Groupsave refused at St Pancras

[Haywain]

Just because a ticket can be sold, it doesn't mean it is valid for travel.

Unfortunately, most TIS are unable to distinguish between those TOCs who accept the GS3 Groupsave discount and those that do not. This does lead to tickets being incorrectly sold for longer through journeys.

The EMT and Scotrail tickets are something of a nightmare to retail as they issue one coupon each way, rather than one per passenger. In the TIS they are set up as being for one passenger whether the intended number travelling is 2, 3 or 4 (there are actually 3 different ticket types). As a result, Scotrail's advice is that the tickets are not to be sold from unstaffed sales points.

 

[etr221]

Just because a ticket can be sold, it doesn't mean it is valid for travel.

Possibly the most worrying statement in the thread.
If a ticket for travel is sold, that is not valid for travel - then in my book that is fraud.

(Note: there is a difference between a ticket not valid *AT ALL* (which seems to be what is talked about here), and one not valid *HERE AND NOW*)

 

[Bletchleyite]

Possibly the most worrying statement in the thread.
If a ticket for travel is sold, that is not valid for travel - then in my book that is fraud.

If a ticket for travel is sold that cannot be valid[1], it should be accepted for travel, and if it was invalid it should be withdrawn for investigation, the passenger warned they can't do it again, a free replacement given, and the TOC or sales site that issued it billed for the difference between the fare that should have been paid and the fare that was. That is the only fair way.

As for EMT, if they don't accept standard GroupSave they should stop calling it GroupSave, and should call it something different. I think there is a possible legal case for false advertising/passing off here; GroupSave has a specific meaning and they are potentially selling something that isn't GroupSave as GroupSave. They should call it "East Midlands Trains small group discount" or some other brand to make it clear it is its own thing, a bit like at one point "Virgin Weekend Upgrade" was named such so it was clear it was not the same thing as the standard "Weekend First", as some policies differed and you couldn't issue a through upgrade onto another TOC as you could at the time with the standard version.

[1] Be that one that isn't valid at all, or be that anything with "impossible" seat reservations issued or accompanied by an itinerary from its issue e.g. online.

 

[reb0118]

The National Rail website also has a footnote that it's available on Scotrail between Glasgow and Edinburgh, with other routes coming soon! What a farce.

Except it is not. Our [ScotRail's] groupsave is a ticket in its own right NOT a discount on an existing ticket. The area has been increased slightly to include routes to Dunblane & Alloa from Edinburgh & Glasgow, and to & from intermediate points, and between intermediate points. That said it is possible to issue a point to point ticket with the generic GSV discount through our issuing systems wherever an off peak day return [CDR] exists AFAIAA.

Not only is it confusing for the passengers but for certain staff members as well.

 

[Haywain]

If a ticket for travel is sold that cannot be valid[1], it should be accepted for travel, and if it was invalid it should be withdrawn for investigation, the passenger warned they can't do it again, a free replacement given, and the TOC or sales site that issued it billed for the difference between the fare that should have been paid and the fare that was. That is the only fair way.

I am in two minds over this. Where a customer has been undercharged (as in this case), is it not reasonable to ask them to pay an excess up to the correct amount? This would be the case for a ticket being used at a time when its use is restricted or for using a ticket on an incorrect route (in the case of tickets routed "via" point x).

As for EMT, if they don't accept standard GroupSave they should stop calling it GroupSave, and should call it something different.

I completely agree with this.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I am in two minds over this. Where a customer has been undercharged (as in this case), is it not reasonable to ask them to pay an excess up to the correct amount? This would be the case for a ticket being used at a time when its use is restricted or for using a ticket on an incorrect route (in the case of tickets routed "via" point x).

No, because they agreed to the contract at the price that was proposed by the seller for the journey they wish to make. Under no circumstances should they be charged extra because the seller made a mistake. They may not, after all, have agreed to the purchase at all at the higher price, so it is fundamentally unfair - arguably "bait and switch" - to charge extra later.

To do it wilfully is clear fraud, but to do it accidentally (as here) is just grossly incompetent, and is yet another case of an incompetent member of ticket office staff providing an excellent argument for the closure of their ticket office (an online sales site would not have issued an invalid GroupSave ticket).

