Entirely relevant - a regular service (or it is if they have enough drivers!) is provided every day, twice a day, to commute back and forth to work.
The train company has not provide ‘the service’ when you step on the train on day 1. They are providing a service all the way through to day 365.
A regular service yes, a regular payment no.
Even if your view prevailed, then the CMA have covered that as well -
Limited exceptions to full refunds
Sometimes, a consumer will already have received some of the services they have paid for in advance. In those cases, the CMA considers that the consumer would normally be entitled to at least a refund for the services that are not provided. However, where they have already received something of value, consumers should generally be expected to pay for it and they will not usually be entitled to get all their money back.
In some cases, where Government public health measures prevent a business from providing a service or the consumer from receiving it, the business may be able to deduct a contribution to the costs it has already incurred in relation to the specific contract in question (where it cannot recover them elsewhere). In the CMA’s view, these cases are likely to be relatively rare, however, and the costs that may be deducted from refunds will usually be limited.
So again, if someone is towards the end of their season ticket but cannot use it because of the ‘lockdown’ legislation, then they should entitled to a refund for that part (and again it is irrelevant that the railway company argument that the contract says the last few months are free, if that is not fair to the consumer).
I agree that the consumer should be expected to pay for the services received. The price of those services, namely shorter than annual season tickets) is published and clearly available to consumers in advance. If a consumer chooses not to use the service any more (or is prevented from doing so by operation of law), the amount they pay could be revised to the price of the services actually used. This is the published price for odd period season tickets, the remainder being refundable. The train companies have, very fairly, offered to backdate refunds to the start of the “lockdown” and, also fairly, to process refunds without the consumer adhering to the terms of the contract, which they agreed to, around submitting paper tickets when obtaining a refund. Many have, fairly, waived their administrative fees for dealing with the refunds. And this is without even considering the point
miami raised which is that the train operating companies are still ready, willing, and able to provide the purchased services.
Looking at what the CMA website, then, it says consumers “should receive at least a refund for the services that are not provided” and “they will not usually be entitled to get all their money back”. It is silent as to how that refund might be calculated. It is not at all unusual across sectors for economies of scale to mean unit costs will decrease with larger purchases, and it is quite a jump to suggest that the CMA’s opinion infers that pro-rata refunds are now fair game.
On the question of the terms of the contract between TOC and passenger being fair, the Supreme Court has ruled (OFT vs Abbey & ors [2009] UKSC 6), that those parts of a contract establishing the price of a service are not subject to assessment for fairness, so I am afraid your suggestion does not appear to me to hold water. But neither you, I, nor the CMA are the courts – the CMA even says on the website linked that it is just its opinion – and there is always the possibility the courts may rule differently.
Finally, the question of claiming against financial institutions under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act 1974 was also raised. I am afraid this is also a very long shot. Subsection (1) limits claims to those for misrepresentations and breaches of contract. No misrepresentation or breach of contract has occurred. The main likelihood of a payout from a financial institution of the difference between the refund received for a cancelled season ticket and the refund one feels one “should” get because of a pro-rata calculation is an ex-gratia payment by the financial institution, which will no doubt have one eye on the £550 bill it will receive from the Financial Ombudsman should the consumer refer a refusal there.