EMR Ticket Changes - New Policy?

[Charles1]

I have used EMR for the last 10 years, booking advance return tickets to be cost efficient. If I have had to change the ticket it has generally been easy to do so, at a reasonably similar price and paying a £10 change fee
Recently I have tried to do this, and as well as the change fee increasing to £20, the replacement ticket prices quoted (even if they are for a month or two later) are actually MORE than it costs to just buy a set of new tickets for the same journey.
This seems ridiculous
Is anybody able to explain this change in policy or a way around it?
Thanks very much

 

[Adam Williams]

Their website still quotes the fee as being £10 here: https://www.eastmidlandsrailway.co.uk/tickets-discounts/choose-the-right-ticket/advance-tickets

Have you got a screenshot of it charging you more?

 

[Charles1]

It's definitely £20 now

Your refund
Your refund will be triggered once you complete your new booking. You may also need to post your tickets to us.

Refund summary​

Refundable amount£70.90
Admin fee£20.00
Total refund amount£50.90
How we calculate your refund
Do you already have your tickets?

But I think I have worked out why it looks more expensive - because they put a price next to the outbound portion and the inbound portion, that together would be much more expensive - but actually that it the total price
Very confusing but I think that solves my problem!
Thanks

 

[Adam Williams]

Did you change two tickets?

 

[Charles1]

Yes - ah - so it's £10 per ticket changed? That would make sense

 

[Adam Williams]

That's the maximum they're allowed to levy under the ticket type terms and conditions, yes

Some retailers (TrainSplit / the forum's official booking site) will do it per booking instead, rather than per ticket (so max charge of £10). Some other retailers choose not to charge a Change of Advance fee whatsoever, so it may be worth considering whether you are best served if you book with EMR going forward.

 

[Watershed]

Yes - ah - so it's £10 per ticket changed? That would make sense

Worth noting that there is no real benefit to buying your tickets directly through EMR. You would be able to change your Advance tickets without an admin fee through certain other retailers.

 

[Charles1]

That is good advice! Thanks very much indeed!

 

[Mcr Warrior]

You would be able to change your Advance tickets without an admin fee through certain other retailers.

Which ticket retailers currently allow "fee free" changes (and is this only in certain, specified circumstances)?

 

[sheff1]

Which ticket retailers currently allow "fee free" changes

Cross Country state they do but I have never needed to test it.

Change Advance Train Ticket without an Admin Fee | CrossCountry | CrossCountry

We've made it free to change your Advance Train Tickets for added confidence and flexibility when booking with CrossCountry Trains.

www.crosscountrytrains.co.uk

 

[Watershed]

Which ticket retailers currently allow "fee free" changes (and is this only in certain, specified circumstances)?

CrossCountry (for Advance tickets) and Railsmartr (for all ticket types) are the two I'm aware of.

When it comes to refund fees, the On Track Retail sites (GTR/Southeastern) allow you to get a full, fee-free refund on uncollected TOD bookings of walk-up tickets; Railsmartr do so regardless of fulfilment method or whether a ticket has been collected. Some sites don't charge the maximum £10 fee per ticket, e.g. TrainSplit charges £10 per booking (regardless of number of tickets), and Trainline has a graduated refund fee depending on the transaction value.

Clearly, if you think you'll want the flexibility to change or refund your ticket, it's a good idea to use a retailer that makes this free or at least cheaper.

 

[westv]

Why do some TOCs want their £10 of flesh and not others. It can't be down to the RDG or DfT surely?

 

[thedbdiboy]

Why do some TOCs want their £10 of flesh and not others. It can't be down to the RDG or DfT surely?

RDG agrees the maximum subject to stakeholder consultation (Transport Focus, London TravelWatch and the ORR) and the agreement of the DfT, as with any NRCoT change. It is down to each retailer business model how much they then actually charge subject to not exceeding the maxima.

This particular limit is pretty old (>10 years) and given the significant growth in Advance tickets (including 'on-the-day') is likely to be reviewed downwards at some point as it is a disincentive to using such tickets compared to walk-up fares.

 

[westv]

This particular limit is pretty old (>10 years) and given the significant growth in Advance tickets (including 'on-the-day') is likely to be reviewed downwards at some point as it is a disincentive to using such tickets compared to walk-up fares.

They could have just carried on with fee free changes that were brought in due to covid.

