Railcard discounts to be reduced to 33.4%

[Tazi Hupefi]

Given the frivolous chargebacks I see, I'm not entirely convinced! Some financial institutions will let people chargeback Advance tickets simply because a refund was refused, even when the customer was advised of the terms and conditions at purchase-time. The retailer doesn't necessarily win when they point this out, either...

At most TOCs I've worked for/with, frivolous chargebacks have either been passed on to BTP/internal prosecutions (especially when the chargeback reasons are essentially false/fraudulent) or in most cases, wherever practical and possible, they've simply been banned from being able to purchase tickets/services again, e.g. disabling accounts, email addresses etc.

I believe that a financial institution can't easily refuse to initiate a chargeback, even when they are dubious - but they aren't inclined to do much at all to support it.

 

[cmovcc]

Bear in mind, it is RDG (i.e. the train companies, acting collectively, in cahoots with the DfT) who have broken the contract, not necessarily the retailer.

If you bought it from a third party retailer, please don't do this. Alternatively, if you bought it from RDG or a TOC, then I'd support the principle, and I'd certainly like to see the TOCs get their comeuppance for this, but not all banks will entertain it (as mentioned above). Let us know how you get on!

yes I bought it directly from the RDG on their god awful app

if my card provider decline it (which I am certain they won't), I will use https://www.moneyclaim.gov.uk to get it back instead

if they send someone to turn up in county court over £30 rather than just give in I'll be very surprised indeed

companies need to learn they can't just change the terms of contracts retrospectively

 

[yorkie]

...companies need to learn they can't just change the terms of contracts retrospectively

Trust me, RDG/TOCs will never learn not to mistreat customers. Good luck though as I will be keen to hear how this pans out.

 

[cmovcc]

At most TOCs I've worked for/with, frivolous chargebacks have either been passed on to BTP/internal prosecutions (especially when the chargeback reasons are essentially false/fraudulent) or in most cases, wherever practical and possible, they've simply been banned from being able to purchase tickets/services again, e.g. disabling accounts, email addresses etc.

maybe they could investigate the RDG? this sort of unilateral contract change, if not technically fraud is sailing very close to the wind

(and how do you ban people from using a card you don't know about from using a ticket machine? good luck with that one)

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

what, 4 seconds on the app to click it, press dispute and select "good/services received were not as described"

if it's less that £50 it's automatically approved



no, I was getting 34% because the terms (i.e. the contract between us) said 34%, not (100/3)%



offering a pro-rata refund would be perfectly acceptable to me

but if they don't I will hit the chargeback button as they've essentially stolen from me: the product is no longer as it was described at the point I purchased it



my card provider will do what I tell them to, they will claw it back from the merchant automatically

it's then up to the merchant to challenge it, and that requires a mountain of paperwork on their end

the credit card system is set up entirely to the benefit of the consumer, not the merchant

either way, worst case I lose at most the 4 seconds to click the button, best case I get the full amount back, plus cost RDG more than the original purchase in fees



it's at least that (plus penalties if they get too many)

you can't just change the terms of a contract because you want to get more money

Can you please show me where the place you purchased your Railcard from, promised you a 34% discount please. You should easily have this to hand, as you'll need it for your chargeback claim.

You also don't seem to understand how a chargeback works - you may temporarily see the money returned, but it doesn't mean it's yours to keep.

Presumably any tickets you have purchased with that Railcard before also need referring to a TOC prosecution department - as you're treating the contract as being voided, therefore you never had an entitlement to the discount you used.

 

[OscarH]

At most TOCs I've worked for/with, frivolous chargebacks have either been passed on to BTP/internal prosecutions (especially when the chargeback reasons are essentially false/fraudulent) or in most cases, wherever practical and possible, they've simply been banned from being able to purchase tickets/services again, e.g. disabling accounts, email addresses etc.

