ORR publish review of online retailer fee transparency

[Adam Williams]

The ORR have today published a review into how online retailers present fees (such as booking fees, share of saving/finder fees and fulfilment fees) to consumers.

We reviewed the general information provided on retailers’ websites and apps about fees and purchased tickets through desktop websites and mobile apps


There were three strands to our review:

• a review of the information provided on fees on the general pages of the platform
• a test purchase of an Anytime ticket for a specific short journey
• a simulated purchase from TPRs offering split ticketing services

Link to full text: http://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-12/online-ticket-fees-transparency-report.pdf (also attached)

My personal opinion is that I think it's a pretty interesting read and a well-conducted review, for the most part. A lot of the best practice that's called out should really be obvious, and it's fairly clear that the aim is avoiding consumers being misled. I'm a little disappointed they stopped short of criticising cashback partner programmes ("Click here for £16 off your next purchase*" * When you sign up to a recurring subscription based programme for £15 a month) which customers have been caught out by and have been criticised here on the forum in the past.

 

[Bletchleyite]

My personal opinion is that I think it's a pretty interesting read and a well-conducted review, for the most part. A lot of the best practice that's called out should really be obvious, and it's fairly clear that the aim is avoiding consumers being misled. I'm a little disappointed they stopped short of criticising cashback partner programmes ("Click here for £16 off your next purchase*" * When you sign up to a recurring subscription based programme for £15 a month) which customers have been caught out by and have been criticised here on the forum in the past.

I'd like to see those banned entirely, to be honest. They are almost always poor value and misleadingly advertised - basically they confuse vulnerable people into wasting money.

 

[pdq]

The BBC have covered the story on the news site: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67681277

The rail regulator has written to seven online third-party train ticket sellers to express concern that they are not being upfront about booking fees.
The Office of Road and Rail (ORR) said some retailers "are not as transparent as they need to be" over their fees.
It added that it wanted to make sure "that drip pricing does not undermine consumer confidence".
The Department for Business and Trade has done a consultation into price transparency, including drip pricing.
The phrase drip pricing refers to the practice where a consumer is shown an initial price for a product or service, but then extra fees are added before the final cost is revealed.
The ORR's review looked at how to prevent consumers paying more than they expect to because of the practice.
It analysed the ticketing websites and apps of 19 third-party sellers.
The ORR found 12 of the companies charged booking fees, and seven of these did not include their fees in the upfront price.
The regulator said booking fees ranged from 45p (per ticket) to £6.45 (per transaction) and finder's fees were between 10-15% of the saving made on a split ticket.
The 12 sites found to charge booking and/or finder's fees were: MyTrainTicket, Omio, Rail Europe, Railboard, Raileasy, Sojo, Split my fare, Train Hugger, Trainline, Trainpal, Trainsplit and TrainTickets.com. However, the ORR is not naming the seven companies it has written to.
Stephanie Tobyn, the ORR's director of strategy, policy and reform, said its review "highlights that some online retailers are not as transparent as they need to be when it comes to how they display or provide information on additional fees".
The ORR wants retailers to make sure customers have "readily available, transparent and accurate information about fees" before they start their booking.
The regulator said it had set out its concerns to the seven companies and asked them to make improvements. It has requested responses from the firms next month.
The review also looked at 21 train companies, who are not permitted to charge ticket booking fees although they can charge certain fees such as postage costs for ticket delivery.
Alex Robertson, chief executive at the independent watchdog Transport Focus, said: "Passengers should not be left in the dark about the cost of their ticket.
"Online retailers must provide passengers with clear, accurate information upfront so they can make an informed choice."
Government research into drip pricing earlier this year found the practice was "widespread" across a range of industries, including air and rail travel, hospitality firms and the entertainment industry.

 

[Joe Paxton]

I am slightly loathe to say this... but actually thinking about it, I don't see why I should be!

I actually think TrainSplit could do a better job of providing clarity about their fee, which is the 'up to 15% share of the saving' commission that is charged.

This is not explained on the front page, on the About page, or on the Help and FAQs page.

It is made clear in a hover over pop-up when a split ticket saving is found, but AFAICS that's the only place it appears on the site.

 

[Adam Williams]

It is made clear in a hover over pop-up when a split ticket saving is found, but AFAICS that's the only place it appears on the site.

