Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
I was looking for tickets from Nottingham to London for a Sunday in June and stumbled across just before checkout that I can pay £9 more for first class on EMR. The description mentioned complimentary food. I thought that’s great, more comfort, place to charge my laptop and free food. After I booked it, I thought id look at EMR’s website about first class but they say that complimentary food is not provided on Sundays.
Not sure if this a regular thing but I never go first class like ever. It seems the first class description is misleading on Trainline for a Sunday as food is not provided. Should I bother complaining?
In my experience, contacting Trainline's customer service is like talking to a brick wall. But it's worth complaining about for, just on the off-chance it gets passed through to someone who can correct this.
In my experience, contacting Trainline's customer service is like talking to a brick wall. But it's worth complaining about for, just on the off-chance it gets passed through to someone who can correct this.
You have got to be really careful implementing upsells like this to make sure that the offering is correct; they can and will form part of the pre-sale information that the customer uses to make their purchasing decision.
You have got to be really careful implementing upsells like this to make sure that the offering is correct; they can and will form part of the pre-sale information that the customer uses to make their purchasing decision.
As long as there's a host available then most trains (but not all) do actually have a Sunday first class Sundays nowadays so you may well be surprised and get something. It's nothing like LNER or Avanti though.
Right, but if you complain to EMR about no food & drinks service on a Sunday, they'll quite rightly refer you to their website where they specifically say that's not offered on a Sunday. Trainline is the one that sold the ticket and advertised the service, so if it isn't offered as described by Trainline, they're the only one at fault in this instance because they're the only one that advertised it.
The customer is entitled to rely on what Trainline tells him about what he is buying.
For clarity, I definitely wasn't blaming EMR, it was directed towards Trainline! (I am acutely aware of some of the pitfalls involved with advertising facilities available to passengers, it's very easy to screw up)
Right, but if you complain to EMR about no food & drinks service on a Sunday, they'll quite rightly refer you to their website where they specifically say that's not offered on a Sunday. Trainline is the one that sold the ticket and advertised the service, so if it isn't offered as described by Trainline, they're the only one at fault in this instance because they're the only one that advertised it.
The customer is entitled to rely on what Trainline tells him about what he is buying.
I guess that in law the two companies may be jointly liable for a breach of contract. We can see that one company should bear greater responsibility but that doesn't alter the legal position.
Section 50 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 would likely make the provision of first class catering a term of the contract (as in, the contract for travel which the passenger would have with EMR) under the circumstances. The fact that this is based on a statement made by Trainline on behalf of EMR doesn't change the legal position.
So whilst Trainline are clearly at fault in practical terms, the passenger would nonetheless have recourse against EMR if the catering is not provided, and may find it easier to pursue them than Trainline.
EMR could then try to pursue Trainline for any costs/reimbursement that they have paid out, but that would be a matter solely between them. It would be subject to whichever contractual or other avenues EMR may have for recovering damages/losses.
I certainly didn't intend "the only one at fault" to be taken to mean "the only one liable". By licensing third party retailers to sell tickets, I quite understand that the TOCs may well make themselves jointly liable for certain things.
I went to check again and this is what it says on Trainline -
EDIT: There is no terms and conditions or mention anywhere about there being no food on sundays. Only EMR's site has that info. Most people would not go to EMR's site first.
I've not used EMT first class since the HST days of beloved memory, however I seem to recall you could still get free hot drinks at the buffet, even when the at seat service wasn't available. Don't know if this is still the case.
I've not used EMT first class since the HST days of beloved memory, however I seem to recall you could still get free hot drinks at the buffet, even when the at seat service wasn't available. Don't know if this is still the case.
I cannot see any mention on this thread of EMR claiming to provide food on Sundays, if they never claim to provide it I cannot see how they can be liable for anything.
I cannot see any mention on this thread of EMR claiming to provide food on Sundays, if they never claim to provide it I cannot see how they can be liable for anything.
Because they have authorised Trainline to act on their behalf, and Trainline are telling the customer that food is provided. The customer doesn't need to second-guess the information given by Trainline.
I went to check again and this is what it says on Trainline -
EDIT: There is no terms and conditions or mention anywhere about there being no food on sundays. Only EMR's site has that info. Most people would not go to EMR's site first.
I don't doubt those with legal expertise, but its not half daft in the 'court of common sense' that a third party retailer can make incorrect claims about someone else's service and then it's the service provider themselves who are on the hook.
The private company gets the money (via commission, ad revenue, selling data, whatever) but its the government-funded train operator (so indirectly the taxpayer) that's on the hook for costs dealing with the subsequent reimbursement or whatever when the service which they themselves never actually promised, wasn't delivered? As a third party retailer you could just claim whatever you wanted to in order to drive sales and leave the fallout to someone else. The law can sometimes be a very strange beast.
