GTR 'ticket acceptance'

[pitdiver]

I went through Flitwick station this morning and noticed that the Ticket Restrictions on the 3 Govia trains services have been reinstated. IE tickets for Thameslink only are only valid on that service.
When I pointed out to a member of staff this was illegal and could not be enforced they sort of agreed with me. I went on to say that this should be challenged in court

 

[island]

It’s changing back from 1 September.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

I went through Flitwick station this morning and noticed that the Ticket Restrictions on the 3 Govia trains services have been reinstated. IE tickets for Thameslink only are only valid on that service.
When I pointed out to a member of staff this was illegal and could not be enforced they sort of agreed with me.

If anyone is challenged, pay any demanded excess and then contact GTR to obtain a refund.

I went on to say that this should be challenged in court

I very much doubt they would refuse to refund the difference in fare, as they would not want the matter to get to Court.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

It’s changing back from 1 September.

I agree that GTR's policy of accepting brand-restricted tickets on all services they operate, and not overcharging customers, is sadly coming to an end. This still does not change the legal position!

 

[island]

Nor the practical position which is that passengers seeking to use tickets for one of the GTR brands on a different brand of the same company may end up suffering a great deal of faff and nuisance.

 

[Haywain]

I went through Flitwick station this morning and noticed that the Ticket Restrictions on the 3 Govia trains services have been reinstated. IE tickets for Thameslink only are only valid on that service.

What ticket restrictions are you referring to? After all, there is no cross-TOC (or cross-brand) acceptance relevant between Flitwick and London. And I know the service can be a bit rubbish at times, but only 3 Govia services?

When I pointed out to a member of staff this was illegal and could not be enforced they sort of agreed with me. I went on to say that this should be challenged in court

I'm not sure what you hoped to achieve by suggesting to the clerk that something might be challenged in court.

 

[pitdiver]

Perhaps I should have said "Could be challenged in court if it ever came to that". The sign in the stations just mentions Southern, Thameslink and Gatwick Express. I can only assume that the idea is to tell passengers what might happen further on south of the river.

 

[Haywain]

Perhaps I should have said "Could be challenged in court if it ever came to that".

And my point was that telling the ticket clerk achieves absolutely nothing as they won't be the one defending such a case and will simply be displaying posters according to the instructions they are given.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

And my point was that telling the ticket clerk achieves absolutely nothing as they won't be the one defending such a case and will simply be displaying posters according to the instructions they are given.

Some ticket office clerks may not even be aware of the legal position. That way at least they will be aware of it.

 

[transmanche]

Some ticket office clerks may not even be aware of my opinion. That way at least they will be aware of it.

Fixed that for you.

I'm not going to get into the whys and wherefores again - especially as it seems to result in a lot of abuse coming my way. But just because certain people on this forum believe their interpretation of the rules to be true, it doesn't actually make it so. I feel sorry for anyone who gets caught out following the 'advice' of certain people in the long-running brand name v TOC argument.

By all means, test it in court yourself you believe it so. But please don't encourage others to do so.

 

[island]

^This

 

[pitdiver]

Forgot to mention I was speaking to the Booking Clerk as a friend known her for about 10 years.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Fixed that for you.

I'm not going to get into the whys and wherefores again - especially as it seems to result in a lot of abuse coming my way. But just because certain people on this forum believe their interpretation of the rules to be true, it doesn't actually make it so. I feel sorry for anyone who gets caught out following the 'advice' of certain people in the long-running brand name v TOC argument.

By all means, test it in court yourself you believe it so. But please don't encourage others to do so.

I'm not going to go into the argument either, but as far as I see it this is no different to the question of whether you can take a next train if you have multiple split Advances and are delayed en-route. 5 years ago there was very mixed opinion about it on the forum. Today I don't think there's anyone who really disagrees with the fact that you can take a next train.

A restriction like "Thameslink only" is, under the terms of the NRCoT, no different to saying "Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd. only". If you comply with that requirement then you have complied with the restrictions of your ticket.

GTR, and the DfT, who knowingly allow this campaign of misinformation and fraud to continue, will get their comeuppance at some point - and it will hopefully happen much sooner than people think.

 

[Bletchleyite]

A restriction like "Thameslink only" is, under the terms of the NRCoT, no different to saying "Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd. only". If you comply with that requirement then you have complied with the restrictions of your ticket.

GTR also seem to agree (on the quiet), and routinely refund anyone who makes a complaint about the issue of PFs or sale of replacement tickets in these cases.

Though isn't it the case at the moment that due to disruption all GTR tickets are promoted as valid on all GTR trains anyway?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

GTR also seem to agree (on the quiet), and routinely refund anyone who makes a complaint about the issue of PFs or sale of replacement tickets in these cases.

Though isn't it the case at the moment that due to disruption all GTR tickets are promoted as valid on all GTR trains anyway?

That is the issue - they are withdrawing the mutual and recognised inter-brand acceptance. Doing so is in many ways worse than wrongly refusing inter-brand use generally - as they cannot claim it is merely a few "rogue" staff who are responsible.

 

[Haywain]

they are withdrawing the mutual and recognised inter-brand acceptance.

That they introduced only a couple of months ago. It simply reinstates the previous long-standing (and disputed) arrangements.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

That they introduced only a couple of months ago. It simply reinstates the previous long-standing (and disputed) arrangements.

The fact that they are actively "re-introducing" restrictions, and representing that brand-restricted tickets will no longer be valid on other GTR brands, is the serious part here. Before they could always argue that it was just duff information being given by individual ticket offices or members of staff - but having a clearly thought out policy of advertising that brand-restricted tickets are not valid on other GTR brands shows that they did it knowingly and cannot claim ignorance. I hope and expect them, and the DfT, to be dragged over the coals over this.

 

[yorkie]

Fixed that for you.

I'm not going to get into the whys and wherefores again - especially as it seems to result in a lot of abuse coming my way. But just because certain people on this forum believe their interpretation of the rules to be true, it doesn't actually make it so. I feel sorry for anyone who gets caught out following the 'advice' of certain people in the long-running brand name v TOC argument.

By all means, test it in court yourself you believe it so. But please don't encourage others to do so.

You are incorrect (both in your argument and your spurious claims of recieving "abuse"); the Ticketing Settlement Agreement has no provision for brand specific restrictions, and the contractual terms don't either.

As for whether it might one day be tested in court, and what might happen... I couldn't possibly comment at this stage...

However what I do know is that, for the average passenger, anyone who is requested to pay a supplement / excess / penalty fare and who requests a refund is likely to get one, based on the fact that everyone who I've advised so far has been successful in obtaining at least a full 100 per cent refund, and sometimes an additional goodwill payment too.

You can twist things to suit your pro-GTR argument if you want but you can't change the TSA, contractual terms, or the fact everyone I've assisted has been successful, though I understand you don't see that success in a positive light, but that's your choice.

I've not yet had to enlist the assistance of the barristers I play football with, but I have briefed one of them and he is on standby if required.

And just in case anyone is reading this who has been charged extra, please do contact me via direct conversation message.

 

[pitdiver]

I just wonder as a PTAC holder would I be challenged if found to be travelling on a Southern or GX service whilst holding a Thameslink only service ticket.
Possibly not, come to think of it as I would have more than likely been issued with "Any Permitted Route" ticket. Perhaps I should give it a try.