Crucially though, it's also baked into all the prices shown in the apps and the website's search results. The FAQ acknowledges the share of saving fee in the comparison table against other TPRs. There's no bait-and-switch where the share-of-saving fee is snuck in on the checkout page, all of the prices presented are the final amount paid, and there's a full breakdown of the ticket pricing and the share-of-saving cost on the Ticket Information page.

The ORR did not write to TrainSplit with any complaints about its fee presentation or transparency in relation to this review, but I take your point it could still be made more explicit. I've made some tweaks to this effect.

 

[nwales58]

12 charge some kind of fees. 7 received warning letters. So 5 were adequately clear.

 

[furlong]

..and ignore the elephant in the room where consumers are mislead by advertising into thinking some retailers save you more than others if you buy from them in advance, while the truth is they charge more because of their fees!
Any mention of "savings" needs to be qualified: it normally means you save compared to buying your ticket on the day, but many people interpret it as meaning in comparison to using any alternative retailer.

 

[Bletchleyite]

..and ignore the elephant in the room where consumers are mislead by advertising into thinking some retailers save you more than others if you buy from them in advance, while the truth is they charge more because of their fees!

Now Trainline do splits this is no longer universally true. My recommendation to the layperson is now to try both that and the TOC. (I don't recommend faffing with splits separately to laypeople because they tend to get confused and end up in trouble). Trainsplit is also an option but I find it rather more complex to use than Trainline, though that to an extent is because it's so fully featured.

Any mention of "savings" needs to be qualified: it normally means you save compared to buying your ticket on the day, but many people interpret it as meaning in comparison to using any alternative retailer.

I would say this dishonesty is worse than charging a fee.

 

[fandroid]

Trainline's marketing has been incredibly effective. The level of ignorance about alternative sites, especially TOC ones, is huge. A single National Rail site could dispel a lot of this with a decent advertising campaign.

 

[yorkie]

I am slightly loathe to say this... but actually thinking about it, I don't see why I should be!

I actually think TrainSplit could do a better job of providing clarity about their fee, which is the 'up to 15% share of the saving' commission that is charged.

This is not explained on the front page, on the About page, or on the Help and FAQs page.

It is made clear in a hover over pop-up when a split ticket saving is found, but AFAICS that's the only place it appears on the site.

Maybe it could be clearer.

But nothing is actually added to the prices you see displayed; the prices are fully inclusive. Furthermore, those prices will - by definition - be lower than the premium prices charged by train companies, for the same journey.

This is completely different to sites that charge booking fees, resulting in charging prices that are higher than train companies charge, especially when the price is not shown until the payment stage, as done by some third party retailers, which is very deceptive, in my opinion.

 

[CyrusWuff]

Trainline's marketing has been incredibly effective. The level of ignorance about alternative sites, especially TOC ones, is huge. A single National Rail site could dispel a lot of this with a decent advertising campaign.

Trainline also have the benefit of having been first to market, having launched way back in 1997, with online sales following in 1999.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Trainline also have the benefit of having been first to market, having launched way back in 1997, with online sales following in 1999.

And were once owned by a TOC - they started out as "The Virgin Train Line".

 

[Hadders]

Trainline's marketing has been incredibly effective. The level of ignorance about alternative sites, especially TOC ones, is huge. A single National Rail site could dispel a lot of this with a decent advertising campaign.

A single National Rail site sounds attractive but it would end up offering no innovation whatsoever, which in turn would be bad for passengers.

The 3rd party retailers have led innovation in ticket purchasing over the last 25 years.

 

[johntea]

I'd like to see those banned entirely, to be honest. They are almost always poor value and misleadingly advertised - basically they confuse vulnerable people into wasting money.

Perhaps, but "CW" should maybe have also thought to check their bank account more than once in half a year to notice £15 going missing every month!

 

[Bletchleyite]

A single National Rail site sounds attractive but it would end up offering no innovation whatsoever, which in turn would be bad for passengers.

The 3rd party retailers have led innovation in ticket purchasing over the last 25 years.

This is true - and we can certainly see just how bad the new NR site is, too!

For all people don't like it, Trainline has led a fair bit of the innovation themselves, though generally keeps it for their app rather than the "white label" TOC ones which are more basic. Though obviously Trainsplit etc have done their own contribution too.

