Ticket offices: advise re best price?

[Bensonby]

I’ve heard it said several times that ticket offices are obliged to advise customers of the best price for their journey but can’t see anything definitive to say that this is indeed the case. Is it true? And, if so, what is the extent of this duty?

The Liverpool-Lewes thread got me thinking about this: a complex route is actually half the price as the direct route in this instance. Is it reasonable to expect a ticket office clerk to search through various combinations? If this duty exists is it discharged by advising a customer that there may be a cheaper alternative should they search online? If the duty exists but they subsequently sell a more expensive ticket is there any recourse for the passenger?

 

[Hadders]

Others will be better able to advise but ticket offices are only obliged to offer the appropriate through ticket for the journey being made. They are not obliged to search for combinations of tickets, loopholes etc.

 

[Haywain]

The duty is to advise of the best fares available from the ticket office for the point-to-point journey requested by the customer. By questioning the requirements it is usually possible to routes that do not suit the customer even though they may be cheaper. For example, most would prefer direct trains and faster journeys.

 

[Wallsendmag]

From my experience 99% of "normal" customers want one train, no changes at a reasonable price.

 

[Haywain]

If a customer wants split tickets these will be sold providing the customer has identified the split themselves - if the customer requests A to B and B to C, then that is what they will be sold, but if they ask for a split without knowing what it is how can the staff be expected to know? I've been in the position of a customer telling me that the price is wrong and they want the tickets at amount x that their mate purchased, except they don't know what the combination of tickets is!

 

[Chris Butler]

The obligation is clear, but relies on what is reasonable. An Impartial Point of Sale (which I think a "Ticket Office" would almost certainly be, though the obligation is only that the majority of points of sale in a station are impartial ones) must offer the best suited 'published' fare for a journey ('published' means pretty much in the fares manual). It must also make reasonable enquiries of the customer to ascertain what is the best ticket.

As regard fares flows that have no published fare, then "

the Operator which operates that Impartial Point of Sale must offer to Sell him a combination of two or more of the Fares offered for Sale at that Impartial Point of Sale which between them are valid for the whole journey unless such a combination is not possible using the Fares that are offered for Sale there. The Operator must use its reasonable endeavours to ensure that the combined Fares meet the Purchaser's requirements."

The question is then what is reasonable. I don't think it requires searching further than the most obvious routing.

The obligation also does not require split tickets for a journey which has a published fare to be researched.

 

[yorkie]

I’ve heard it said several times that ticket offices are obliged to advise customers of the best price for their journey but can’t see anything definitive to say that this is indeed the case. Is it true? And, if so, what is the extent of this duty?

It's in the Ticketing Settlement Agreement (TSA);compliance with the TSA is a franchise obligation for all train operators.

Here are some key extracts from the relevant section, which starts on page 177:

An Operator which Sells Fares, or provides information about them, on a train or at an Impartial Point of Sale or an Impartial Information Centre must act fairly and impartially between Operators. Any such information that is provided must be factual, accurate and impartial.

Operators must accurately Sell to Purchasers the Fares appropriate for the journey described by the Purchasers.

If more than one Fare is available that meets the requirements specified by a potential Purchaser and he does not specify which of the Fares he requires, the Operator must seek any additional information from him that is necessary to enable it to recommend (in an impartial manner) which of them is suitable for him.

Where an Operator is asked to recommend a suitable Fare or paragraph (a) above applies, it must request sufficient additional information to enable it to make the recommendation. This may (for example) include any of the following:-

• the departure and/or arrival time required;
• how important it is to the person requesting the Fare to minimise the journey time involved;
• the importance to him of the price of the Fare;
• whether he minds changing trains;
• (if a return journey is to be made) the extent to which he needs flexibility in his choice of trains for that journey;
• whether he wants the flexibility of an Inter-available Fare; and
• any special requirements that he has.

If more than one Fare is suitable, the Operator must explain the main features of the alternatives in an impartial manner...

The Liverpool-Lewes thread got me thinking about this: a complex route is actually half the price as the direct route in this instance. Is it reasonable to expect a ticket office clerk to search through various combinations? If this duty exists is it discharged by advising a customer that there may be a cheaper alternative should they search online? If the duty exists but they subsequently sell a more expensive ticket is there any recourse for the passenger?

It is quite easy actually.

Ticket offices can see a list of all available fares; the general public can see this by looking them up at www.brfares.com and the seller can very quickly see the cheapest walk-up fare is routed "Southern & WMT" only. Any good ticket issuing system (TIS) will be able to search for journeys using only those two TOC codes (note: The data is erroneous because Southern is actually a brand of a TOC called GTR but we don't need to worry about that here) and obtain itineraries that comply with the route restriction.

