Groupsave and XC

[yorkie]

Yes there is acceptance with the Micklefield example! It's demonstrated in Condition 19 (I think!).

Do you admit that for a York to Micklefield season there is no "contract with XC", and a Micklefield to Leeds SDS there is no "contract with XC"?

They only become valid for travel on XC when they are presented together. At the time of purchase of either of them, no contract is formed with XC, clearly. So when the ticket is purchased as you said 'You should show how there is an offer, acceptance of that offer and consideration moving between the two parties' how can there be for either of these products?

The only logical conclusion that can possibly be reached is that this waffle about contracts is quite simply wrong. TOCs are obliged to accept tickets in accordance with the NCoC and cannot get out of it by saying "but we didn't accept that contract with you"

The only bit we aren't sure about is consideration - well, we never will be! Groupsave on the other hand - we know that there is no offer or acceptance between the customer and XC - no contract therefore.

I think you have to simply accept the fact that XC choose to accept all National Rail tickets on valid routes and the alternative is to not accept them and not get ORCATS money. If these tickets were routed Not XC or SWT Only or whatever then fine, but they are Any Permitted and XC are in breach of NCoC by not accepting them.

Now, you say National Rail is the public name for ATOC - I'm happy with that, but are you seriously saying our contracts are with ATOC now?! Really?!

It clearly must be a condition of XC's franchise agreement with the DfT to accept all valid tickets in accordance with ATOC's National Rail Conditions of Carriage, and the Routeing Guide. The argument that "this company does not have a contract with this customer" is a null and void argument. The NCoC and RG will determine which routes a customer is entitled to use, and if a train operates over that route, then that company is obliged to accept tickets as applicable, unless there is a restriction barring the use of that companies train "shown on the ticket".

Do you admit there is nothing "shown on the ticket" in my example to indicate that the GroupSave tickets described are not valid on a XC train between Newport and Gloucester?

 

[asylumxl]

There's only one phrase which describes Groupsave not being valid on XC.

Bull****

Is it just me or does XC seem to be able to get away with alot with the government and authorities?

 

[yorkie]

To go back to this post...

- I'm aware that SWT have been severely chinged by XC for the incorrect sale of Groupsave tickets.

... if the customers were in breach of the NCoC, then SWT would not have been chinged, and the customers would have been, surely? It sounds like SWT have had to pay XC compensation because XC carried customers on these tickets, and did not charge the customers. Can you confirm if this interpretation is correct? Also can you confirm that the customers were deemed not in breach of the NCoC because, surely, if they were, the customers would have been charged? And if the customers were charged, what is the compensation for?

 

[Ferret]

And how is Groupsave valid on XC in accordance with the NRCoC when condition 1 tells you it isn't?! Letks be honest here - you and the rest of the 'experts' are hoping to rely on the conflict between conditions 1 and 10 to force XC to accept Groupsave. You think you've found a loophole, nothing more, nothing less. I don't call that overwhelming evidence at all!!!

I on the other hand am looking at all the evidence - the literature on Groupsave for a start which is pretty damn explicit and has contractual relevance as stated by condition 1. Now, if all of you are so convinced that Groupsave is valid, go and tell SWT who I'm sure will be most grateful for the information and can recoup their losses!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

To go back to this post...

... if the customers were in breach of the NCoC, then SWT would not have been chinged, and the customers would have been, surely? It sounds like SWT have had to pay XC compensation because XC carried customers on these tickets, and did not charge the customers. Can you confirm if this interpretation is correct? Also can you confirm that the customers were deemed not in breach of the NCoC because, surely, if they were, the customers would have been charged? And if the customers were charged, what is the compensation for?

Same issue as East Coast Superbreak tickets as I've explained
previously. Who do you go after? The unsuspecting customer who thinks he's valid or the incompetents who mis-sold the tickets?

 

[yorkie]

And how is Groupsave valid on XC in accordance with the NRCoC when condition 1 tells you it isn't?!
Letks be honest here - you and the rest of the 'experts' are hoping to rely on the conflict between conditions 1 and 10 to force XC to accept Groupsave. You think you've found a loophole, nothing more, nothing less. I don't call that overwhelming evidence at all!!!

