Groupsave and XC

[embers25]

Travelled with XC from Birmingham to Reading today and the Guard was raking in the money with upgrades from Groupsave tickets which XC don't accept. To be fair to him he did say he hoped XC would soon start accepting them not they were part of DB like Chiltern but equally he could ahve warned people during the 5 mins we were sat at Leamington and Banbury.

The issue here is that the people he was upgrading were all Chiltern passengers that were following the instructions on the departure screens at Leamington telling them for travel to London they needed to travel via Oxford due to the engineering works. To be fair to Chiltern their website today states that only fGW are taking tickets not XC but the station departure screens didn't say that.

Also tomorrow XC are taking tickets from Oxford to Birmingham however the guard stated that XC have instructed groupsave still won't be valid. How can that be allowed as if XC are the only alternative and agree to take tickets they should take all tickets and if not it should be clearly stated for all passengers.

 

[yorkie]

I'd have refused to pay if I was them, in accordance with the NCoC.

This topic has been done to death.

B. VALIDITY OF TICKETS
10. Tickets valid only in trains of particular Train Companies
The validity of a ticket may:
a) be restricted to; or
b) prohibit
travel in the trains of a particular Train Company or Train Companies. Any such restriction
or prohibition will be shown on the ticket. If you travel in a train with a ticket that is not
valid, the relevant parts of Condition 2 or 4 will apply.

If under Route they said "Not XC" or "Chiltern Only" then XC would be acting correctly.

I would have advised the passengers to challenge the guard, and asked what the Conditions of Carriage actually said.

I'll fully support guards if someone was on a TOC-specific ticket on the wrong TOC for no good reason, but when a guard disregards the Conditions of Carriage (whether told to or not!) then that is unacceptable and should be challenged.

The Conditions of Carriage should be followed.

 

[mumrar]

If under Route they said "Not XC" or "Chiltern Only" then XC would be acting correctly.

Whilst I agree that NCoC have been followed, as the tickets are not accepted by XC then surely the pricing/issuing cannot be down to XC as they don't set prices/conditions for tickets that they don't accept I'd guess.

but when a guard disregards the Conditions of Carriage (whether told to or not!) then that is unacceptable and should be challenged.
The Conditions of Carriage should be followed.

The guard isn't disregarding NCoC, but there is clearly a conflict between the ticket and the non-acceptance on XC. What the guard is saying is not incorrect, but it is contradicted by what NCoC says will happen with a ticket restricted in that way.

 

[scotsman]

equally he could ahve warned people during the 5 mins we were sat at Leamington and Banbury

Had to have a dig at the Guard, didn't we?

 

[yorkie]

Whilst I agree that NCoC have been followed, as the tickets are not accepted by XC then surely the pricing/issuing cannot be down to XC as they don't set prices/conditions for tickets that they don't accept I'd guess.

That's an internal railway matter and not of concern to the consumer. If it really is that difficult for XC to get the TOC who sets the fare to route them "Not XC" then perhaps they should just participate and gain the revenue? I suspect the reasons XC do not do this is because they think they can take more revenue by charging people for brand new tickets. This may work in the short term, but in the long term it will put people off rail travel.

The guard isn't disregarding NCoC, but there is clearly a conflict between the ticket and the non-acceptance on XC. What the guard is saying is not incorrect, but it is contradicted by what NCoC says will happen with a ticket restricted in that way.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on that!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Had to have a dig at the Guard, didn't we?

It's a perfectly reasonable suggestion though.

If you're going to not comply with the Conditions of Carriage, at least warn people and give them the chance to get off the train!!!

 

[scotsman]

If you're going to not comply with the Conditions of Carriage, at least warn people and give them the chance to get off the train!!!

What's to say he/she knew?

 

[yorkie]

What's to say he/she knew?

Knew what? That he disregards the National Rail Conditions of Carriage?

If a guard intends to make a claim that passengers using tickets routed "Any Permitted" (or similar) are, in fact, TOC-specific tickets, and intends to charge them as if they were, then that guard really should warn people because otherwise they will fully expect their tickets to be accepted by any operator in accordance with the National Rail Conditions of Carriage. Otherwise, how are passengers supposed to know? Their tickets state, under Route, Any Permitted. It is this Route field where TOC restrictions are to be published, where they exist.

