"£100m" claim launched against TOCS re: Boundary zone tickets

renegademaster said:

What part of common law or consumer law says TOCs have to market the cheapest available ticket, genuine question?

Click to expand...

ATOC Retail Standards Guide said:
C.1 Impartiality

This is the most important requirement and is necessary because Retailers will be selling tickets or giving information about different TOCs.

Retailers at impartial Points of Sale must therefore act fairly and impartially between TOCs and any information that is provided must be factual, accurate and impartial (TSA clause 6-30(1)(a)).

Impartiality simply means providing the customer with information or a ticket that is the most suitable for their needs. Retailers must not favour their own train services, or those of any TOC over others in providing information or selling the ticket.

Where a customer asks to purchase a specific fare for a specific journey, this can be sold without giving any further information (TSA clause 6-30(2)(d)).

In many cases only one fare will meet the customer’s requirements as only one TOC provides a service for the journey concerned. Even where more than one TOC is involved the customer may be specific by stating their requirements in terms of:
• Destination station
• Ticket Type
• Train
• Class

In these circumstances, the Retailer only needs to seek further information when the customer wants to make a journey that cannot be made with that fare. An example is a customer requesting a discounted fare at a time of day when this fare is not valid.

Where the customer does not specify which fare they want and more than one is available that may meet their requirements, the Retailer must seek additional information to enable the correct fare to be sold. If more than one fare is suitable for their needs, the Retailer must explain the main features of the alternatives impartially (TSA clause 6-30(2)).

Click to expand...

renegademaster said:

What part of common law or consumer law says TOCs have to market the cheapest available ticket, genuine question?

Click to expand...

18
...
(1) at the TOC ticket counters, where a Travelcard was not initially mentioned, for First MTR 89.4% of enquiries and for LSER 83.5% of enquiries led to the clerk quoting a full journey price without asking about ownership of a Travelcard; and that where a Travelcard/Boundary Fare was mentioned by the customer, for First MTR in only 71.7% of cases and for LSER in only 58.2% of cases was the Travelcard incorporated into the ticket price quoted.

(2) at the First MTR in-station TVMs, although Boundary Fares are available, the purchase option was complicated and the ‘mystery shoppers’ were not always able to locate it without assistance. As noted above, Boundary Fares are not available from LSER’s TVMs;

(3) Boundary Fares were not available through any of the surveyed online sales outlets (including mobile phone apps) whether operated by First MTR, LSER or third parties, including Trainline.com;
...
19. In a draft re-amended collective proceedings claim form, the class representative encapsulated the alleged abuse in the following terms:
“By failing to make Boundary Fares sufficiently available for sale and/or failing to use their best endeavours to ensure that there was a general awareness among their customers of the existence of Boundary Fares so as to enable customers to buy an appropriate fare in order to avoid being charged twice for part of a journey the Defendants abused their position of dominance on the relevant market in breach of the prohibition in section 18 of the Act…”

20.
The following is also averred:
“As an undertaking in a dominant position the defendants have a responsibility to ensure inter alia that their customers are not subjected to unfair prices or unfair trading conditions. This includes a responsibility to avoid, or to remedy, circumstances which effectively compel customers to pay a second time for part of the service provided to them in respect of which they already hold a valid ticket (a Travelcard); in particular given that the First Defendant received a share of the revenue from the sale of Travelcards under an agreement with TfL. Furthermore, the Infringement occurred against a backdrop where the Defendants must have been well aware, from data readily available to them, but only an unrealistically low number of Boundary Fares were being sold for travel on their services.”

Click to expand...

greatkingrat said:

How would this proposed settlement actually work in practice? It seems very few people will have sufficient records to be able to prove they bought an affected ticket the best part of a decade ago.

Click to expand...

furlong said:

No, from skimming the documentation, I think the settlement already provides that unneeded funds revert back to SSWT.

Click to expand...

Starmill said:

Ooft! I see. Real low ball offer then.

Click to expand...

infobleep said:

I thought it was a lot of money. Shows what I know.

I did also wonder in the past, how do people know they paid twice as I certainly wouldn't remember if I'd not purchased a boundary zone 6 ticket when that was cheaper even if I had any proof, which except for a bank statement, would be unlikely.

I don't know where I first came across boundary zone tickets. Could easily have been those forums.

Click to expand...

Starmill said:

It could be that it's a fair offer at the lower end of the range, we don't really know unless we can understand why SWR are making an offer and the other respondents aren't.

Click to expand...

Haywain said:

Is it SWR or SWT, as mentioned in post #96?

Click to expand...

Haywain said:

Is it SWR or SWT, as mentioned in post #96?

Click to expand...

infobleep said:

I thought it was a lot of money. Shows what I know.

I did also wonder in the past, how do people know they paid twice as I certainly wouldn't remember if I'd not purchased a boundary zone 6 ticket when that was cheaper even if I had any proof, which except for a bank statement, would be unlikely.

I don't know where I first came across boundary zone tickets. Could easily have been those forums.

Click to expand...

redreni said:

the train companies' MO seemed to be to never mention the existence of these tickets to customers and to hope they wouldn't find out.

Click to expand...

redreni said:

I moved from Leicester to London in 2006 and I found out that boundary fares existed in about 2008. And I'm considerably nerdier than the average person.

Fortunately, even though I used to travel to destinations just outside London regularly, I didn't overpay by all that much because I used to commute by bike so didn't hold a Travelcard season ticket until I changed jobs in 2010. But I had overpaid on occasion and I was furious when I found out.

The existence of boundary fares was essentially a secret. I remember in 2009 meeting four friends in a pub in Farringdon and travelling with them to Dublin via Gatwick Airport. Most of them had lived in London longer than I had and all of them held a Travelcard season ticket for commuting. None of them knew that boundary zone fares existed. All of them would have paid for a ticket from Farringdon to Gatwick Airport if I hadn't told them they could get it cheaper at the ticket office if they showed their travelcard and asked for a ticket from the zone boundary to Gatwick.

I assume that's what the claimant group is made up of - people who didn't know about boundary fares for a long time and were furious when they found out, because the train companies' MO seemed to be to never mention the existence of these tickets to customers and to hope they wouldn't find out.

GWR even told me non-stop splits weren't valid when using either a point-to-point or a boundary ticket in conjunction with a travelcard (i.e. "it's not valid, mate, because that train doesn't stop at West Drayton") and dug their heels in twice when I wrote in to complain. So I went to London Travelwatch who were exactly as much use as you might expect.

Click to expand...

infobleep said:

Do you still have letters you wrote? If you do then perhaps when there is a conclusion to this, you could write to them again, along with their previoua responses and ask them look at it again.

You could also ask them what they think of the ruling.

Click to expand...

Hadders said:

It's SWT and covers the period from 1 October 2015 until 01:59 on 20 August 2017 (that was when SWT's franchise ended).

Click to expand...

ainsworth74 said:

I wonder if this is Stagecoach wanting to end an open ended liability and draw a line?

Click to expand...

Haywain said:

I think that's quite likely to be the case although it's a surprise to see them accepting some liability.

Click to expand...