Except it doesn't actually say that. If you rely on that argument, you may as well rip up most of the NCoC! You'd certainly be abolishing condition 10 as you are saying condition 10 is worthless! In fact, you could rip-up the entire NCoC and simply say "Look in obscure leaflets for the conditions of your specific ticket" - that is effectively what you are saying!

I on the other hand am looking at all the evidence - the literature on Groupsave for a start

Which many customers won't be aware of, and shouldn't need to be!

which is pretty damn explicit and has contractual relevance as stated by condition 1. Now, if all of you are so convinced that Groupsave is valid, go and tell SWT who I'm sure will be most grateful for the information and can recoup their losses!

Actually, no that doesn't work. XC are not getting revenue for these tickets, either because they refuse to participate (highly likely) or SWT won't let them (unlikely). So what would happen is XC would get more income, from the sale of these tickets. So money would go from SWT to XC. This isn't benefiting SWT. On the other hand XC wouldn't be happy either as it would make them look silly for not accepting them. I can't really see a solution being reached, and it is ridiculous that a TOC is suing another TOC over this issue.

Same issue as East Coast Superbreak tickets as I've explained
previously. Who do you go after? The unsuspecting customer who thinks he's valid or the incompetents who mis-sold the tickets?

You are not answering the questions. If you don;t know the answers, can you ask the person who gave you the info for more details please?

 

[Ferret]

You say that many customers aren't aware of Groupsave literature. Ummm, doesn't condition one specifically tell you to read it?!

As for answering the questions, you've spectacularly avoided my one about showing offer and acceptance between XC and the customer! I on the other hand explained why XC have chosen to go for SWT by highlighting another example, that of EC Superbreak tickets. No contract with XC, it's an EC product. No contractual obligations on XC whatsoever - agreed? So, as it actually states on those tickets EC trains only, would you say XC are well within their legal rights to charge the customers concerned? Only XC haven't been doing that, they've lampooned the companies who have mis-sold the tickets in the first place, as they are entitled to do.

 

[yorkie]

You say that many customers aren't aware of Groupsave literature. Ummm, doesn't condition one specifically tell you to read it?!

The way I read it, the onus is on the seller.
"If a Train Company’s special conditions apply to the use of a ticket, the seller will make these clear to you."
I also don't think that a TOC-restriction is a 'special' condition; it's a standard condition dealt with in Condition 10.

You are saying Condition 10 is irrelevant and can be ignored?

As for answering the questions, you've spectacularly avoided my one about showing offer and acceptance between XC and the customer!

As I said before, I believe that railway ticketing works in a different way to whatever you've been taught. It's quite unique. TOCs are obliged to accept all tickets on permitted routes in accordance with the NCoC. Can you find any other industry where this is the case that we can use as a comparison?

The offer and acceptance issue can't be used to wriggle out of it, because you can't argue that this applies specifically between XC and the customer in the case of a Micklefield to York ticket, therefore there is no need for it to specifically apply between XC and the customer for any other ticket. The customer has a contract with 'the railway' as far as the customer is concerned. That includes XC if XC is operating a train over a permitted route for their tickets.

I on the other hand explained why XC have chosen to go for SWT by highlighting another example, that of EC Superbreak tickets. No contract with XC, it's an EC product. No contractual obligations on XC whatsoever - agreed? So, as it actually states on those tickets EC trains only, would you say XC are well within their legal rights to charge the customers concerned? Only XC haven't been doing that, they've lampooned the companies who have mis-sold the tickets in the first place, as they are entitled to do.

These tickets state EC Only on them? If so, how are customers ending up on XC trains? If they are given a reservation on an XC train or advised to get an XC train in their itinerary then obviously the customer cannot be charged. Otherwise, I would say XC are within their rights to charge a new ticket in the case of an EC Only ticket.