The idea that a guard can disregard that, and charge people without warning, is absurd and must be challenged.

I'd love to see this go to court, but I bet XC wouldn't take a case to court....

 

[embers25]

The guard was very apologetic but insistent on the very hefty upgrades being paid. I've seen the same happen on the once a day Guildford-Reading XC which catches out people. Also in Devon. One person did argue saying her ticket said route "any permitted" to which the guard responded correctly that it also says validity "as advertised" and the groupsave website will confirm XC don't accept groupsave. The issue is when during engineering works the normal combined multi operator service is replaced by one sole operator who don't accept Groupsave. Also Exeter St Davids are very careful to inform you that you can't use XC but apparently Leamington and Oxford don't. I didn't confront the guard as "technically" today he was right as Chiltern only said tickets accepted by fGW but for Sunday they say use XC and so he's wrong about tomorrow. I did advise all the pax I saw him excess to keep their tickets and ask for refund forms as they should get their money back in this case. I explained the situation so they weren't as mad at the guard (yes I actually defended a guard!!!) and told them to add that to their refund docs to add weight to their argument.

 

[yorkie]

One person did argue saying her ticket said route "any permitted" to which the guard responded correctly that it also says validity "as advertised"

"Validity" is for time restrictions. It's not rocket science and a guard should know that! NCoC states that route/TOC restrictions should be printed on the ticket, and the field for this is "Route"

If a ticket is valid at all times it will say "One Month", "Five Days", "On Date Shown", in the case of Advance tickets it will say "BookedTrainOnly". In the case of Off Peak tickets where there is a restriction code, it cannot have the full restriction text therefore it says "See restrictions" an example may be "Valid on all trains at or after 0930", or "Valid for trains due to arrive London Terminals at or after 1000" these examples are among the shortest examples I could think of, yet are too long to fit on a ticket, so you can imagine that the more detailed ones are even worse! (for example if they have evening peak restrictions).

A guard can't legitimately refuse a ticket that states under Route that is valid on any TOC and then claim that a time restriction prevents the use on a particular TOC, and deny knowledge of the NCoC obligations that TOC restrictions are shown on the ticket. (Note: ON THE TICKET does not mean look on a website!) What part of ON THE TICKET can this guard not understand?

No wonder people take to their cars instead of travelling by train.

If a guard refuses to adhere to the NCoC, how can that guard expect passengers to adhere to it?!

Just had a thought: Last month I got GroupSave tickets that were for Anytime Day tickets. I am sure they said Validity: On Date Shown. What would the guard say then?! Would he make something else up?!

 

[Failed Unit]

I really don't like it when ticket have as advertised on them, you buy a ticket from a booking office and you have to search the internet to find out what trains your tickets are really valid on? Surely in this case they should just put not XC on the route! I have been caught out on another thread for not know what is advertised, when I looked on the web to find out what was advertised it said try pointing the time you want to advertise into a journey planner FFS. I know it is a waste of paper but if you are going to sell a ticket "as advertised" the really they should had out the said restrictions at the point of sale!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

A guard can't legitimately refuse a ticket that states under Route that is valid on any TOC and then claim that a time restriction prevents the use on a particular TOC, and deny knowledge of the NCoC obligations that TOC restrictions are shown on the ticket. Note: ON THE TICKET does not mean look on a website!) What part of ON THE TICKET can this guard not understand?

Sore point with me at the moment Yorkie and SouthEastern at the moment as per other thread. The website then telling you to put the times you want to use into a journey planner. Depends on how much SouthEastern annoy me with thier reponses to see if a visit to the small claims court is worthwhile.

 

[penaltyfines]

"Validity" is for time restrictions. It's not rocket science and a guard should know that! NCoC states that route/TOC restrictions should be printed on the ticket, and the field for this is "Route"

If a ticket is valid at all times it will say "One Month", "Five Days", "On Date Shown", in the case of Advance tickets it will say "BookedTrainOnly". In the case of Off Peak tickets where there is a restriction code, it cannot have the full restriction text therefore it says "See restrictions" an example may be "Valid on all trains at or after 0930", or "Valid for trains due to arrive London Terminals at or after 1000" these examples are among the shortest examples I could think of, yet are too long to fit on a ticket, so you can imagine that the more detailed ones are even worse! (for example if they have evening peak restrictions).