 

[Haywain]

This particular limit is pretty old (>10 years) and given the significant growth in Advance tickets (including 'on-the-day') is likely to be reviewed downwards at some point as it is a disincentive to using such tickets compared to walk-up fares.

That could happen but seeing what happened to Book with Confidence would lead me to believe that DfT/Treasury won't be approving anything that reduces revenue, as they increasingly appear to know the price of everything but not the value.

 

[thedbdiboy]

That could happen but seeing what happened to Book with Confidence would lead me to believe that DfT/Treasury won't be approving anything that reduces revenue, as they increasingly appear to know the price of everything but not the value.

In this case the ORR has got involved as they have a Consumer Protection brief. Whilst fees can be charged they must be proportionate to the administrative work required to process the change.

 

[miklcct]

That could happen but seeing what happened to Book with Confidence would lead me to believe that DfT/Treasury won't be approving anything that reduces revenue, as they increasingly appear to know the price of everything but not the value.

The net result is that people will be less inclined to buy Advance tickets, and wait until the very last moment to decide whether to take a discretionary train trip or not using walk-up tickets.

 

[Sonic1234]

The net result is that people will be less inclined to buy Advance tickets, and wait until the very last moment to decide whether to take a discretionary train trip or not using walk-up tickets.

Who then have a shock at the price of most medium and long-distance walk up tickets and don't go by train.

I wonder how much it costs in dealing with complaints about these £10 fees?

 

[island]

Whilst fees can be charged they must be proportionate to the administrative work required to process the change.

According to what law?

 

[Adam Williams]

According to what law?

Surely TOCs are governed by the ticketing & settlement agreement, which states:

> Any administrative charge that is made must reasonably reflect the cost of processing the application for the relevant refund.

 

[island]

Surely TOCs are governed by the ticketing & settlement agreement, which states:

> Any administrative charge that is made must reasonably reflect the cost of processing the application for the relevant refund.

So 2 things:
1) That appears to apply to refunds, not changes
2) Passengers are not a party to the TSA so do not have standing to enforce it as against a TOC; it would need to be enforced by the RDG.

 

[Watershed]

Why do some TOCs want their £10 of flesh and not others. It can't be down to the RDG or DfT surely?

It broadly speaking is; CrossCountry's fee-free offer was introduced as a Direct Award franchise extension commitment. So it would either have been something that Arriva threw in to sweeten the deal, or that the DfT asked Arriva for a price for.

According to what law?

Paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

 

[Adam Williams]

So 2 things:
1) That appears to apply to refunds, not changes
2) Passengers are not a party to the TSA so do not have standing to enforce it as against a TOC; it would need to be enforced by the RDG.

Change of journey is a refund, though. That's how it's accounted for in Lennon, just like disruption there's a separate refund code for it.

 

[island]

I wrote a long response to the above but my browser decided to digest it. Apologies if I am blunt in my rewrite, the bluntness is directed at my machine, not you.

Change of journey is a refund, though. That's how it's accounted for in Lennon, just like disruption there's a separate refund code for it.

Accounting for things in Lennon in a certain way doesn't change the meaning of the English language. A refund fee is not a change fee and a change fee is not a refund fee, even if for the time being they are both set at the same amount.

Paragraph 5 of Part 1 of Schedule 2 to the Consumer Rights Act 2015.

This says:

A term which has the object or effect of requiring that, where the consumer decides not to conclude or perform the contract, the consumer must pay the trader a disproportionately high sum in compensation or for services which have not been supplied [may be regarded as unfair].

(bolding mine)

This does not apply to change fees because of one of more of the following:
1) Changing a journey is not "not concluding or performing the contract", it is changing the contract. (Your argument might have more applicability to refund fees than to change fees.)
2) A term contrary to paragraph 5 "may" (not must) be regarded as unfair, so it is possible it also may not be. (Contrast with section 63 (6) which refers to terms that must be regarded as unfair.)
3) Section 64 (1) (b) states that a term may not be assessed for fairness if the assessment is of the appropriateness of the price payable under the contract. In OFT v Abbey & Others [2009] UKSC 6 the Supreme Court ruled that ancillary costs were not eligible to be assessed as unfair for this reason. Although their ruling predates the CRA and was about the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the wording of the relevant parts of the UTCCR and the CRA is almost identical and the ruling would therefore apply equally nowadays.