 

[Ferret]

They are ending up on XC trains because they have reservations for them! Like I say - no contractual obligations on XC at all but yet XC choose to deal with it by recovering the lost revenue from the seller who messed up! That's why SWT have similarly been lampooned over Groupsave - I guess it's the fair thing to do if the customer is misinformed.

And, if you're saying XC are in breach of contract by not honouring GPS-3/4 tickets, then yes the concept of offer/acceptance is relevant! That's the basics of how you determine a contract exists! Now, if you were to argue that SWT were in breach of their obligations for not printing on the tickets 'Not XC', maybe you'd have a point. No Court in the land (in muy opinion) would ever find that negligence on the part of somebody could ever lay a contractual obligation on an uninvolved third party though, which in effect is what I think you're saying.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
just a further point - you say that as far as the customer is concerned, they hold a ticket with 'the railway'. Sorry mate, that won't wash in Court. They will look at exactly which company you have a contract with, not some mythical catch-all title like 'the railway'! Again, XC have never advertised Groupsave, it's not an XC product! If the Court can find no offer and acceptance between XC and Customer then any attempt to claim that XC are in breach of contract would result in a very spectacular fail.

 

[yorkie]

They are ending up on XC trains because they have reservations for them! Like I say - no contractual obligations on XC at all but yet XC choose to deal with it by recovering the lost revenue from the seller who messed up! That's why SWT have similarly been lampooned over Groupsave - I guess it's the fair thing to do if the customer is misinformed.

So you admit that in certain circumstances customers are not charged for GroupSave tickets. That's what I thought. Interesting. That suggests to me that the customers are not in breach of the NCoC. It also suggests that XC do actually realise they are obliged to accept tickets in accordance with the NCoC and that they can't use the "our contract isn't with you" excuse.

 

[Ferret]

I've never denied that Yorkie!!! My opinion though is that the issue is dealt with that way in the interests in fairness. Like I say, the EC Superbreak tickets are clearly marked 'East Coast Services Only' so Customers on board XC trains are arguably in breach of the CoC but yet, they can present a ressie for an XC train. Morally, are they in the wrong? No. Legally, well, possibly they are. But could you drag a customer before a Court on these grounds? I'd say not. You may well win the legal argument, but what about your reputation?

 

[clagmonster]

As I've said before, with a groupsave ticket, which is apparantely not valid/accepted on Cross Country, there are two possible parties who are in breach of condition 10.
Possibility 1, which Yorkie supports, is that Cross Country are wrong and that the tickets are valid on Cross Country.
Possibility 2, which Ferret seems to supports, is that the ticket retailers are in breach of condition 10 by incorrectly issuing the ticket by not printing the operator restriction.

I am unsure as to which is correct, but as long as Cross Country are completing TIRs and going after the issuing companies to cough up, then passengers aren't really being unduly hassled.

Condition 1 states that any ticket restrictions should be published in the relevent companies' publications, which will be made available at the point of purchase. The best report I can see of this being done is the posters at SWT stations which state that groupsave is not valid on Cross Country. This at least provides some clarification.
Ferret, I would be most interested to see some of this literature about Groupsave which restricts the operators it is valid on.

 

[flymo]

I would be most interested to see some of this literature about Groupsave which restricts the operators it is valid on.

Some info from National Rail.

Hardly the easiest information to find on the website though.

 

[Ferret]

As I've said before, with a groupsave ticket, which is apparantely not valid/accepted on Cross Country, there are two possible parties who are in breach of condition 10.
Possibility 1, which Yorkie supports, is that Cross Country are wrong and that the tickets are valid on Cross Country.
Possibility 2, which Ferret seems to supports, is that the ticket retailers are in breach of condition 10 by incorrectly issuing the ticket by not printing the operator restriction.

I am unsure as to which is correct, but as long as Cross Country are completing TIRs and going after the issuing companies to cough up, then passengers aren't really being unduly hassled.

