Thameslink Only ticket on Southern Trains - what is the rule allowing this?

[Treeman]

Hi,

I've read a lot about the TSA agreement and the illegality of Southern staff charging excess fares for people with Thameslink Only tickets, but I've tried to find the rule and have failed.

What's worse, I found this on the Conditions of Travel rules/rights:

INFORMATION: Restrictions may be applied to services departing or arriving at certain times; to the services of one or more specified Train Companies; or to groups of train services indicated by a particular brand name or identity

That looks to me like brand restrictions CAN be applied.

Does anyone know the definitive answer please?...and the exact rule that I'd need to remind Govia Thameslink of if I write in to ask for a refund ?

 

[Paul Kelly]

That looks to me like brand restrictions CAN be applied.

Note that it has been deliberately designated an INFORMATION panel because it is separate from the main body of the Conditions of Travel and has no legal effect.

 

[Joe Paxton]

...
Does anyone know the definitive answer please?...and the exact rule that I'd need to remind Govia Thameslink of if I write in to ask for a refund ?

The definitive answer will be a court ruling that never happens, because the TOCs won't let a case get that far.

 

[Treeman]

thanks....worth a try for the £1300 saving a year then. I'm probably 90% thameslink anyway, just occasionally a bit of Southern if I miss the usual train home.

 

[yorkie]

Hi,

I've read a lot about the TSA agreement and the illegality of Southern staff charging excess fares for people with Thameslink Only tickets, but I've tried to find the rule and have failed.

What's worse, I found this on the Conditions of Travel rules/rights:

INFORMATION: Restrictions may be applied to services departing or arriving at certain times; to the services of one or more specified Train Companies; or to groups of train services indicated by a particular brand name or identity

That looks to me like brand restrictions CAN be applied.

Does anyone know the definitive answer please?...and the exact rule that I'd need to remind Govia Thameslink of if I write in to ask for a refund ?

It's valid in the opinion of myself and various others, including legal experts who I have spoken to.

If you are encouraged to pay more than this, that's evidence of a breach if competition law.

If you buy the fare and are subsequently charged extra, that's evidence of a breach of consumer law & contract law.

Anyone affected by the behaviour of GTR is encouraged to retain all evidence as it may prove useful one day. I can't say much more than that.

 

[Joe Paxton]

thanks....worth a try for the £1300 saving a year then. I'm probably 90% thameslink anyway, just occasionally a bit of Southern if I miss the usual train home.

As long as you know that you'll be setting yourself up for regular disputes about ticket validity with staff, and are prepared to take that burden on...

 

[Hadders]

Legally it is allowed as tickets can only be restricted by TOC, not brand.

I would not expect a hassle free journey though.

 

[Mag_seven]

As long as you know that you'll be setting yourself up for regular disputes about ticket validity with staff, and are prepared to take that burden on...

Why are GTR allowed to continue to behave in this way?

 

[Hadders]

Why are GTR allowed to continue to behave in this way?

Best ask the DfT.

 

[yorkie]

Why are GTR allowed to continue to behave in this way?

They are not legally allowed to.

I can't comment on whether or not there may be legal action one day but clearly it hasn't happened yet. If I was GTR I'd be worried though, as their luck may run out one day...

 

[Bletchleyite]

They are not legally allowed to.

I can't comment on whether or not there may be legal action one day but clearly it hasn't happened yet. If I was GTR I'd be worried though, as their luck may run out one day...

More likely the official rules will be changed to allow what they are doing. That's how things have gone far more often than them going in the passenger's favour.

 

[yorkie]

More likely the official rules will be changed to allow what they are doing. That's how things have gone far more often than them going in the passenger's favour.

If the "rules" were changed in a manner that breaches competition law, that would make things very interesting.

Also I think it's fair to say that if the DfT had wanted to change the Ticketing Settlement Agreement they'd have done so by now.

 

[JonathanH]

You do realise that the outcome of this is that the Thameslink only tickets will simply be withdrawn. (I know that was meant to have already happened but it hasn't just yet.) Frankly I would rather comply with the restriction and have the cheaper ticket than have to pay the any permitted fare.

