Flint to Euston Off Peak Return - Restriction Anomoly

[SickyNicky]

We've noticed an anomaly on restriction VK (for example, Flint to Euston). OFF-PEAK R - FLINT to LONDON TERMINALS - BR Fares
The restriction text says that the ticket isn't valid to arrive in Euston until 10.25. But the electronic restriction data is showing not valid to arrive before 10am. As expected, Avanti's own website is offering these tickets on the 07.26 (change Chester and Crewe, arrive 10.19).
I have now had two separate reports of passengers being charged an excess to the anytime fare on the Avanti service in this itinerary.

 

[gordonthemoron]

I used to use an anomaly when using an off peak return between Northampton and Knutsford during the peak, I was eventually questioned about it and they accepted that it had been bought on the Virgin website and let me off. However, the anomaly soon disappeared

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

National rail is also offering the 07.26 option arriving into Euston 10.19

 

[Class800]

Surely if the passenger had an itinerary produced with the ticket this must be accepted - I hope those incorrectly charged complained and got a favourable outcome. What the restriction code actually is meant to say is a separate matter

 

[Watershed]

It's an interesting one - the restriction code text has eminently been changed recently, as the short summary (as would be shown on TVMs for example) still reads:

NO ARR IN LDN EUS PRE 1000 Mon-Thurs

Which is rather different to the text which now reads:

Not valid on trains timed to arrive:

• London Euston after 04:29 until 10:25; (Restrictions do not apply on Fridays)

However the electronic data restrictions haven't been changed to match...

 

[LNW-GW Joint]

BR Fares actually shows both 1000 and 1025 restrictions in the same listing for VK details.
It certainly used to be 1000, and well before Covid the ex-Manchester connection at Crewe reached Euston at 1006 (the Trent Valley stops are a recent addition).
I have used that exact service on a VK ticket without issues (pre-covid).
Life's more complicated at the moment with so few North Wales-Chester-Euston direct services, notably the 0817 Flint-Euston arr 1038 which currently terminates at Crewe.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If an itinerary has been issued, this is a contract for travel, and so staff should not be excessing people. I wonder if they would if it was bought from the Avanti site?

 

[Watershed]

BR Fares actually shows both 1000 and 1025 restrictions in the same listing for VK details.
It certainly used to be 1000, and pre-Covid the ex-Manchester connection at Crewe reached Euston at 1004.
I have used that exact service on a VK ticket without issues (pre-covid).
Life's more complicated at the moment with so few North Wales-Chester-Euston direct services, notably the 0817 Flint-Euston arr 1038 which currently terminates at Crewe.

Indeed, they could hardly demonstrate a more customer unfriendly approach if they tried. Axe virtually all through trains and make the time restrictions much more onerous than before.

 

[SickyNicky]

The issue here isn't the restriction code anomaly, but more that (as is often the case) train staff seem to be ignoring the fact that the passenger has an itinerary from an accredited site. I have no doubt that the customers will be refunded, but really this shouldn't have been an issue.

The train staff should have passed the ticket and made a note to their control to have the ticket and itinerary looked at.

 

[Watershed]

The issue here isn't the restriction code anomaly, but more that (as is often the case) train staff seem to be ignoring the fact that the passenger has an itinerary from an accredited site. I have no doubt that the customers will be refunded, but really this shouldn't have been an issue.

The train staff should have passed the ticket and made a note to their control to have the ticket and itinerary looked at.

Unfortunately I doubt that even a case like this, where numerous people have been affected and are represented by a retailer who fights their corner, will result in any notable changes being made.

The railway will continue illegally overcharging people, just as it always has. And it will continue to (by and large) get away with it, just as it always has.

Even where there is evidence suggesting overcharging on a massive scale, it still takes years for there to be any recourse, and the only people who really end up winning are the lawyers.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

Avanti staff can be particularly harsh on the North Wales coast. Many Passengers are used to TfW easy going attitude to rules and have quite a shock when boarding an Avanti service.

 

[Wallsendmag]

Just a question from left field here, has anyone thought of contacting the Avanti pricing manager?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Just a question from left field here, has anyone thought of contacting the Avanti pricing manager?

It's fairly common for anomalies to be fixed simply by posting here, so give it a week or two

 

[SickyNicky]

Just a question from left field here, has anyone thought of contacting the Avanti pricing manager?

I'm quite sure that's been done, yes. But sometimes posting here is quite effective as well.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

It's fairly common for anomalies to be fixed simply by posting here, so give it a week or two.

Which way though? Often the fix isn't one which is necessarily in the travelling public's favour!

 

[Kite159]

Which way though? Often the fix isn't one which is necessarily in the travelling public's favour!

And knowing Avanti it will be in their favour

 

[kieron]

It's an interesting one - the restriction code text has eminently been changed recently, as the short summary (as would be shown on TVMs for example) still reads:

I've had a look at the VK restriction in a fewer older fare lists, going back to 16/9/2015. All the ones I've checked quote "PRE 1000" in the short description, either for M-F or Mon-Thurs. The restriction data starts off with a "not valid before 1025" restriction, before changing to 0945 before 31/3/2020 and reverting to 1025 by 9/6/2020. It then changes to 1001 at some point between 13/7/21 and 3/8/21.

I don't have records of the long restriction string, but a copy on archive.org from 12/12/2016 gives it as not valid before 10:26, and the current version shows before 10:01. I have no idea when this changed, though.

The fact that the short description quoted 1000 suggests that it has been 1000 (or thereabouts) at some point in the more distant past, but the only changes I know of from the last year made them more generous.

None of this matters if front line staff are free to make up their own rules, though.