Condition 1 states that any ticket restrictions should be published in the relevent companies' publications, which will be made available at the point of purchase. The best report I can see of this being done is the posters at SWT stations which state that groupsave is not valid on Cross Country. This at least provides some clarification.
Ferret, I would be most interested to see some of this literature about Groupsave which restricts the operators it is valid on.

Clagmonster,I once picked up a leaflet in the London area which told you which operators did Groupsave. Obviously XC weren't listed! I presume that leaflet is still available? As for notices at stations, I've noticed at Basingstoke a notice in the ticket office window saying that Groupsave is for SWT trains only (ummm, is BSK-RDG on FGW not possible with Groupsave then?!) So it appears SWT are now meeting their obligations in that respect. And yes, I do think that it's a possibility that both SWT and FGW are not meeting their obligations, but legally I cannot see how that would lay any obligations on XC to accept these tickets.

What XC need to do though is be consistent. The OP reports a Guard chinging Chiltern groupsaves when XC were accepting Chiltern tickets. How can this be right? Point one - if you're accepting another TOCs tickets, you don't pick and choose which types you accept, and point two - if the customers are unaware of the restriction then we know that a TIR is the correct method of dealing with the issue where customers have not been informed of the restriction as that's the only fair option.

 

[flymo]

Using the link above I posted to the National Rail website and the Groupsave section, there is no definite statement that Groupsave is not valid on XC, only that it is not offered by XC. To me that means I cannot buy such a ticket off XC but not that I cannot use it on XC.

If the NR website was more explicit it would say that the Groupsave ticket is only valid on the TOC's listed and no others.

Sorry but given the info on the NR website, I would believe I could use a Groupsave ticket on XC, just not buy it off them.

Just my 2p+VAT worth.

Waters muddier than Celtic Manor it seems.

 

[Username]

Can I just ask . . . . if Groupsave tickets were marked "NOT XC" and Condition 10 was therefore satisfied would all be well in the world? Would XC be absolved of any responsibility? Would this thread even exist?

If the above is true, then how do XC arrange for changes to be made to the Groupsave ticket when they do not subscribe to the scheme and therefore (presumably) have no say or control over them? Is it even XCs responsibility to do so, or is it the responsibility of the TOC's who do participate in the scheme to ensure that their 'product' is correctly marked to satisfy Condition 10?

It seems a bit rough to be castigating XC for something that is wrong with a scheme that they themselves are not affiliated to.

Surely the least that can be said is that until the Groupsave ticket is amended to comply with Condition 10 then XC are correct in their current actions, i.e. the passenger is still conveyed whilst not being charged anything else and XC pursue the additional revenue through the correct channels.

Where's the real downside to the passenger? Either they are advised not to travel on XC services at the point of sale and comply. Or they travel on XC services (through being unaware of any prohibition or through the belief that it is valid regardless) in which case they still travel for the fare they paid and XC seek recompense elsewhere.

Like I say . . . just asking


<< puts on tin hat and hides behind the sofa>>

 

[First class]

When you buy a ticket to travel on the National Rail Network you enter into an
agreement with the Train Companies whose trains you have the right to use. That
agreement gives you the right to make the journey or journeys between the stations or
within the zones shown on the ticket you have bought. These
Conditions are also part of that agreement and they apply to all domestic (noninternational) journeys by scheduled passenger trains of the Train Companies on the
National Rail Network.

I actually read that to be when you buy a ticket, you enter into an agreement with whatever TOC your ticket is valid on, (which XC isn't).

It then says that the NRCoC form part of that agreement.

However, it could be interpreted that if there is no agreement (which makes the NRCoC binding) with XC (as they don't accept that ticket) then the Conditions of Carriage can't apply if travelling with XC as that TOC is not part of the agreement...

It is a condition of the Passenger Licence granted to each Train Company by the Office
of Rail Regulation that these Conditions apply to tickets sold for journeys involving its
services and those of other Train Companies. There is a list of the Train Companies in
Appendix C.

--But these tickets don't (or shouldn't) involve XC services, so that suggests that the conditions can't apply with XC.

....just another point of view.

