TrainLine: Responsibility to get ticket to you

[SussexMan]

Yes, I know about Trainline but sadly the company I work for insists that we buy tickets via Trainline (I've offered alternatives!). However, when I booked a recent ticket I noticed that if I selected Delivery by 1st class post there was a statement saying something along the lines of "We accept no responsibility if Royal Mail fail to deliver the tickets and we won't make any refunds/replacements...etc".
I thought that when you purchase something online the retailer has the responsibility to get it to you and couldn't just say "tough, we did post them".

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm not sure about that statement, but Trainline, and all other ticket retailers I'm aware of, will allow collection from the station in the event of a postal failure. This is generally organised when there is less than 24 hours to go until departure.

 

[SickyNicky]

I have just been browsing the OFT guidelines on the Distance Selling Regulations (DSRs) at http://www.oft.gov.uk/shared_oft/business_leaflets/general/oft698.pdf

Section 2.20 restricts the rights (for train travel) under this legislation by removing the right to have pre-contractual information, written and additional information, the right to cancel and the obligation to carry out the contract within 30 days.

However, I don't think it revokes section 3.20 which says that the items belong to the seller until they have been accepted by the consumer and that the seller cannot charge the consumer for risks the seller must carry.

The DSRs always trump any terms and conditions, rendering the T&Cs irrelevant.

I would be very interested to see their response to a challenge under the DSRs if they actually refused to provide service because a ticket (which they sent at their own risk according to DSR 3.20) was lost in the post.

I'm sure there are many others on this forum who will take a differing opinion, though

 

[Roylang]

I'm sure there are many others on this forum who will take a differing opinion, though

I fully agree, the obligations for delivery rest with the seller, they in tun contract the delivery, in this case via the Royal Mail.

Too often companies claim that they are not responsible for delivery by mail and a "proof of postage" is as far as their obligations go leaving the customer to fight the Royal Mail.

I too would be interested to see it challenged.

Roy

 

[tony_mac]

That was enacted with an emendment to the Sale of Goods act.

There is some argument that rail tickets are not goods and it doesn't apply; but they are certainly deemed to be 'chattels of value'.

(All goods are chattels, not all chattels are goods as they may not have a physical existence - such as copyright).

However, as a rail ticket is an item that has a value in its own right (such as it can be returned for a refund or used as payment for a service), and you cannot do anything without possession of the ticket, I believe it is a good.

Regardless of the literal interpretation, I believe that the intent of the law is extremely clear - a consumer should not be held responsible when a supplier fails to deliver.

(And, if it isn't actually a good, then you have simply purchased a service which they are in breach of contract by not supplying.)

 

[Greenback]

I believe that in law the Trainline are responsible for rectifying any problems with delivery. I do not see any reason why rail tickets should differ from anything else bought in good faith in a distant transaction. My reasoning is as follows:

The supplier is the customer of the delivery company - therefore they must have a contractual arrangement - so it is clearly the seller that is responsible for the delivery of the tickets. It is they who have to deal with any failure of their contract with the delivery service, as the buyer has no such contract with them.

The fact that the Trainline can make such a statement provides yet another reason, if one were needed, not to go anywhere near them.

 

[michael769]

The supplier is the customer of the delivery company - therefore they must have a contractual arrangement - so it is clearly the seller that is responsible for the delivery of the tickets. It is they who have to deal with any failure of their contract with the delivery service, as the buyer has no such contract with them.

I would say the essence of the contract is the provision of rail travel in the manner agreed (ie travel based on the T&Cs of the ticket purchased). So while they probably have no obligation to replace the tickets they do still have an obligation to provide the rail journey.

If the failure to deliver a ticket or some other acceptable proof that the contract exists, results in the ToC refusing to carry the purchaser I feel that the trainline would be in material breach of contract - and would be liable to return any moneys the received for the contract along with costs and/or financial losses that were incurred as a result of the breach.

Assuming (as we know is the case) that provision of a ticket is essential to the completion of the contract - then the clause in question is almost certainly unlawful under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Act, as it attempts to limit the consumers ability to enforce the suppliers obligations under the contract.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

However, as a rail ticket is an item that has a value in its own right (such as it can be returned for a refund or used as payment for a service), and you cannot do anything without possession of the ticket, I believe it is a good.

I am not so sure I agree. The ticket is simply proof that a contract to travel on one or more rail journeys exists. The ticket cannot be re-sold (and in many cases cannot even be transferred) and remains the property of the rail industry. The consumer never actually owns a ticket.

None of these conditions would meet the definition of the sale of some goods with respect to the ticket.

 

[AlterEgo]

I would say the essence of the contract is the provision of rail travel in the manner agreed (ie travel based on the T&Cs of the ticket purchased). So while they probably have no obligation to replace the tickets they do still have an obligation to provide the rail journey.

Quite - if this is not in the form of an actual ticket, there are other methods available to ensure the customer completes his journey.

 

[Greenback]

Quite - if this is not in the form of an actual ticket, there are other methods available to ensure the customer completes his journey.

Agreed. They can use whatever methods they like, what they cannot do is to say to the passneger who reports their tickets haven't arrived 'tough, we sent them, take it up with the Post Office' and refuse to do anything.

However that is exactly what their statement suggests.

 

[tony_mac]

Case law says that a rail ticket is considered as an item with an intrinsic value. If it was merely some form of 'receipt' then it would not.

People do have different opinions, and as far as I know there is no definitive answer.

But, I don't think it matters, if the rail company refuses to supply a service you have paid for, due to its failure to deliver the ticket then I think the case is actually perfectly clear anyway.

 

[michael769]

But, I don't think it matters, if the rail company refuses to supply a service you have paid for, due to its failure to deliver the ticket then I think the case is actually perfectly clear anyway.

I think this is the key - whatever bit of law was used I have no doubt that a consumer would be able to compel Trainline to either provide travel or a full refund.

It would be interesting to know what their real world policy is on this - just because they have such a clause does not necessarily mean they enforce it? Especially with those ToCs that use them as their on-line booking supplier - who may wish to give their customers a better level of service that this clause implies.

EDIT: I just checked the T&Cs on Scotrails branded booking engine which is run by trainline and it had this to say:

If we fail to deliver any tickets to you for any reason within our control within a reasonable time prior to your departure time, any re-imbursement made by us of the costs of a replacement ticket or an alternative journey by train shall be no more than the cost of the nearest equivalent ticket purchased on the train or at the station.

Note the use of deliver rather that send or dispatch. No sign of the wording the Op mentions, which would suggest that the standard T&Cs were not palatable to Scotrail....

 

[SussexMan]

I've had a look to see if I can get the message up again on the Trainline and I failed when I tried to do it booked as me. I'm wondering whether it was to do with me booking via a company account and whether the DSRs don't therefore apply in the same way

 

[bnm]

The T&Cs regarding sale and supply of tickets are the same on business accounts as they are on the main site. I've just registered a business account (Mickey Mouse Ltd) to check.

Can't find any mention of a clause where thetrainline say they will not honour a booking in respect of non-delivery of tickets.