I believe that a financial institution can't easily refuse to initiate a chargeback, even when they are dubious - but they aren't inclined to do much at all to support it.

The banks often don't seem inclined to read the reply the retailer either and just find the customers favour anyway

 

[cmovcc]

Can you please show me where the place you purchased your Railcard from, promised you a 34% discount please. You should easily have this to hand, as you'll need it for your chargeback claim.

You also don't seem to understand how a chargeback works - you may temporarily see the money returned, but it doesn't mean it's yours to keep.

I don't need to provide anything to some randomer on the internet

I've filed probably half a dozen in the 30 years I've had credit cards and I have a 100% success rate

Presumably any tickets you have purchased with that Railcard before also need referring to a TOC prosecution department - as you're treating the contract as being voided, therefore you never had an entitlement to the discount you used.

whilst a "TOC prosecution department" might sound scary to some, as someone with a family full of practising solicitors this sort of thing doesn't worry me at all

they'd be laughed out the room with that reasoning

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I don't need to provide anything to some randomer on the internet

I've filed probably half a dozen in the 30 years I've had credit cards and I have a 100% success rate



whilst a "TOC prosecution department" might sound scary to some, as someone with a family full of practising solicitors this sort of thing doesn't worry me at all

they'd be laughed out the room with that reasoning

Good luck! I'm sure you'll be very successful.

I'm disappointed that you couldn't share some really quite critical information on the forum, I'm sure others would appreciate having a point of reference to progress their own claims. A simple website link perhaps?

 

[soil]

Good luck! I'm sure you'll be very successful.

I'm disappointed that you couldn't share some really quite critical information on the forum, I'm sure others would appreciate having a point of reference to progress their own claims. A simple website link perhaps?

a five second google search that anyone could do would show that dozens of official rail sites and agents are still advertising 34% discounts, and that nationalrail can't even be bothered to remove the dozens of references to 34% discounts from their own site https://www.google.com/search?q=site:nationalrail.co.uk+34%+discount

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

a five second google search that anyone could do would show that dozens of official rail sites and agents are still advertising 34% discounts, and that nationalrail can't even be bothered to remove the dozens of references to 34% discounts from their own site https://www.google.com/search?q=site:nationalrail.co.uk+34%+discount

Thanks - useful.

However, it is slightly different to what I was asking.

A chargeback is against a retailer. Are any retailers making the 34% claim?

The Disabled Railcard site, for example, still specifically references a 34% discount in their accessible content but only for disabled customers who are NOT using a Railcard.

Application Forms - Disabled Persons Railcard

www.disabledpersons-railcard.co.uk

For example, the large print PDF version still says:

First Class/Standard Anytime Singles or Returns

34% off

First Class/Standard Anytime Day Single

34% off

First Class/Standard Anytime Day Return 50% off


It follows that this demographic is entitled to 34% and not 33.4% - although as they don't have a Railcard, it's not a breach of contract, but would be problematic in terms of advertising and consumer rights - assuming that it has been reduced. This may not be affected at all.

Interestingly, the normal sized application form on that website also says only valid until 31 March 2024, with no replacement for beyond that.

These Railcard Conditions are valid up to and including 31 March 2024.

Obviously been overlooked!

 

[Starmill]

At most TOCs I've worked for/with, frivolous chargebacks have either been passed on to BTP/internal prosecutions (especially when the chargeback reasons are essentially false/fraudulent) or in most cases, wherever practical and possible, they've simply been banned from being able to purchase tickets/services again, e.g. disabling accounts, email addresses etc.

I believe that a financial institution can't easily refuse to initiate a chargeback, even when they are dubious - but they aren't inclined to do much at all to support it.

Uber, Deliveroo, Metrolink, TfL and so on are well known on social media for banning any cards where the account posts a chargeback, even what some customers claim are valid ones. I think if someone's obviously trying it on, just banning them is pretty effective. The banks etc can take action more easily if someone's taking out loads of new cards to constantly get around being banned.

