still shows as active until you go back to the list of tickets (where it's still shown as active) then ask to show it again. (Apart from that the app seems to work quite well).

 

[Watershed]

Well the staff member who said that my ticket was no longer valid agreed that the information was previously incorrect, but as I said above took the view (and had I presume been told to take the view) that the conditions are what they want them to be, not what I was told at the time of purchase.

It's unsurprising to hear of staff making up their own rules as to ticket validity. At the end of the day, if you can't convince them you're right and they insist on charging you, you'll have to complain and pursue the matter to get your money back.

Interesting. I purchased after that.

But it wasn't on the "Travel conditions" that you can click to be shown when you purchase a ticket. I took a screen shot but of course I can't prove the date it was taken.

The screenshot would have metadata showing when it was created. Whilst of course someone will no doubt be along to say that metadata can be altered - so can a screenshot. No evidence can ever be considered 100% watertight and in a civil dispute it is only about whose account is considered more plausible.

At the end of the day, none of this is likely to be necessary because TfW would be in deep trouble if they lied about what the terms were when you bought your ticket. Their frontline staff may make up rules about ticket validity, but if push comes to shove, you'd like to hope that their lawyers won't.

I wonder if they did actually change the rules and updated the web site, but failed to update the information provided when purchasing?

This sounds the most likely scenario to me. They likely also told their staff about the purported "new restrictions" without bothering to actually ensure they were told to customers.

So I go back to one of my original questions. Can I rely on the information provided when I buy the ticket, or am I required to go digging around on their web site to see if there are further restrictions that they chose not to make readily available? Every time you purchase a ticket in case they've just changed?

You can rely on that; and aren't required to go digging around the site in case you find something that contradicts it. In fact, under section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, any information they tell you that influences your purchasing decision is a term of the contract. The only thing you need to look at are any terms and conditions or other pieces of information that are displayed, or linked to, during the purchase process.

I think there is a far bigger problem now than the break of journey restrictions, in that the app says that once activated a ticket is valid all day and shows it as such, but the web site says they are only valid for 3 hours. I hope they would find it hard to argue that a ticket showing "active" is actually invalid.

Such a ticket would be valid, full stop.

 

[AdamWW]

You can rely on that; and aren't required to go digging around the site in case you find something that contradicts it. In fact, under section 49 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015, any information they tell you that influences your purchasing decision is a term of the contract. The only thing you need to look at are any terms and conditions or other pieces of information that are displayed, or linked to, during the purchase process.

Yes, and looking at the terms and conditions, I now see that they say:

7.1 This Site is provided on an “AS IS” and “AS AVAILABLE” basis. We make no representation or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation of this site or the information, content or materials included on this site.

7.2 The content on our Site is provided for general information only. It is not intended to amount to advice on which you should rely.

So I suppose they would argue that if I cared about the conditions of the ticket their purchasing system is not a valid way of finding out and I should have discussed with customer services. (Not that this is actually a way of getting reliable information either).

I'd argue that's an unfair term in the context of information provided when booking tickets, but I'd just be guessing.

 

[Watershed]

Yes, and looking at the terms and conditions, I now see that they say:

That's standard 'electronic services' legalese. Any argument that you should disbelieve what their website says is nonsensical; any such term would be contrary to the Consumer Rights Act and thus of no effect.