A guard can't legitimately refuse a ticket that states under Route that is valid on any TOC and then claim that a time restriction prevents the use on a particular TOC, and deny knowledge of the NCoC obligations that TOC restrictions are shown on the ticket. (Note: ON THE TICKET does not mean look on a website!) What part of ON THE TICKET can this guard not understand?

No wonder people take to their cars instead of travelling by train.

If a guard refuses to adhere to the NCoC, how can that guard expect passengers to adhere to it?!

Just had a thought: Last month I got GroupSave tickets that were for Anytime Day tickets. I am sure they said Validity: On Date Shown. What would the guard say then?! Would he make something else up?!

Quite agree.

This is precisely why Penalty Fares are not fair on the customer. If the customer has to follow the CoC precisely, and whether reasonably or not have breached them, are liable for a PF.... then a customer should get £20 or twice the anytime single when the Op doesn't follow them precisely.

 

[yorkie]

Quite agree.

This is precisely why Penalty Fares are not fair on the customer. If the customer has to follow the CoC precisely, and whether reasonably or not have breached them, are liable for a PF.... then a customer should get £20 or twice the anytime single when the Op doesn't follow them precisely.

While I don't disagree with the point you are making, I must point out that if a passenger is not adhering to the correct route (e.g. on XC on a Virgin only ticket) or validity (e.g. travelling at 1800 on a ticket not valid between 1730 and 1830) they are not liable for a penalty fare (your post suggests otherwise).

An excess fare should be issued in all cases of being off-route and on a time restricted ticket at an invalid time except when on a TOC specific/restricted ticket an excess is not supposed to be issued and instead a new ticket should be sold, according to some sources, however some RPIs here have informed us in the past that they will excess tickets.

 

[clagmonster]

As Yorkie says, condition 10 would appear to allow Group Save tickets to be used on Cross Country services. I do not consider showing the words 'see restrictions' on the ticket to be 'showing the restriction on the ticket', merely stating that there are some.

However, condition 1 states:
"Each ticket is issued subject to:
...
(c) the conditions which apply to Electronic Tickets, Smartcards, other
devices used for storing Electronic Tickets and certain types of reduced
and discounted fare tickets as set out in the notices and other publications
issued by the Train Companies whose trains you are entitled to use;
...
Details of how to get copies of the relevant Train Company’s notices and other publications
relevant to your journey will be available when you buy a ticket."

So if the conditions of Group Save tickets state that they are not valid on Cross Country services then there is a conflict between conditions 1 and 10. Which wins, I don't know.
However, such conditions must be made known at the point of purchase. If purchasing on the internet, then Groupsave tickets are not shown as available for itineries including travel on Cross Country (and certain other operators) services. This I feel is sufficient. Also, from a couple of enquiries I have made, booking clerks and guards make this clear when selling such tickets also. What happens with a TVM, I don't know.

 

[Ferret]

"Validity" is for time restrictions. It's not rocket science and a guard should know that! NCoC states that route/TOC restrictions should be printed on the ticket, and the field for this is "Route"

I'm afraid you're wrong on this Yorkie. There are 5 things that determine validity. You can argue until you are blue in the face that Groupsave is valid on XC but the simple fact is that it isn't. If ticket office staff do not make that clear then that's a problem that is currently costing their employers a whole load of money because XC are taking them to the cleaners over this issue, hence the appearance of posters etc on SWT ticket office windows and the information being announced via CIS.

However, in the case of XC accepting Chiltern tickets during engineering works when acceptance has been agreed, I have to say that that should include Groupsave.

 

[yorkie]

operator comes under route!

e.g. "Route: XC Only"

 

[bnm]

Conditon 1 makes mention of:

....as set out in the notices and other publications issued by the Train Companies whose trains you are entitled to use....

So if there is no notice or publication, from a TOC you are entitled to use on a GroupSave, mentioning non-acceptence by CrossCountry, then you are free to travel with them. No? That clause makes no mention of notices and publications from TOCs you aren't permitted to use. So whatever CrossCountry might say in their notices and publications is not covered by the NRCoC. So condition 1 is irrelevant and condition 10 stands.