 

[eastdyke]

I am in two minds over this. Where a customer has been undercharged (as in this case), is it not reasonable to ask them to pay an excess up to the correct amount? This would be the case for a ticket being used at a time when its use is restricted or for using a ticket on an incorrect route (in the case of tickets routed "via" point x).

I can see that this might be reasonable if all this happened before the journey was started, ie pay more or get a full refund.
As all this happened mid-journey it is not reasonable at all.

The claim back for the extra paid and delays caused to the journey through no fault of the ticketholder(s) could be further increased by a (reasonable) claim for consequential loss (noting that this was a day ticket it might not have been possible for the traveller(s) to have completed all the planned activity in the remaining time at the destination).

 

[yorkie]

Possibly the most worrying statement in the thread.
If a ticket for travel is sold, that is not valid for travel - then in my book that is fraud.

(Note: there is a difference between a ticket not valid *AT ALL* (which seems to be what is talked about here), and one not valid *HERE AND NOW*)

A ticket that is believed to be not valid (and this one wasn't valid) , but is being used in accordance with the terms under which it was sold by a retailer, can be withdrawn but travel cannot be refused.

EMT should have withdrawn the ticket and issued a free of charge replacement, or taken a photograph of the ticket, and submitted a report for investigation. They should not have delayed the customer, refused travel or charged any extra.

I'm not sure if any of this can be called "fraud" but the actions of EMT are unfortunately occuring on a daily basis on rogue train companies including not just EMT but the likes of GWR, GTR and others .

I know of retailers who have to spend a LOT of time handling complaints with customers due to a train companies refusing to follow rail industry procedures and flouting contract and consumer laws.

In most cases I'm aware of - in fact well over 90 per cent - the tickets were in fact valid and offered for sale by the relevant train company's own website.

It's a disgrace, and someone needs to do something about it.

 

[yorkie]

I am in two minds over this. Where a customer has been undercharged (as in this case), is it not reasonable to ask them to pay an excess up to the correct amount?

I'm not going to get into the subjectiveness of "reasonableness", but I will point out that by acting this way, TOCs such as EMT are:
* Flouting consumer law
* Flouting contract law
* Failing to adhere to rail industry procrdures
* Giving themselves a poor reputation

And it is therefore not acceptable behaviour.

 

[Muzer]

As I said, if EMT do not accept the standard GroupSave scheme at all, there should not be GS tickets available that *require* travel on EMT for the contract to be fulfilled. In this case, it's quite clear - EMT are the only TOC who serve Market Harborough, and so if it's not possible to use a "standard" GroupSave ticket on EMT, they should not be available.

(Incidentally, I had a brief look at some other fares and was surprised to find GS tickets available on other routes which I'm pretty sure shouldn't have them. In the event of a GS ticket being sold for a route where all permitted routes require use of a non-GS TOC, but travel via a non-permitted route is possible, would the passenger have a good argument in favour of doing the latter?)

 

[kilo42]

Thanks everybody for your responses. Like reading a Kafka novel at times! It's a complicated business buying a train ticket nowadays!

Just to clarify

1. Tickets were not valid because EMT are not part of the general GS offer but they have their own GS product which has more restrictions. Confusingly both called Groupsave.

2. The booking clerk at ECR shouldn't have sold the tickets.

3. Gateline staff at STP should have allowed onward travel at no extra cost and dealt with the ticketing irregularity direct with GTR.

Is that the gist of it?

 

[Bletchleyite]

I'd say so, yes.

 

[yorkie]

Thanks everybody for your responses. Like reading a Kafka novel at times! It's a complicated business buying a train ticket nowadays!

Just to clarify

1. Tickets were not valid because EMT are not part of the general GS offer but they have their own GS product which has more restrictions. Confusingly both called Groupsave.

2. The booking clerk at ECR shouldn't have sold the tickets.

3. Gateline staff at STP should have allowed onward travel at no extra cost and dealt with the ticketing irregularity direct with GTR.

Is that the gist of it?

Yes indeed.

And issues like this occur daily, as no-one is able or prepared to do anything about it.

Let us know how you get on; feel free to send me a direct conversation message with a draft of your letter if you like.

 

[kilo42]

Will do Yorkie, much appreciated.

Kev.