(Whether or not any potentially actionable comments I may make about Trainline are meant to be taken seriously may vary depending on various factors unknown to and unknowable by Trainline).
I don't doubt those with legal expertise, but its not half daft in the 'court of common sense' that a third party retailer can make incorrect claims about someone else's service and then it's the service provider themselves who are on the hook.
The private company gets the money (via commission, ad revenue, selling data, whatever) but its the government-funded train operator (so indirectly the taxpayer) that's on the hook for costs dealing with the subsequent reimbursement or whatever when the service which they themselves never actually promised, wasn't delivered? As a third party retailer you could just claim whatever you wanted to in order to drive sales and leave the fallout to someone else. The law can sometimes be a very strange beast.
That could be argued to be harsh on the train operator but they should have contractual mechanisms that allow them to hold their authorised agents accountable.
Also consider what would happen if you couldn't rely on what authorised third parties said. You would always have to double check everything you saw on a retailer's website/app. You couldn't be certain the ticket you bought was valid for the trains you selected. Customers could be penalised for travelling with tickets they entirely legitimately thought were valid.
That is a position so much harsher on the disadvantaged party that it makes sense the law of agency works this way.
I don't doubt those with legal expertise, but its not half daft in the 'court of common sense' that a third party retailer can make incorrect claims about someone else's service and then it's the service provider themselves who are on the hook.
The private company gets the money (via commission, ad revenue, selling data, whatever) but its the government-funded train operator (so indirectly the taxpayer) that's on the hook for costs dealing with the subsequent reimbursement or whatever when the service which they themselves never actually promised, wasn't delivered? As a third party retailer you could just claim whatever you wanted to in order to drive sales and leave the fallout to someone else. The law can sometimes be a very strange beast.
9.1. The Agent, when providing Train Service Information or selling Rail Products under this Agreement shall at all times act fairly and impartially between Operators and must ensure that any such Train Service Information or Rail Product information is factual, accurate and impartial, to the fullest extent possible given the accuracy of the information provided under the RSP Data Licence.
9.6. The Agent shall not undertake advertising, promotional or commercial activities which are misleading, inaccurate or may amount to a misrepresentation
I make no representation as to whether Trainline's feature here represents a breach of these conditions or not, but the key here is that operators do have relevant conditions in the license agreement - it is not quite the "wild west" PupCuff alluded it could be.
If a market participant is of the opinion that their own authorised reseller is entering into contracts on their behalf which aren't lawful in some way, they must raise this themselves, up to and including legal action, as a matter of urgency, seeking to correct it at the earliest opportunity. Not to do so would strongly imply to me a tacit approval. To post something which contradicts the information applied at the point of sale at some other location, such as a Web page which there's not even a link to, doesn't seem terribly relevant to anything.
Of course, likelihood is that the real explanation here is that EMR aren't aware of the problem, or if they are aware of it, haven't taken steps to resolve it. Once the OP's contact is read they then would be aware, of course. Whose fault is this? I don't know rightly, but it plainly isn't the OP's.
I don't doubt those with legal expertise, but its not half daft in the 'court of common sense' that a third party retailer can make incorrect claims about someone else's service and then it's the service provider themselves who are on the hook.
The private company gets the money (via commission, ad revenue, selling data, whatever) but its the government-funded train operator (so indirectly the taxpayer) that's on the hook for costs dealing with the subsequent reimbursement or whatever when the service which they themselves never actually promised, wasn't delivered? As a third party retailer you could just claim whatever you wanted to in order to drive sales and leave the fallout to someone else. The law can sometimes be a very strange beast.
I would expect if EMR paid compensation to a consumer in these circumstances that they would have a very strong case indeed to bill that back to the retailer, no doubt with their reasonable costs of complaints handling and an administration fee added on. I don't think there's too much inconsistency in the law here. I think the problem is entirely one of the combined industry's own making.
== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: ==
Also consider what would happen if you couldn't rely on what authorised third parties said. You would always have to double check everything you saw on a retailer's website/app. You couldn't be certain the ticket you bought was valid for the trains you selected. Customers could be penalised for travelling with tickets they entirely legitimately thought were valid.
Even without the point about tickets being deemed invalid it would definitely be absurd to interpret the contract in that way. The Consumer Rights Act also offers a pretty easy statutory basis to read the contract as being in the consumer's favour here. Only one of the three parties is a consumer...
RailUK was launched on 6th June 2005 - so we've hit 20 years being the UK's most popular railway community! Read more and celebrate this milestone with us in this thread!
