Network Card restrictions

[microrich]

I've had a network railcard for a few years, and thought I was fairly familiar with the restrictions on this card - which as well as not valid before 10am on Monday to Friday, include:

• cannot be used for Advance tickets
• £13 minimum fare Monday to Friday

These restrictions are in the T&C's for the card as well as being clearly stated on the railcard website.

I was therefore slightly surprised to see tickets that appear to break both these restrictions being sold for East Midlands Railway trains (on both their own website and other ticketing websites such as trainsplit).

For example (there are many):

Wednesday 7th Feb, Advance Single on 12:15 from St Pancras to Bedford, £5.65 (non-railcard price £8.60).

Are these mistakes, or am I mis-understanding the restrictions?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd agree with you this shouldn't be the case. I wonder does that Advance fare have an unusual ticket type so it isn't correctly excluded?

 

[CyrusWuff]

I'd agree with you this shouldn't be the case. I wonder does that Advance fare have an unusual ticket type so it isn't correctly excluded?

It's a perfectly normal EMR Advance ticket type that's been in use for several years (possibly even back to MML days) so I'm not sure why it's allowing an NSE discount.

 

[4COR]

Of course, by posting here, these will possibly now be fixed up...

 

[Bletchleyite]

Of course, by posting here, these will possibly now be fixed up...

As this isn't a legitimate anomaly (though arguably if sold it should be honoured) then it's probably best if it is, to save an unwitting purchaser getting aggro.

 

[4COR]

As this isn't a legitimate anomaly (though arguably if sold it should be honoured) then it's probably best if it is, to save an unwitting purchaser getting aggro.

Another operator had an identical issue for a couple of years (from the data) and I used quite a few of them and never had issues at all. I know others who have used these tickets for years. If you're sold it, it's not the purchaser's fault if the data is wrong (vis. pricing errors elsewhere). I presume the only thing an RPI can legitimately do is issue a TIR, withdraw the ticket for investigation, and allow the passenger to continue on a zero value excess.

 

[Haywain]

I'd agree with you this shouldn't be the case. I wonder does that Advance fare have an unusual ticket type so it isn't correctly excluded?

It will because when they created the fare they allowed all railcards to get the discount, rather than actually thinking!

 

[CyrusWuff]

I'm sure it will come as no surprise to learn that BRFares is showing this has been fixed overnight.

Link: https://www.brfares.com/!expert?orig=STP&dest=BDM&rlc=NEW&period=20231203

And also for Gold Card discounts: https://www.brfares.com/!expert?orig=STP&dest=BDM&rlc=NGC&period=20231203

 

[4COR]

Confirms that the relevant pricing manager appears to read these threads then...

 

[CyrusWuff]

Confirms that the relevant pricing manager appears to read these threads then...

Or another Pricing Manager alerted them.

 

[Mike395]

For what it's worth - this is one I'm aware has been used 100s of times without issue - most of these as e-tickets so the gatelines/RPI just scanned, saw the time matched and that was that.

 

[Haywain]

For what it's worth - this is one I'm aware has been used 100s of times without issue - most of these as e-tickets so the gatelines/RPI just scanned, saw the time matched and that was that.

However, allowing the Network Railcard discount was a blatant error, so it is right that it has been corrected.

 

[redreni]

However, allowing the Network Railcard discount was a blatant error, so it is right that it has been corrected.

Right maybe. Good or bad is another debate entirely.

I'm not sure if the sticky post about "read this before posting a fares query" could be updated with a view to prompting posters to consider whether posting about a fare that they consider to be oddly cheap is a good idea?

I know in this case the OP probably wanted to know if they would be okay to buy and use this ticket without hassle from revenue protection, and didn't want to risk it without seeing what people here thought, but still, the answer "yes, you would have been fine" is no use to anybody now, is it?

And the question about whether railcard restrictions can be enforced if the passenger has bought a railcard-discounted ticket from an accredited retailer and has (and sticks to) a valid itinerary issued by that retailer could have been asked and answered without knowing which railcard, which TOC or which stations from and to.

 

[Bletchleyite]

However, allowing the Network Railcard discount was a blatant error, so it is right that it has been corrected.

Given the likelihood of hassle for people who bought this unwittingly, I would agree it's best if this sort of thing is corrected. Yes, an itinerary is by default valid, but a lot of staff would still give a passenger hassle for this. It's quite different from a case of a ticket allowing break of journey and having a wide range of permitted routes being usable to avoid paying more entirely legitimately, e.g. the use of Kings X-Haymarket* to avoid the new LNER fares trial when going to Edinburgh.

A loophole fare (totally valid even if the TOC wouldn't want it to be) is one thing, an incorrectly-sold fare that is only valid by virtue of its itinerary is quite another.

* Or if they close that loophole "in order to avoid confusion for passengers" as they may well do ( ), pick any other local station in the Edinburgh area.

 

[redreni]

Given the likelihood of hassle for people who bought this unwittingly, I would agree it's best if this sort of thing is corrected. Yes, an itinerary is by default valid, but a lot of staff would still give a passenger hassle for this. It's quite different from a case of a ticket allowing break of journey and having a wide range of permitted routes being usable to avoid paying more entirely legitimately, e.g. the use of Kings X-Haymarket* to avoid the new LNER fares trial when going to Edinburgh.

A loophole fare (totally valid even if the TOC wouldn't want it to be) is one thing, an incorrectly-sold fare that is only valid by virtue of its itinerary is quite another.

* Or if they close that loophole "in order to avoid confusion for passengers" as they may well do ( ), pick any other local station in the Edinburgh area.

Hassle of what kind?

It's an error that, upon checking the ticket, simply can't be blamed on the passenger. It can only be the retailer's fault. The passenger didn't sell the ticket. The passenger won't have insisted on the discount - it's perfectly valid to tell the journey planner that you hold a railcard and let it work out if any discount can be applied to each fare offered.

In fact, if I were a pricing manager, I'd be wondering why I hadn't found out about this error from railway staff (who will presumably have seen these tickets) rather than on a forum. If the answer is that staff don't feel they can raise concerns about this sort of thing with their company, or feel it would be pointless to do so, and would instead take it out on the passenger even though it's manifest that the passenger cannot possibly be to blame, that's a much bigger problem than any pricing error and it isn't solved by fixing a pricing error. That needs sorting out, to the extent it's true.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Hassle of what kind?

Penalty Fares or prosecution letters they have to deal with (and if they don't understand the system they may just end up paying them).

It's an error that, upon checking the ticket, simply can't be blamed on the passenger. It can only be the retailer's fault. The passenger didn't sell the ticket. The passenger won't have insisted on the discount - it's perfectly valid to tell the journey planner that you hold a railcard and let it work out if any discount can be applied to each fare offered.

In fact, if I were a pricing manager, I'd be wondering why I hadn't found out about this error from railway staff (who will presumably have seen these tickets) rather than on a forum. If the answer is that staff don't feel they can raise concerns about this sort of thing with their company, or feel it would be pointless to do so, and would instead take it out on the passenger even though it's manifest that the passenger cannot possibly be to blame, that's a much bigger problem than any pricing error and it isn't solved by fixing a pricing error. That needs sorting out, to the extent it's true.

Agreed there.