You buy your ticket from a ticket office, the clerk makes no mention of CrossCountry not accepting it, (as happened to me recently - bought a GroupSave and could've travelled with XC - no mention from the clerk otherwise), there are no posters or other warnings on PA or CIS (some SWT trains stations do make such an announcement, but I've never heard or seen one in FGW land) and the first you hear of non-acceptance is when you are being chinged by a XC guard, who is following management diktat and gladly trousering the commission.

It's no wonder why we see so little praise of CrossCountry across rail forums!

 

[Ferret]

As Yorkie says, condition 10 would appear to allow Group Save tickets to be used on Cross Country services. I do not consider showing the words 'see restrictions' on the ticket to be 'showing the restriction on the ticket', merely stating that there are some.

However, condition 1 states:
"Each ticket is issued subject to:
...
(c) the conditions which apply to Electronic Tickets, Smartcards, other
devices used for storing Electronic Tickets and certain types of reduced
and discounted fare tickets as set out in the notices and other publications
issued by the Train Companies whose trains you are entitled to use;
...
Details of how to get copies of the relevant Train Company’s notices and other publications
relevant to your journey will be available when you buy a ticket."

So if the conditions of Group Save tickets state that they are not valid on Cross Country services then there is a conflict between conditions 1 and 10. Which wins, I don't know.
However, such conditions must be made known at the point of purchase. If purchasing on the internet, then Groupsave tickets are not shown as available for itineries including travel on Cross Country (and certain other operators) services. This I feel is sufficient. Also, from a couple of enquiries I have made, booking clerks and guards make this clear when selling such tickets also. What happens with a TVM, I don't know.

They seem to be disappearing off TVMs!!!

Just to answer Yorkie's point about legal action - I'm aware that SWT have been severely chinged by XC for the incorrect sale of Groupsave tickets. If Yorkie is so sure they are valid, can he explain why SWT didn't refuse to pay and suggested they'd see XC in Court?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Conditon 1 makes mention of:

....as set out in the notices and other publications issued by the Train Companies whose trains you are entitled to use....

So if there is no notice or publication, from a TOC you are entitled to use on a GroupSave, mentioning non-acceptence by CrossCountry, then you are free to travel with them. No? That clause makes no mention of notices and publications from TOCs you aren't permitted to use. So whatever CrossCountry might say in their notices and publications is not covered by the NRCoC. So condition 1 is irrelevant and condition 10 stands.

You buy your ticket from a ticket office, the clerk makes no mention of CrossCountry not accepting it, (as happened to me recently - bought a GroupSave and could've travelled with XC - no mention from the clerk otherwise), there are no posters or other warnings on PA or CIS (some SWT trains stations do make such an announcement, but I've never heard or seen one in FGW land) and the first you hear of non-acceptance is when you are being chinged by a XC guard, who is following management diktat and gladly trousering the commission.

It's no wonder why we see so little praise of CrossCountry across rail forums!

All the literature for Groupsave makes mention of which TOCs do Groupsave and XC is not mentioned. As I say, if the FGW ticket office did not make mention of the restriction then they could cost their employer a lot of ching. Please name them here or via PM so that the appropriate action can be taken...

 

[bnm]

Re:

SWT being chinged by XC for incorrect retailing of Groupsave. Is there any corroboration of that snippet of info or is it hearsay?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

They seem to be disappearing off TVMs!!!

Just to answer Yorkie's point about legal action - I'm aware that SWT have been severely chinged by XC for the incorrect sale of Groupsave tickets. If Yorkie is so sure they are valid, can he explain why SWT didn't refuse to pay and suggested they'd see XC in Court?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


All the literature for Groupsave makes mention of which TOCs do Groupsave and XC is not mentioned. As I say, if the FGW ticket office did not make mention of the restriction then they could cost their employer a lot of ching. Please name them here or via PM so that the appropriate action can be taken...

And there is 'literature' out there that appears contradictary, so.......

Unfair Terms in Comsumer Contracts blah blah blah.

 

[Ferret]

it came from a very good source who I cannot name here. However, it's not a total coincidence that they have put notices in their ticket office windows and started announcing via CIS that Groupsave is not valid on XC......

 

[yorkie]

They seem to be disappearing off TVMs!!!