 

[superalbs]

The groupsave fares from East Croydon to Market Harborough are priced by East Midlands Trains, so quite why they wouldn't accept a fare on a flow that they price is bizarre.

 

[yorkie]

The groupsave fares from East Croydon to Market Harborough are priced by East Midlands Trains, so quite why they wouldn't accept a fare on a flow that they price is bizarre.

EMT price Groupsave tickets for some flows that they price.

EMT do not participate in the GroupSave discount scheme which operators such as GTR participate in.

It was effectively a case of "the wrong type of GroupSave" (!)

Yes GTR made a mistake but EMT should take it up with them, instead of mistreating the passenger.

 

[Bletchleyite]

http://www.brfares.com/#!fares?orig=ECR&dest=MHR&rlc=GS3

Very bizarre. Notably there are both "via City Thameslink" and "Any Permitted" variants...

Mind you there are also:

http://www.brfares.com/#!fares?orig=STP&dest=MHR&rlc=GS3

which aren't supposed to exist!

 

[mmh]

Seems like brfares will give groupsave prices for any route - perhaps it's just applying a third discount to anything, as if groupsave was a railcard style discount?

I wonder if that's how the tickets were able to be issued, if the ticket system used allows the seller to apply the discount to any ticket with no check if it's valid or not. (I have no idea if that's actually how it works!)

If so it feels like it could be made a lot simpler if Groupsave just became something all TOCs accepted - like railcards.

 

[Be3G]

It's definitely possible to restrict railcard discounts to specific flows, because regional railcards work properly – e.g. BRFares will correctly say no tickets are available if trying ECR to MHR with a Devon & Cornwall railcard. So one would have thought the GS3 discount could be treated in a similar manner. I can't really blame the GTR ticket clerk for selling these tickets because their existence in the fares database surely seems to suggest that they are valid in some capacity or other.

 

[Wallsendmag]

I remember during my TIS training issuing a Network Card discounted ticket from Inverness to Kyle of Lochalsh. Just to illustrate how fallible the TIS is.

 

[kilo42]

Seems like brfares will give groupsave prices for any route - perhaps it's just applying a third discount to anything, as if groupsave was a railcard style discount?

http://www.brfares.com/#!info?type=railcard&back=#!fares?orig=ECR&dest=MHR&rlc=GS3

and scroll down to GS

Looks like you're right mmh

 

[RJ]

Thanks everybody for your responses. Like reading a Kafka novel at times! It's a complicated business buying a train ticket nowadays!

Just to clarify

1. Tickets were not valid because EMT are not part of the general GS offer but they have their own GS product which has more restrictions. Confusingly both called Groupsave.

2. The booking clerk at ECR shouldn't have sold the tickets.

3. Gateline staff at STP should have allowed onward travel at no extra cost and dealt with the ticketing irregularity direct with GTR.

Is that the gist of it?

Spot on in my view.

 

[Paul Kelly]

Seems like brfares will give groupsave prices for any route - perhaps it's just applying a third discount to anything, as if groupsave was a railcard style discount?

I wonder if that's how the tickets were able to be issued, if the ticket system used allows the seller to apply the discount to any ticket with no check if it's valid or not. (I have no idea if that's actually how it works!)

Yes, correct - the fares will appear as available in ticket issuing systems that don't have a journey planner function. The way the restriction is enforced is as an additional restriction code with various TOC restrictions, e.g. if you click through to http://www.brfares.com/#faredetail?orig=STP&dest=MHR&grpo=1072&rlc=GS3&tkt=SSS you will see in the list of restrictions:

Not valid to depart any location at any time on EAST MIDLANDS TRAINS

However this is only enforced when the fares are retailed via a journey planner, rather than a "pure" ticket issuing system.

 

[Paul Kelly]

There are also some additional, unpublished restrictions on when the GS3 discount is available: many journey planners won't allow the discount on fares priced by West Midlands PTE or Arriva Trains Wales.

 

[CharlieSpotted]

There are also some additional, unpublished restrictions on when the GS3 discount is available: many journey planners won't allow the discount on fares priced by West Midlands PTE or Arriva Trains Wales.

Surely you mean Centro? Oh, wait...
Surely you mean Network West Midlands? Oh, wait...
Surely you mean Transport for West Midlands? Oh, I give up...