Thanks - useful.

However, it is slightly different to what I was asking.

A chargeback is against a retailer. Are any retailers making the 34% claim?

The card scheme rules can allow for chargebacks against merchants who aren't directly providing the service, depending which one it is and what exactly they did.

 

[island]

A chargeback would be theoretically possible if the purchase was within the past 120 days. Although a chargeback on the grounds of a minuscule reduction in discount would be unmeritorious, the bank might well raise it anyway and even refund the £30 off their own bat rather than risk a complaint and financial ombudsman case, which costs them £750.

I believe that a financial institution can't easily refuse to initiate a chargeback, even when they are dubious - but they aren't inclined to do much at all to support it.

Your belief is incorrect. A card issuer may refuse to initiate a chargeback if it thinks there is no plausible chance of success, though for the reasons already mentioned, incentives are against it.

 

[Starmill]

Good luck! I'm sure you'll be very successful.

I'm disappointed that you couldn't share some really quite critical information on the forum, I'm sure others would appreciate having a point of reference to progress their own claims. A simple website link perhaps?

A friendly piece of advice - if you want something from someone, you will be more likely to get it from them in future if you just ask questions about the issue at hand. You don't need to agree with them, and of course can always express your disagreement and different views. However, if you open by creating a threat of a prosecution against them for sharing their arguments you are unlikely to get a useful response. What you've said to them really egenders bad faith.

A chargeback would be theoretically possible if the purchase was within the past 120 days. Although a chargeback on the grounds of a minuscule reduction in discount would be unmeritorious, the bank might well raise it anyway and even refund the £30 off their own bat rather than risk a complaint and financial ombudsman case, which costs them £750.

Maybe if the customer had a spreadsheet and a screenshot of the price for every ticket they were buying for a whole year, and the customer could show how much extra the change would cost them it would be a bit different, especially if that were to reach or exceed £30. However it's not obvious why anyone would go to that level of hassle for £30. Who knows what tickets they're going to be buying next March now, and then sticks to it perfectly?

 

[Trainbike46]

No plans to increase the 3 year one either, as far as I'm aware.

Also no plans to withdraw any Railcard (although there may be some consolidation). Perhaps more accurate to say that the people eligible for a Railcard will still be able to get one that is broadly similar to the one they can get now.

I could see some logic in that - I never understood why the 16-25 and 26-30 railcards are separate railcards anyway, so merging them into a 16-30 railcard would make sense.

However, I don't see what other railcards could reasonably be merged - and I think we should keep an eye out that any consolidation doesn't end up being a reduction in the groups eligible for a railcard!

 

[alistairlees]

a five second google search that anyone could do would show that dozens of official rail sites and agents are still advertising 34% discounts, and that nationalrail can't even be bothered to remove the dozens of references to 34% discounts from their own site https://www.google.com/search?q=site:nationalrail.co.uk+34%+discount

Oh dear. All the references to 34% on National Rail sites are meant to have long gone by now...

 

[Tazi Hupefi]

I could see some logic in that - I never understood why the 16-25 and 26-30 railcards are separate railcards anyway, so merging them into a 16-30 railcard would make sense.

However, I don't see what other railcards could reasonably be merged - and I think we should keep an eye out that any consolidation doesn't end up being a reduction in the groups eligible for a railcard!

There won't be a reduction in groups eligible for a Railcard - however, why should a holder of a senior railcard have more generous terms and conditions than, say, a 16-25, 26-30 etc - or why should restrictions only apply in the former NSE area, but not in other parts of the country etc.

I'm not saying that this will necessarily be addressed by any particular reform, (the focus is primarily on reducing fraud / discount misuse and connecting specific tickets to specific Railcards, and therefore specific customers and train services). It's also important from a revenue / yield management perspective, being able to fully understand your customers and their purchasing behaviours.

