Bedford to London: asked for Network Railcard discount and got GroupSave which wasn't accepted

[tony_mac]

As for the issue of Groupsave validity in general, we've proved categorically that from a legal standpoint, it doesn't need to say on the ticket 'route not XC' or whatever, and I really think it's time everyone moved on and accepted that fact!

FWIW, as far as I am concerned absolutely nothing has been proved by you. There have been more and more convoluted arguments to try and claim that a clear an unambiguous statement does not apply for some reason.

You can claim it as fact when you have a high-court ruling, until then it is opinion only. I don't see the point of arguing with people who will claim their opinions as fact, it is tiresome and pointless, so please do not mistake silence for acquiescence.

Anyway, back to the topic on hand, errrm, ridiculous isn't it!

 

[b0b]

Anyway, back to the topic on hand, errrm, ridiculous isn't it!

perhaps, but I fear EMT may actually take a stand on this one.

 

[MikeWh]

If someone could help with a final thing - do you think we should just explain everything that happened in our defence on the penalty notice as the reason why we contest it or is there other things we should point out?

Explain everything that happened from your point of view, then explain how a railway person has suggested what happened in the office at Bedford:

when I entered three Network Railcard returns from Bedford to London into my Fastis machine at work, it listed both the fares, but crutially the GR3 fare was the first fare. If I was just issueing tickets to people in a long queue (as I am sure those at Bedford do), it would be very easy for me to miss something as small as that.

Finally, send everything to the PF appeals board and also copy it all to both EMT and FCC.

As a massive JC fan, this has to be post of the year for me...

How can the passenger check T&C's if they don't know what ticket they are going to get? In this example the OP wanted the cheapest tickets to London with a Network Card. They may have indeed checked this out, but they didn't get that particular ticket anyway! So it is a ridiculous statement for a so called manager to make!

'You've got a groupsave'
'Have I? I didn't want one, and I didn't ask for one!'
'You should have checked the terms and conditions'
'What, for a ticket I've never heard of, and one that I didn't want to buy?'
'It clearly says GR-3 on the ticket'
'And what exactly is that supposed to eman, and how am I supposed to know?'
'Ask a member of staff'
'It was a member of staff that gave me this ****** thing that you now expect me to pay £135 for having'
'You should have checked the terms and conditions'

Honestly, John Cleese couldn't have made it worse in Fawlty Towers.

 

[dancinbird2009]

Hi Everyone

Just to let you know that we have had our appeal upheld so the fines have been deleted. Thank you again for your help and advice. We had no help at all from IRCAS infact they claimed they had not received any of our paperwork even though I sent it Recorded Delivery and had the Royal Mail signature print out to prove it!! Anyway, to cut a very long story short I went to London Passenger Watch (I think that's what they're called) and a lovely man helped me and we heard on Monday that the appeal had been upheld, so there is justice after all! Thanks again.

 

[Max]

Excellent news , any other result would have just been ludicrous to be honest!

 

[yorkie]

I hope they compensated you and apologised as well as just refunding the Penalty Fares.

I am very pleased we were able to help you resolve the situation

Would you be interested in being cited as an example for a case study?

 

[Ferret]

FWIW, as far as I am concerned absolutely nothing has been proved by you. There have been more and more convoluted arguments to try and claim that a clear an unambiguous statement does not apply for some reason.

You can claim it as fact when you have a high-court ruling, until then it is opinion only. I don't see the point of arguing with people who will claim their opinions as fact, it is tiresome and pointless, so please do not mistake silence for acquiescence.

I missed this little gem while on holiday! Tony - you cearly have an issue with simple contract law. I'm sorry but trying to belittle me actually does you no credit whatsoever, and frankly makes you look silly. If anything is 'tiresome and pointless', it's having a discussion with somebody who takes the attitude that he won't listen to what his being said to him. It's like a child putting his fingers in his ears when being spoken to, because he doesn't like what's being said. Now, you go ahead and believe what you want to believe, but the *facts* are that regardles of whether is says 'not XC' on the ticket or not, Groupsave is not valid in any way shape or form on services provided by Crosscountry. I'm terribly sorry if that cold hard fact offends you, but there you have it.

