Agreed. It does seem that it's a odd system that results in a changeover being greater than an outright refund.As while you are in the right by the letter of the rules, I would say you aren't in the spirit of them.
Agreed. It does seem that it's a odd system that results in a changeover being greater than an outright refund.As while you are in the right by the letter of the rules, I would say you aren't in the spirit of them.
No such rule exists. I have completed such changeovers several times during my railway career.It is possible that another hidden rule exists regarding changeovers to and from season tickets that include and don't include London Travelcards.
Realistically this needs a change in the rules to say "any refund for a changeover is capped at the sum that would be refunded if the ticket was returned for a refund rather than a changeover".
I agree that it's less generous than the current terms, but the alternative view is why should someone who is going to continue using their season ticket (though on a different route) get more money back than someone who isn't going to continue to use their season ticket at all?That's not very customer friendly for people who move house or change their place of work though.
There are a number of people who buy the cheap Gold Card just for the benefits. Back in the day Island line reckoned they had over 100 people who never actually travelled between the Ryde stations. On this basis surely a request to change to a different Gold Card ticket must be accepted as entirely reasonable.If the refund would be greater than that under refund rights, though, I expect they still will object. As while you are in the right by the letter of the rules, I would say you aren't in the spirit of them.
Not that that means you shouldn't get your contractual right of course.
A change to a different Gold Card is reasonable but is not what's happening in this case.There are a number of people who buy the cheap Gold Card just for the benefits. Back in the day Island line reckoned they had over 100 people who never actually travelled between the Ryde stations. On this basis surely a request to change to a different Gold Card ticket must be accepted as entirely reasonable.
The way I look at it is that they are two completely different types of customers.A change to a different Gold Card is reasonable but is not what's happening in this case.
The way I look at it is that they are two completely different types of customers.
TBH I am surprised this loophole has not yet been closed, but I am sure if abused too much, they will be, therefore people who genuinely had a change of circumstances and required a changeover may lose out.
Yes, either it is completely overhauled or more evidence is required as shown by this case. I can't think of any off the top of my head but I'm sure there will be cases where evidence may not be easy to obtain as there are so many different variables.People who have a genuine change of circumstance will not lose out if they provide evidence of a change. People like the OP who blatantly try to game the system will feel resistance. I'm not surprised the TOC has kicked back and will probably take it to the wire.
Not originally, but then someone suggested Lichfield as a way of WMT keeping some of the money and that is a gold card as well.A change to a different Gold Card is reasonable but is not what's happening in this case.
Agreed, but changing what you want the new ticket to be will just serve to confirm their suspicion that this is being done to get a better refund.Not originally, but then someone suggested Lichfield as a way of WMT keeping some of the money and that is a gold card as well.
There are, however, rules that require companies to take adequate steps to detect financial crime. Not that I'm saying this is the case here but, in the general case, buying an expensive season ticket then doing a changeover to a completely different season ticket in order to maximise the refund is one way that money could be laundered.The TOC might not like it, but the rules allow it. There is no requirement to produce any proof of residence or working int he area when buying a season ticket.
There are, however, rules that require companies to take adequate steps to detect financial crime. Not that I'm saying this is the case here but, in the general case, buying an expensive season ticket then doing a changeover to a completely different season ticket in order to maximise the refund is one way that money could be laundered.
As per my post: "Not that I'm saying this is the case here but, in the general case..." There was no allegation made.Let's not get diverted by allegations of fraud. That has nothing to do with it.
Realistically this needs a change in the rules to say "any refund for a changeover is capped at the sum that would be refunded if the ticket was returned for a refund rather than a changeover".
If it gets publicity, that's what I'm certain will end up happening.
I agree that it's less generous than the current terms, but the alternative view is why should someone who is going to continue using their season ticket (though on a different route) get more money back than someone who isn't going to continue to use their season ticket at all?
And of course there is a big review into ticketing that has recently begun...
Maybe because it's an incentive to keep using rail? I wonder whether it could be restricted to tickets where either the origin or destination is the same - I know people do move house and job at the same time, I've done it (but not needing a season ticket), but at a guess it's less common.
The refund rules for annual seasons are a joke anyway. No reason why they can't just pro-rata the refund over the entire term, rather than this stupid calculation based on what you could have used. It wouldn't even make that much difference financially. The real financial benefit for TOCs is getting the money in early and in bulk.
So then you buy an annual, use it for 5 weeks (less a weekend, naturally) and get 47/52 of the annual price back - and pocket the difference,
If it wouldn't make that much difference we wouldn't be having this conversation. And it's hardly unfair that someone who uses a season ticket for 4 months, rather than 12, pays the rate for a season ticket lasting 4 months.The refund rules for annual seasons are a joke anyway. No reason why they can't just pro-rata the refund over the entire term, rather than this stupid calculation based on what you could have used. It wouldn't even make that much difference financially. The real financial benefit for TOCs is getting the money in early and in bulk.
On my old London season ticket the saving there would be about £35 for that example. A month's interest on £5000 covers most of that, not to mention the admin fee!
ZOPA IFISA gets me about 0.8% a month, the stock market about 2% a month.Do tell me where I can get 8% interest on my savings. I'm struggling to get more than 1% at the moment.