The general public could easily do this online too, for example by using a website such as Trainsplit which allows you to click "Advanced Options" , then under "Include / Exclude Operators", choose "include selected" then select the relevant TOCs.

There are also journey planner websites that will find such itineraries without selling tickets.

The obligation is clear, but relies on what is reasonable. An Impartial Point of Sale (which I think a "Ticket Office" would almost certainly be, though the obligation is only that the majority of points of sale in a station are impartial ones) must offer the best suited 'published' fare for a journey ('published' means pretty much in the fares manual). It must also make reasonable enquiries of the customer to ascertain what is the best ticket.

If a through fare is available the ticket office is obliged to offer it, e.g. Sheffield ticket office are obliged to inform people about the cheaper tickets that are valid on Hull Trains & TPE only, and those valid on XC & WMT only.

As regard fares flows that have no published fare, then

The question is then what is reasonable. I don't think it requires searching further than the most obvious routing.

The obligation also does not require split tickets for a journey which has a published fare to be researched.

I think the cheapest that is suitable for the journey being made should be offered; they have no excuse not to offer this because the tools currently exist to be able to do this. If an operator/seller chooses not to use such tools then they are putting themselves in a position where it could be argued they are not in compliance. However I agree that it is somewhat open to interpretation.

 

[Chris Butler]

I think the cheapest that is suitable for the journey being made should be offered; they have no excuse not to offer this because the tools currently exist to be able to do this. If an operator/seller chooses not to use such tools then they are putting themselves in a position where it could be argued they are not in compliance. However I agree that it is somewhat open to interpretation.

I think you are going way too far in interpreting the obligation.

If the obligation were to offer the cheapest (by which I guess you mean the most suitable) then that is what it would say. Using all the tools can take 20-30 minutes and require a mindset that those on this site typically have, but many dont.

I think an operator claiming that delaying others waiting for tickets by even 2-3 minutes or requiring all staff to have the ability to find the cheapest combination of tickets in complicated cases is unreasonable have not the slightest risk of being found to be not in compliance.

 

[ji459]

I think you are going way too far in interpreting the obligation.

I agree. The TSA is there to make sure TOCs act fairly vis-a-vis each other - from recital (B): "This Agreement is being entered into to set out various arrangements between the Operators relating to the carriage of passengers and the retailing of tickets". It doesn't confer any rights on passengers.

 

[Bensonby]

I think you are going way too far in interpreting the obligation.

If the obligation were to offer the cheapest (by which I guess you mean the most suitable) then that is what it would say. Using all the tools can take 20-30 minutes and require a mindset that those on this site typically have, but many dont.

I think an operator claiming that delaying others waiting for tickets by even 2-3 minutes or requiring all staff to have the ability to find the cheapest combination of tickets in complicated cases is unreasonable have not the slightest risk of being found to be not in compliance.

I broadly agree that it’s too onerous an obligation to take it to mean staff should spend inordinate amounts of time searching for fares, but I found the Liverpool to Lewes fare on trainsplit in seconds. If I were to go to the booking office and asked for the “cheapest fare” between Liverpool and Lewes on the date in question and was sold a ticket significantly more expensive I’d be somewhat miffed. So is there a happy medium or is it black and white? And does the passenger have any recourse should they be sold a more expensive ticket?

 

[RJ]

My obligation is to offer the simplest and cheapest ticket that meets the customer's needs, in that order. Simple generally means a through ticket from the origin station which is what the government/retail management want for the journey.

Occasionally it will be a split and the powers that be do tell us when to do this - like when there's no through ticket available, or if someone has a geographically restricted discount entitlement that covers part of the journey. Or if they want a Travelcard plus return to a station outside the zones.

If you want to deal hunt with split ticketing or remote origins, fair play to you but it is not railways staff's responsibility to do that on your behalf. Anyone who wants to pay less than the market price without knowing exactly what they are asking for is advised to contact the government or look online.

 

[RJ]

I broadly agree that it’s too onerous an obligation to take it to mean staff should spend inordinate amounts of time searching for fares, but I found the Liverpool to Lewes fare on trainsplit in seconds. If I were to go to the booking office and asked for the “cheapest fare” between Liverpool and Lewes on the date in question and was sold a ticket significantly more expensive I’d be somewhat miffed. So is there a happy medium or is it black and white? And does the passenger have any recourse should they be sold a more expensive ticket?

In a word, no.