As for the OP, I'm extremely pleased by this outcome. Perhaps the staff concerned can be informed of the correct procedure for dealing with such an issue in future?

 

[yorkie]

....Groupsave is not valid in any way shape or form on services provided by Crosscountry...

but your definition of 'valid' is not necessarily what we passengers think of as 'valid'. I have come to the conclusion that if I ignore your legal/contractual argument and concentrate on your suggested outcome with regard to GroupSave tickets, then I am in agreement with you. As it is the outcome that is interest to me (the contractual argument will be of more interest to a law student, of course) then there is no problem as far as I am concerned. I don't care if XC are billed by FGW (fine by me!) as long as the passenger is allowed to travel (outward & return portions) without paying any extra. What happens between XC and FGW is not of interest to the average customer (but of course this may be interest to people interested in either legal or railway matters).

 

[Ferret]

Yorkie, you're quite right. Well, apart from the bit about FGW billing XC (other way round!!!). If the customer wasn't advised that travel wasn't valid on XC, the correct procedure is to report via the TIR process. There's a similar issue with club 55 tickets at the moment - certain TOCs have been selling these and issuing reservations for XC trains despite them not being valid on XC. Oops!

 

[yorkie]

Oops, my mistake, of course I meant XC bill FGW (or FGW be billed by XC!)

 

[dancinbird2009]

Hi Yorkie

Re your question, what would being cited for a case study involve?


Dancinbird

 

[clagmonster]

I'm glad this came to a favourable outcome. May I ask, were you given a reason for your appeal being upheld? Just curious, there are several possible ones.

 

[jon0844]

I didn't really get a reason for when I won my appeal, and no follow-up apology from FCC. I'm sure that in this case the reasonings will be left out, to prevent anything being said that could be used as some sort of precedent.

Much as I detest it, the Daily Mail is the place to go with stories like this as it is crazy. I am a regular traveller on the railways, but have never heard of a ticket being shown as valid but not being valid for a discount, which require you to consult terms and conditions that aren't really made available to you. I thought Groupsave was something accepted throughout the former NSE area and how can EMT be selective? How the heck would anyone know this? Does ATOC run a website that lets you check your ticket is valid? Maybe they should (which would highlight how stupid our ticketing system is).

But worse than that is the fact that the RPI didn't follow the rules that would have said an excess should have been charged (an excess for £0!). That makes me wonder if FCC give Penalty Fares to people who travel in the evening peak, when they can also ONLY charge the excess?

 

[yorkie]

...if FCC give Penalty Fares to people who travel in the evening peak, when they can also ONLY charge the excess?

There are reports of FCC RPIs engaging in all sorts of dodgy practices, including issuing PFs at Peterborough for passengers who joined non-PF trains at non-PF stations! The DfT/ORR do very little to check that the rules are being followed. First seem uninterested in ensuring that RPIs behave correctly. The law is on their side, and the onus is on the passenger to have to spot when mistakes are made and appeal. It's bonkers. They (the TOCs who issue PFs) treat us like scum!

 

[jon0844]

Well, far from 'my' RPI having been given a talking to - he seems to have become their star RPI and I am seeing him regularly now. He's always giving out PFs and always uses the same line; 'take this and appeal later'. People take them too, and often pay up the whole £20, and most probably don't appeal even if they have grounds to. Admittedly, most probably deserve them, but he takes NO prisoners and if anyone is giving a PF incorrectly to people on evening-peak trains, it will probably be him. I'm actually surprised he doesn't just give PFs to everyone on a train and say 'if your ticket is valid, just appeal and you'll win, I just haven't got time to check them'.

But, I've concluded that what I think is a problem, FCC considers a strength. I bet that even if he's had loads of complaints (and I know for a fact that he has as I've spoken to other passengers who have been hassled by him for sitting in a declassified first class section) that FCC are happy to sweep them under the carpet.

But, I'll shut up about this in this thread as I don't want to hijack it. However, it seems that EMT may well have similar views and policies.