It seems to me that it should be pretty simple to work out if a given service "used" to be a FGW or FGWL serviced based on the stopping pattern.
As this thread, and several before it, have shown, it is not possible for a customer to make that distinction based on publicly available information, particularly for the services that use the Oxford-Worcester-Hereford route.
Failing that, a simple request to GWR "Is <x train> classed as a FGW or FGWL service?
Can you do that before boarding the train? Will you get consistent answers from every staff member you ask? I've not tried personally, but given that staff training in the rail industry has often been shown to be "limited", I doubt it. I expect many of First GWR's staff probably wouldn't even understand the question, especially if they were hired after the two franchises were merged.
That is pretty much incorrect. You can agree to a contract without having viewed every single word of the contract word for word. I am sure every single person is entitled to examine every single detail word for word prior to forming any contract, as long as they wished to do so.
Of course you can
choose not to read the entire contract, I never said otherwise. You seem to agree that every customer is entitled to view the full details of the contract, but seem to not grasp the inescapable fact that First GWR do not make the full details available. (If they do, please point me to them.) That's not legally acceptable.
Compensation details are available to anyone requesting it, from either the relevant operator or the DfT, and must be made available if enquired about, such as at a ticket office.
Where can I see the list of which parts of First GWR's compensation scheme apply to exactly which GWR services? I can't. I can read GWR's Passenger's Charter, both online and in printed form, but it refers to "Journeys on (former) First Great Western services", "Journeys on (former) First Great Western Link services" and "Journeys on (former) Wessex Trains services", without any definition of what these terms mean. They're "undefined terms".
There's also the argument that since the company now known as First GWR ran all their services under the name "First Great Western" without visible sub-brands for a time,
all their services are, in fact, "(former) First Great Western services". The charter contains no definitions of these terms, so this interpretation is as valid as any.
Additionally, when buying a ticket from First GWR (i.e. entering into a contract for First GWR to provide a rail service in exchange for my money), it is First GWR who must make available (upon request at the time of entering into the contract) all documentation that forms part of that contract (which includes the NRCoT and the GWR Passenger's Charter). The DfT are a third party and have no such obligation.
There are only two issues I can think of which may impact on the legality of the compensation regime the customer entered into a contract for. The first one is whether it is an "unfair" term, given the fact that it is impractical for the customer to have to view details of the scheme word for word prior to purchasing the ticket each time, so a hidden unfair term would place the customer at a distinct disadvantage.
It's not just "impractical" for a customer to view the full details of the scheme. It's impossible. That information is not available to the public.
It is also an important fact that most people do not make their decision on which service to purchase a travel ticket for on the basis of the compensation scheme available. In fact, the applicable compensation scheme plays a very small, almost negligible, part in the decision making process by any customer on the whole.
That's irrelevant. In this case, the customer and the vendor have a disagreement over the interpretation of the undefined terms in the compensation scheme part of the contract. Since that part of the contract uses undefined terms, the contract is incomplete and the issue must be settled by agreement of both parties or, if necessary, a court hearing.
The purchase has already taken place. The disruption to service has already taken place. Therefore the compensation part of the contract comes into effect, but as it is incomplete, there is dispute.
I'm not personally arguing that the contract is "unfair" in the context of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (although others have brought up this possibility; personally, I don't think the lack of clarity on compensation "causes a significant imbalance in the parties’ rights and obligations" in the words of the Act), I'm arguing that the contract has missing information preventing an undisputed outcome.
Insider knowledge does not equal vested interest, otherwise much of the discussion on this forum would be pointless.
No, but trying to shut down the conversation by declaring (using the "authority" of a moderator account) "I don't think we will ever have consensus on this matter on this forum", when you appear to be the only person arguing that First GWR are "in the right" and appealing to non-public information which we're supposed to take as fact on your word does give the impression of a lack of impartiality. If you have no vested interest, surely you can state as such unambiguously?