However, there is most definitely a desire to simplify Railcards generally - they've become too complex, some open access TOCs opting out, staff either not enforcing restrictions or enforcing too harshly etc. At a senior level, it is quite important politically that one demographic isn't seen to have an unjust advantage over another.

 

[Hadders]

At a senior level, it is quite important politically that one demographic isn't seen to have an unjust advantage over another.

It’s also important that the senior people making these decisions get a balanced view of why these railcards exist, and why they have the restrictions they do.

For example, take the 16-25 Railcard. It allows a discount in the morning peak subject to a £12 discounted minimum fare. Some will argue that this railcard should not be allowed to be used in the morning peak. However, my view is that it is important that it is.

This is because it allows people at the start of the careers, when they generally aren’t earning as much money, to obtain discounted travel (often works out cheaper than an annual season ticket) and allows them to pay as they go, rather than having to stump up a large sum once a year. This sort of benefit should be kept.

 

[Haywain]

why should a holder of a senior railcard have more generous terms and conditions than, say, a 16-25, 26-30

For a Senior Railcard holder living in the south-east the only hint of generosity is in being permitted to buy first class tickets.

 

[Trainbike46]

There won't be a reduction in groups eligible for a Railcard - however, why should a holder of a senior railcard have more generous terms and conditions than, say, a 16-25, 26-30 etc - or why should restrictions only apply in the former NSE area, but not in other parts of the country etc.

that seems fair, though as with other simplifications, the devil will be in the detail! if the equalisation in conditions doesn't lead to an overall reduction, that would be fair, if everything gets standardised on the most restrictive one, it would be rather less so!

I'm not saying that this will necessarily be addressed by any particular reform, (the focus is primarily on reducing fraud / discount misuse and connecting specific tickets to specific Railcards, and therefore specific customers and train services). It's also important from a revenue / yield management perspective, being able to fully understand your customers and their purchasing behaviours.

you may see this differently, but tying every railcard discounted ticket to a specific customer and train sounds very undesirable to me - both from a privacy/tracking point of view, and from a ticket flexibility point of view.

 

[alistairlees]

It’s also important that the senior people making these decisions get a balanced view of why these railcards exist, and why they have the restrictions they do.

For example, take the 16-25 Railcard. It allows a discount in the morning peak subject to a £12 discounted minimum fare. Some will argue that this railcard should not be allowed to be used in the morning peak. However, my view is that it is important that it is.

This is because it allows people at the start of the careers, when they generally aren’t earning as much money, to obtain discounted travel (often works out cheaper than an annual season ticket) and allows them to pay as they go, rather than having to stump up a large sum once a year. This sort of benefit should be kept.

I think the main goal of the 16-25 should be to get people into the habit of using the train. It's a long term strategic play that short term franchising / thinking is not conducive to.

 

[Hadders]

I think the main goal of the 16-25 should be to get people into the habit of using the train. It's a long term strategic play that short term franchising / thinking is not conducive to.

Agreed. A main objective of the 16-25 should be to assist getting people back into the office.

The problem when ‘here today gone tomorrow’ politicians are involved in these sort of decisions is everything is done for short term interest.

 

[MrJeeves]

Oh dear. All the references to 34% on National Rail sites are meant to have long gone by now...

Will they be reviewing the NRE site and writing angry emails to themselves, you suppose?

 

[Sonic1234]

So you'd prefer the cost of obtaining the Railcard to increase instead?

For encouraging people to use rail, yes. People will buy the railcard and quickly forget about the cost of that. Their ongoing use of rail will be determined by the price for the journey. It's similar to how people judge the cost of a car journey by the fuel cost (if that), they soon forget about the insurance, tax, service etc. - these costs were in the past.

 

[MKB]

It's always struck me as somewhat absurd that there is ANY charge at all to avail of concessionary prices for students or seniors, etc. In pretty much the whole of the rest of the hospitality and travel sector where such concessionary discounts are available, there is no additional charge to obtain them.