And yes, if the route was printed 'Not XC' then it would be a lot clearer. In fact, the retailer could hand write this on the ticket somewhere with the same desired effect.

 

[barrykas]

My two cents:

Just because a ticket is issued with a GroupSave DISCOUNT, it doesn't suddenly cease to be the ticket type in question, so an Off-Peak Return is still an Off-Peak Return, an Anytime Day Single is still an Anytime Day Single, etc.

Condition 10 does NOT apply, as it's the DISCOUNT, rather than the ticket type or route, that makes it not valid on XC. This is covered by Condition 12.

To take another example, should a Network Railcard discounted ticket from Aylesbury to Gatwick Airport (route London, and priced by Chiltern) be marked with a route of "Not Gatwick Express" in the same way you suggest GroupSave tickets should be routed "Not XC"?

Cheers,

Barry

 

[Ferret]

Barry, that's interesting! And First Class, yes that's pretty much what I was saying! I really do think it's becoming clear that Groupsave is (under normal circumstances) not valid on XC.

 

[Failed Unit]

There's only one phrase which describes Groupsave not being valid on XC.

Bull****

Is it just me or does XC seem to be able to get away with alot with the government and authorities?

Sorry if this was discussed earlier in the thread. Do any ex-central routes still allow groupsave? I am sure it was allowed on birmingham to nottingham and liecester in the CT days.

 

[mumrar]

All of the ex-Central routes that aren't operated by XC do yes as I believe both London Midland and EMT are part of the groupsave scheme. So it's just Birmingham-Stansted and Cardiff-Nottingham out of the old XC network that don't if that helps.

 

[Failed Unit]

All of the ex-Central routes that aren't operated by XC do yes as I believe both London Midland and EMT are part of the groupsave scheme. So it's just Birmingham-Stansted and Cardiff-Nottingham out of the old XC network that don't if that helps.

That is a pity for those that ended up with xc.

 

[clagmonster]

Condition 12 is entitled "Restrictions on when you can travel" and I believe is intended to deal with time restrictions. I suppose you could take the clause: "the trains in which they can be used" to restrict operator but surely then the issuing company would still have to to comply with condition 10 which states that such a restriction must be shown on the ticket.
In the case of your Network Railcard discount example, I believe it is condition 14 which allows railcard dicounted tickets to be further restricted than the equivalent full fare ticket. In order to comply with condition 10, I would say it would be reasonable for the railcard rather than the ticket to have 'not valid on Gatwick Express' printed on it. It could even be printed on the back. In fact, for all I know, it could be because I have never seen a Network Railcard.

Also, some groupsave tickets are issued as a separate ticket type rather than as a discount on a cheap day return or similar. Most of the EMT priced examples are like this, as are those priced by Scotrail. In some cases, such as Derby-Nottingham, the tickets are routed 'E Mids Trains' only making it crystal clear that they are not valid on Cross Country.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
One thing that I have recently just is that there are a couple of flowes involving Spondon whereby there are both route any permitted and route E Mids Trains Only groupsave day fares. I think one of the flows is Spondon-Derby. In all cases, there are no other ticket types routed groupsave day and both tickets have the same restriction code. All tickets for both flows are priced by EMT.
The only possible gain in validity that I can see in buying the more expensive any permitted tickets is if they are valid on Cross Country, which suggests to me that it is the intention of whoever at EMT priced these tickets that they would be valid on Cross Country. Whether they actually are though, I admit that I am unsure.

 

[swt_passenger]

Where?

I've not heard any announcements at SWT stations about Groupsave tickets not being valid, as of yesterday. All XC services have "Groupsave tickets NOT VALID" on the CIS, but no audio announcements.

I definitely heard an audio announcement about Groupsave not being valid on XC at Basingstoke this afternoon, but it wasn't part of a particular 'train service announcement' - it was one of those general announcement like no smoking, security, no skateboarding etc, so just part of the background noise.

It was probably around about the right time for someone to hear if they were waiting for a normally timed Up direction service, but there wasn't one that hour due to the diversions via Laverstock...