So no, that paragraph doesn't assist you – and if it did, I'm pretty sure the much higher change and cancellation fees assessed by airlines and hotels would have been struck down quite some time ago.

 

[Floydlover25]

CrossCountry (for Advance tickets) and Railsmartr (for all ticket types) are the two I'm aware of.

With Cross Country does the fee free change for advances apply to their services only or journeys booked on their website using other operators services (e.g. EMR)?

Presumably you still need to pay any difference in the fare?

 

[island]

With Cross Country does the fee free change for advances apply to their services only or journeys booked on their website using other operators services (e.g. EMR)?

Presumably you still need to pay any difference in the fare?

As far as I know it applies to all journeys, and yes fare difference is still paid. According to their website, the only requirements are that you must have booked through a registered account (not as a guest) and make your change up to the day before travel.

 

[Watershed]

This does not apply to change fees because of one of more of the following:
1) Changing a journey is not "not concluding or performing the contract", it is changing the contract. (Your argument might have more applicability to refund fees than to change fees.)

Part 1 of Schedule 2 is merely "an indicative and non-exhaustive list" (section 63(1)); the precise circumstances need not be listed in the Schedule for the term to be unfair.

2) A term contrary to paragraph 5 "may" (not must) be regarded as unfair, so it is possible it also may not be. (Contrast with section 63 (6) which refers to terms that must be regarded as unfair.)

This is true; the totality of the circumstances would be considered. Given that the admin fee may well vastly outweigh the original cost of the ticket, and is likely to be far in excess of the retailer's apportionable costs, I think it would be difficult to argue that £10 is proportionate.

3) Section 64 (1) (b) states that a term may not be assessed for fairness if the assessment is of the appropriateness of the price payable under the contract. In OFT v Abbey & Others [2009] UKSC 6 the Supreme Court ruled that ancillary costs were not eligible to be assessed as unfair for this reason. Although their ruling predates the CRA and was about the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, the wording of the relevant parts of the UTCCR and the CRA is almost identical and the ruling would therefore apply equally nowadays.

I'm well aware of that judgment, but I don't see that it's applicable here. In that case, a service was being provided - an overdraft. In this case it's about the fee for varying the contract, which isn't a service in its own right.

Ultimately, the ORR is very reticent to investigate anything, so they must have something to go off if they think this is worthwhile spending their limited resources on.

As far as I know it applies to all journeys, and yes fare difference is still paid. According to their website, the only requirements are that you must have booked through a registered account (not as a guest) and make your change up to the day before travel.

I've never tried it without being logged in (I imagine it would be a pain finding the transaction otherwise), but it's certainly possible to do on the day of travel - I've used this offer to change a Northern Advance an hour before the train was due to have left. It's possible to do with paper tickets, but if you've already collected them or had them posted then you'll need to return them before being refunded for the old ticket - so it's much easier to do with e-tickets.

 

[island]

I'm well aware of that judgment, but I don't see that it's applicable here. In that case, a service was being provided - an overdraft. In this case it's about the fee for varying the contract, which isn't a service in its own right.

Of course varying the contract is a service. It takes staff time (whether to perform the tasks in person, or to code/design/support a website) and resources such as the issuance of the new/excess ticket.

Ultimately, the ORR is very reticent to investigate anything, so they must have something to go off if they think this is worthwhile spending their limited resources on.

I don't think it's a valid conclusion to draw that the ORR thinks the CRA is being infringed; there could be numerous other reasons.

 

[CompactDstrxion]

I think that TOCs are not allowed to operative administrative charges for refunds on a 'per-booking' or percentage basis as this would contravene the requirement in the TSA that they must make the same charge for all fares refunded (if they make a charge)?

An Operator which makes any such charge must make the same charge in respect of all amounts in respect of Fares which it refunds, all amounts in respect of Discount Cards which it refunds, all amounts in respect of Reservations which it refunds and all amounts in respect of Upgrades which it refunds. However, the charge for Fares, Discount Cards, Reservations and Upgrades respectively may be different.

 

[island]

I agree that TOCs aren't. Trainline isn't a TOC so it would seem it is able to make a sliding scale charge.

Naturally, if a charge were found to be illegal under the CRA or otherwise, this would override the TSA which is a contract.