Imagine turning up at the theatre to buy a ticket that is discounted for over 60s only to be told that you have to pay a £30 annual fee first. That would not be well received.

Rather than arguing that a revision of the discount from 34% to 33.4% against already purchased Railcards enables £30 Railcard prices not to rise, we should actually be questioning why that price exists at all. A government that wanted to actively encourage greener travel would more usefully reduce the Railcard price to a few pounds to cover just the production cost.

 

[yorksrob]

There won't be a reduction in groups eligible for a Railcard - however, why should a holder of a senior railcard have more generous terms and conditions than, say, a 16-25, 26-30 etc - or why should restrictions only apply in the former NSE area, but not in other parts of the country etc.

I'm not saying that this will necessarily be addressed by any particular reform, (the focus is primarily on reducing fraud / discount misuse and connecting specific tickets to specific Railcards, and therefore specific customers and train services). It's also important from a revenue / yield management perspective, being able to fully understand your customers and their purchasing behaviours.

However, there is most definitely a desire to simplify Railcards generally - they've become too complex, some open access TOCs opting out, staff either not enforcing restrictions or enforcing too harshly etc. At a senior level, it is quite important politically that one demographic isn't seen to have an unjust advantage over another.

Why shouldn't everyone have access to a railcard, as in other countries with less badly managed railway systems.

 

[JonathanH]

Why shouldn't everyone have access to a railcard, as in other countries with less badly managed railway systems.

It doesn't focus additional demand on the trains which have capacity. Instead it just increases demand for already busy trains, and the railway takes less revenue from them. Remember that for every two people that travel with a railcard, the railway needs to find an additional traveller to make up the lost revenue.

The purpose of a railcard is to provide access to a rail travel to those groups who typically have less income, or some other impediment to travel.

 

[MrJeeves]

Why shouldn't everyone have access to a railcard, as in other countries with less badly managed railway systems.

And in those other countries, they are typically much more expensive so as to cover the cost of providing that discount.

Further discussion about this should really be posted in speculative discussion rather than this thread, though.

 

[yorksrob]

It doesn't focus additional demand on the trains which have capacity. Instead it just increases demand for already busy trains, and the railway takes less revenue from them. Remember that for every two people that travel with a railcard, the railway needs to find an additional traveller to make up the lost revenue.

The purpose of a railcard is to provide access to a rail travel to those groups who typically have less income, or some other impediment to travel.

The purpose of a railcard is to provide a fixed cost which acts as an incentive for people to get their moneys worth by buying more travel.

As far as I'm aware, all railcards have restrictions as to when you can use them to focus people away from peak times

And in those other countries, they are typically much more expensive so as to cover the cost of providing that discount.

Further discussion about this should really be posted in speculative discussion rather than this thread, though.

Yes, there's an argument for the initial card being more expensive.

 

[sprunt]

The purpose of a railcard is to provide access to a rail travel to those groups who typically have less income, or some other impediment to travel.

Ah, hence the existence of one specifically for the famously low income and deprived south-east of England.

 

[miklcct]

Slowly but surely I feel like I'm being pushed away from the railways, after being a regular user for over 50 years.

During Covid lockdown I purchased an electric car (massive discount, as it was stuck on a forecourt) and the fuel savings are eye opening and I've only partly returned to the railways since.

As a Bradford City season ticket holder I have a round trip of exactly 200 miles for home matches. The current cost by rail is £28.95 (with split ticketing and a railcard). By car the same journey costs £3.80.

It's getting harder and harder to justify using the train for all but, perhaps, the odd journey into central London.

Unfortunately the high cost of electric cars (which makes them a luxury) and the difficulty of charging one if I don't have my own driveway (which is, again, a luxury in urban areas) mean that I still have to rely on the train despite the number of journeys I make which are better to drive.

If you live in a rural area it makes sense to own one, but it comes with the tradeoff of the inconvenience of living rurally as well.