Just to answer Yorkie's point about legal action - I'm aware that SWT have been severely chinged by XC for the incorrect sale of Groupsave tickets. If Yorkie is so sure they are valid, can he explain why SWT didn't refuse to pay and suggested they'd see XC in Court?

Can I see the details please? Then I can comment.

SWT may not be aware of this line of defence and/or it may not be as relevant when defending the sale of a product than it would be when defending the use of a product.

 

[Ferret]

Re:

And there is 'literature' out there that appears contradictary, so.......

Unfair Terms in Comsumer Contracts blah blah blah.

In which case, I'm sure SWT would love to hear from you about why you think they can retail Groupsave for XC without further penalty!

 

[bnm]

it came from a very good source who I cannot name here. However, it's not a total coincidence that they have put notices in their ticket office windows and started announcing via CIS that Groupsave is not valid on XC......

Thanks for that ferret. Explains why SWT are now taking the XC point of view. Wonder how long before other TOCs fall into line, or challenge XCs interpretation.

And that's what it boils down to - interpretation. And I will always take the interpretation more favourable to the passenger, because I am one. And where there is doubt in T&Cs (as this thread shows) then passengers are afforded some legal protection by The Unfair Terms in Consumers Contracts Legislation.

Unambiguity and clarity is all I ask for as a passenger - not the risk that every journey I make is somehow going to fall foul of a different interpretation of the rules and potentially cost me more money.

 

[Ferret]

Can I see the details please? Then I can comment.

SWT may not be aware of this line of defence and/or it may not be as relevant when defending the sale of a product than it would be when defending the use of a product.

You know I can't show you any literature Yorkie!!!!

The fact is, SWT know that XC have made it perfectly clear that Groupsave is not valid on their services and expect SWT to explain the fact. If they do not then they leave themselves wide open to claims from XC for loss of revenue for which they have no comeback. However, now that they have put notices up, they can effectively stick two fingers up at XC and say that the customers were indeed told, so it becomes a civil matter between XC and the customers concerned. I expect FGW may well be forced to follow suit soon enough.

 

[bnm]

In which case, I'm sure SWT would love to hear from you about why you think they can retail Groupsave for XC without further penalty!

Well first they can look in NFM 07, no different restriction codes for a one person CDR versus a GroupSave CDR for example. Then there's the interpretation of the NRCoC.

As for SWT apparently kowtowing to XC. I can't really offer anything further without knowing more about what went on when XC 'chinged' them. Information which you cannot share and isn't (as far as I can see) in the public domain.

 

[Wyvern]

What do we know about this?

CrossCountry Small Group product

If you want to book tickets for a smaller group – between three and nine passengers - CrossCountry Small Group tickets are available for most CrossCountry journeys.

This is an innovative ticket, allowing groups of between three and nine passengers to travel and giving savings on Advance Standard ticket prices. The tickets are subject to availability at all times, and can only be used on the service(s) specified on the ticket or accompanying reservation confirmation. Please note that these tickets are not refundable, however changes are permitted to a later service than originally booked - subject to an administration fee per passenger plus any difference in fare between the fare paid and the cheapest available fare.

Different TOCs have different subtly varying schemes for much the same things.

The benefits of privatisation?

Confused? You will be

 

[bnm]

You know I can show you any literature Yorkie!!!!

The fact is, SWT know that XC have made it perfectly clear that Groupsave is not valid on their services and expect SWT to explain the fact. If they do not then they leave themselves wide open to claims from XC for loss of revenue for which they have no comeback. However, now that they have put notices up, they can effectively stick two fingers up at XC and say that the customers were indeed told, so it becomes a civil matter between XC and the customers concerned. I expect FGW may well be forced to follow suit soon enough.

Is LENNON sufficiently robust to differentiate between a one person fare and a GS-3/GS-4 fare, I wonder. I ask because I don't know. If it isn't then XC are getting revenue anyway.

 

[yorkie]

The fact is, SWT know that XC have made it perfectly clear that Groupsave is not valid on their services and expect SWT to explain the fact.

The tickets should be routed "Not XC". Until that is done, they are technically valid in accordance with the NCoC and I would anticipate that someone with a good lawyer would have a good chance of winning a case against XC.