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the "rules" were changed in a manner that breaches competition law, that would make things very interesting.

Allowing tickets to be restricted by brand is no more a breach of competition law than Stagecoach breaches competition law by competing with itself by way of Magic Bus (it, er, doesn't).

Or alternatively, it doesn't morally differ from the way other TOCs allocate different Advances fares to different routes. For instance, Avanti have cheaper Advances on the "slow" Scottish service via Birmingham than on the "fast" one via the Trent Valley. It's just a walk-up version of the same thing.

As long as it is clear to passengers on which trains they may use a given ticket when they purchase it so they can make an informed decision on whether it is suitable, I can't see any reason why this should be a legal or moral problem, provided the TSA was changed to accommodate it.

 

[yorkie]

Allowing tickets to be restricted by brand is no more a breach of competition law than Stagecoach breaches competition law by competing with itself by way of Magic Bus (it, er, doesn't).

Or alternatively, it doesn't morally differ from the way other TOCs allocate different Advances fares to different routes. For instance, Avanti have cheaper Advances on the "slow" Scottish service via Birmingham than on the "fast" one via the Trent Valley. It's just a walk-up version of the same thing.

As long as it is clear to passengers on which trains they may use a given ticket when they purchase it so they can make an informed decision on whether it is suitable, I can't see any reason why this should be a legal or moral problem, provided the TSA was changed to accommodate it.

I disagree (again); see previous posts on the subject.

Glad to see you admit the restriction is unlawful while the Ticketing Settlement Agreement is worded how it is.

I also predict the DfT do not try to change the TSA because to do so would actually get them into even more hot water than they are already.

You do realise that the outcome of this is that the Thameslink only tickets will simply be withdrawn. (I know that was meant to have already happened but it hasn't just yet.) Frankly I would rather comply with the restriction and have the cheaper ticket than have to pay the any permitted fare.

They are already being withdrawn! It's a phased withdrawal which has been much slower than expected due to political pressure and the extended periods of poor service meaning that anything that causes some fares to rise is going to generate bad publicity.

Complying with the restriction means taking any train operated by Govia Thameslink. Anyone who is coerced into paying more is due a refund.

 

[JonathanH]

They are already being withdrawn! It's a phased withdrawal which has been much slower than expected due to political pressure and the extended periods of poor service meaning that anything that causes some fares to rise is going to generate bad publicity.

I acknowledged that they are being withdrawn but they appear to have survived another fares round this January. I suspect they will be in place until the first of the following:
a) someone decides how the split of the TSGN franchise is going to be enabled (although that would be rather silly as it will give the opportunity for them to exist again)
b) paper tickets are withdrawn in favour of extension of Oyster-style PAYG in the South East

When would have been the ideal point to withdraw these tickets? Is there any valid way that the operator could direct passengers to the trains with the most capacity (which seems to be their, in my view legitimate, purpose)? Would "Class 700 only" be a better approach?

 

[Hadders]

Don't underestimate the negative publicity if these tickets are withdrawn. It would not go down well in the Daily Hate for starters.

I really don't think restricting tickets by traction type is feasible or desirable.

 

[Bletchleyite]

b) paper tickets are withdrawn in favour of extension of Oyster-style PAYG in the South East

Given that paper tickets have not been withdrawn on LU *how* many years after Oyster first came about, I wouldn't hold your breath for this to take place.

 

[Joe Paxton]

...
I also predict the DfT do not try to change the TSA because to do so would actually get them into even more hot water than they are already.
...

Out of genuine curiosity, I wonder if you expand on that at all?

The TSA, like any set of rules, is ultimately (whether for better or worse) not set in stone.

 

[JonathanH]

Given that paper tickets have not been withdrawn on LU *how* many years after Oyster first came about, I wouldn't hold your breath for this to take place.

I was kind of implying that the current fare structure (based on paper tickets) will be replaced by perhaps the only paper tickets in the PAYG area being interavailable anytime day singles (like they did in London). There would be no place for operator specific tickets in that sort of structure.