If the NR site was say the LNER site I'd be happy, as that's quite good, that said.

 

[fandroid]

I think I'm saying that a single NR site would provide more competition for the likes of Trainline which seems (from evidence here among those seeking advice on ticketing offences* (!)) to have a near monopoly on online ticket sales. That allows them to charge fees for no added service.


* It's not just them- a rough and ready poll among ticket buyers I know reveals the same almost total association between online ticket sales and Trainline.

 

[CyrusWuff]

I think I'm saying that a single NR site would provide more competition for the likes of Trainline which seems (from evidence here among those seeking advice on ticketing offences* (!)) to have a near monopoly on online ticket sales. That allows them to charge fees for no added service.


* It's not just them- a rough and ready poll among ticket buyers I know reveals the same almost total association between online ticket sales and Trainline.

Being cynical, a single NR ticketing site would be just as likely to be contracted out to Trainline anyway. Though I do appreciate that the Rail Staff Travel site uses Worldline WebTIS, configured for Smartcard fulfilment of season tickets.

 

[edwin_m]

I think I'm saying that a single NR site would provide more competition for the likes of Trainline which seems (from evidence here among those seeking advice on ticketing offences* (!)) to have a near monopoly on online ticket sales. That allows them to charge fees for no added service.


* It's not just them- a rough and ready poll among ticket buyers I know reveals the same almost total association between online ticket sales and Trainline.

Reminds me of the shenanigans with directory enquries, where a measure intended to reduce competition ended up with a dominant player who advertised heavily and charged more.

 

[sheff1]

Any mention of "savings" needs to be qualified: it normally means you save compared to buying your ticket on the day, but many people interpret it as meaning in comparison to using any alternative retailer.

Some sites claim a 'saving' when one is seeking to buy a Railcard discounted ticket. This 'saving' is the difference between the Railcard and Adult prices, so nothing to do with buying the ticket on that site which could be seen as the implication.

 

[m00036]

Being cynical, a single NR ticketing site would be just as likely to be contracted out to Trainline anyway. Though I do appreciate that the Rail Staff Travel site uses Worldline WebTIS, configured for Smartcard fulfilment of season tickets.

As of today, the single NR ticketing site plan has been scrapped - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/great-british-railways-williams-shapps-plan-for-rail (link to government confirmation).

 

[Joe Paxton]

As of today, the single NR ticketing site plan has been scrapped - https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/great-british-railways-williams-shapps-plan-for-rail (link to government confirmation).

Just for the record, this is the update towards the bottom of that page:

Update on centralised Great British Railways online rail ticket retailer: December 2023

As set out in the white paper, we are committed to improving passenger experience on the railways.

The private sector plays an important role in driving innovation and attracting more customers to the railway. As stated in the Bradshaw Address, we are focused on opening up railway data and systems, lowering barriers to entry for independent rail ticket retailers to improve passenger experience. We are confirming that we are not pursuing plans to deliver a centralised Great British Railways online rail ticket retailer.

Train operators will continue to retail to passengers online alongside existing third-party retailers while we develop measures to spur further competition in the online rail ticket retail market to make things better for passengers.

 

[shredder1]

The ORR have today published a review into how online retailers present fees (such as booking fees, share of saving/finder fees and fulfilment fees) to consumers.





Link to full text: http://www.orr.gov.uk/sites/default/files/2023-12/online-ticket-fees-transparency-report.pdf (also attached)

My personal opinion is that I think it's a pretty interesting read and a well-conducted review, for the most part. A lot of the best practice that's called out should really be obvious, and it's fairly clear that the aim is avoiding consumers being misled. I'm a little disappointed they stopped short of criticising cashback partner programmes ("Click here for £16 off your next purchase*" * When you sign up to a recurring subscription based programme for £15 a month) which customers have been caught out by and have been criticised here on the forum in the past.

I was caught out with that in January this year when I renewed my railcard on line, they managed to take £60 from my account before I noticed it, I contacted the customer services department and voiced my concerns, they are now giving me a full refund. Its a terrible way to do business and as soon as this is made illegal the better. The person I spoke to was actually in the Philippines.

 

[yorkie]

It's been brought to my attention that Seatfrog don't comply with this.

I understand it's now deemed to be an accreditation fail too.