XC's appauling actions in not only refusing to accept the ticket, but putting passengers off rail, and taking legal action against other TOCs proves that privatisation is not working, it is costing the taxpayer huge amounts of money that is going to lawyers and shareholders.

It will be a good day for passengers and taxpayers (in the long run) on the day when it all comes to an end for Arriva on the XC franchise. That day must not be far off, unless they have a really good deal with the DfT that sees taxpayers footing the bill for XC's incomptence...

 

[Ferret]

Well first they can look in NFM 07, no different restriction codes for a one person CDR versus a GroupSave CDR for example. Then there's the interpretation of the NRCoC.

As for SWT apparently kowtowing to XC. I can't really offer anything further without knowing more about what went on when XC 'chinged' them. Information which you cannot share and isn't (as far as I can see) in the public domain.

Read the whole of the conditions of carriage. Condition 1 states that Each ticket is subject to these conditions (referring to the NRCoC as a whole) and 1c - the conditions which apply to......certain types of discounted fare tickets as set out in the notices and other publications issued by the train companies whose tr ains you are entitled to use.

If the customer has not been told of the restriction by an FGW ticket office, then XC will pursue FGW for the lost revenue. This will usually happen courtesy of the TIR process. If however, the customer is told (as SWT have been doing) then I'm afraid the Guard is right to charge the customers. Unless of course we're talking about the case stated by the OP where acceptance of Chiltern tickets has been pre-arranged......
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The tickets should be routed "Not XC". Until that is done, they are technically valid in accordance with the NCoC and I would anticipate that someone with a good lawyer would have a good chance of winning a case against XC.

XC's appauling actions in not only refusing to accept the ticket, but putting passengers off rail, and taking legal action against other TOCs proves that privatisation is not working, it is costing the taxpayer huge amounts of money that is going to lawyers and shareholders.

It will be a good day for passengers and taxpayers (in the long run) on the day when it all comes to an end for Arriva on the XC franchise. That day must not be far off, unless they have a really good deal with the DfT that sees taxpayers footing the bill for XC's incomptence...

A bit of a rant mate!!! As I say above, I think that it's unlikely to reach a Court case for now - XC will be launching into claims against other TOCs for mis-selling them. I suspect mystery shoppers may have been involved somewhere along the line but I will make clear that I don't know that for sure. However, if GW do end up having to advertise via CIS etc as SWT have done, then I can't see how anyone caught with Groupsave will have a defence. If you are told in the negotiation of a contract of restrictions prior to acceptance then that is the end of the argument and you'd have no hope of winning a case against XC.

Having said all that, it surely wouldn't take much for 'Not XC' to be printed on the ticket. I 100% agree with you that this would be a bloody good idea.

 

[bnm]

It will be a good day for passengers and taxpayers (in the long run) on the day when it all comes to an end for Arriva on the XC franchise. That day must not be far off, unless they have a really good deal with the DfT that sees taxpayers footing the bill for XC's incomptence...

.....Or DB instigate some ringing changes at Arriva. I ain't holding my breath though, but at least we've got a long established rail company running the XC TOC now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Read the whole of the conditions of carriage.

Just a little patronising, but I'll let you off. I have read the NRCoC many, many times, and there are numerous conditions that are open to interpretation or are contraditictory. Until precendents are set in a court of law they will remain so.

 

[Ferret]

.....Or DB instigate some ringing changes at Arriva. I ain't holding my breath though, but at least we've got a long established rail company running the XC TOC now.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


Just a little patronising, but I'll let you off. I have read the NRCoC many, many times, and there are numerous conditions that are open to interpretation or are contraditictory. Until precendents are set in a court of law they will remain so.

It wasn't intended to be!!! Sorry if that's how it appeared! And, good point about how many conflicting T&Cs there are. The only thing I would point out regarding this issue is that it's Condition 1 - the very first thing you come across in the Contract. I really do wish any Barrister good luck in arguing that Groupsave is valid on XC. It just seems to be a non-starter. What would be interesting for me personally was if XC did actually prosecute somebody. They'd need to prove the customer was told that Groupsave wasn't valid, but if they could then straight away you have a byelaw breach - that of boarding a train without a valid ticket. Those with a little knowledge will know that if you are reported for a byelaw offence, you are pretty much screwed - you've been reported because you did it!