Megatrain cancellation...

[steadmane]

Now is time to elaborate upon one of the basic principles of contract law I mentioned earlier.

Say you buy 1 tonne of bananas from Tesco at 50p a kilo in May, to be delivered in July. Total cost £500. In June, Tesco pull out of the contract, citing a "banana shortage," and offer a full refund. The market price of bananas is now £1.50 a kilo. If you accepted Tesco's refund and purchased bananas again at the market rate, you would be £1000 out of pocket. Tesco would be liable for this and would have to pay you £1000 in damages. They cannot simply refund the original £500 and say "OK, you've got your money back - contract over."

The same principles apply to train travel. However, I'm afraid I do not have the time to look into the other aspect you mention, which is whether Megabus are allowed to offer alternative transport in the form of a bus or coach.

My point is that I expect they are within their rights to offer to transport you to the destination by another means and if you refuse give you a refund. There was no need for a lesson in contract law based on the refund only option which I never alluded to!

 

[island]

I would be taking this down the OFT route. I cannot disagree with Dave that the customer probably does not have a remedy in contract, but it would seem to me that there is a possibility that this practice is a violation of the Unfair Commercial Practices Directive.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I have had time to post in more depth today and have updated my post from last night. Here is my response . . .

- - - - Quick response - - - -
I see that one of my researched analyses from about 6 weeks ago is being revisited in this thread, and after a very quick read, it appears that a lot of posters are taking a go at their own legal anaysis - and attempting to reach other conclusions. (Some are rather amusing!), but I'm sorry that I don't have the time right now to go through them all in any detail.

There is a lot in the past 20 or so posts which is simply wrong and/or wild speculation.

In short, I stand by my analysis in June, in which, whether we like it or not, I stated that Megabus are able to cancel booking in this manner with (relative) impunity.

- - - - More thorough response - - - - -
There is no point in "refusing" a refund and then anticipating a challenge in Law. A successful challenge will award the dissapointed passenger the refund that they had refused.
The 'Damages' will be limited to the cost of that cancelled and refunded ticket. There are no 'damages' other than the liquidated damages of the refunded fare.

If the passenger then buys another ticket to make the same journey (from another Operator or by any other means) that does not form a liability on behalf of Megatrain, though the ability to do so, at whatever cost, demonstrates that the customer is not frustrated from travel as planned, thus negating any and all consequential inconvenience and could be used by Megatrain as evidence that 'specific performance' was still available to the passenger.
'Normal' Rail tickets give passengers the right to be conveyed and this need not be by rail. I have not looked, but doubt that a Megatrain ticket would bestow the additional obligation of travel by rail that was not attached to a Virgin ticket.
The refund rights given to passengers under contract with RSP Ltd are limited to the value of the ticket, and again, although I have not looked, I doubt that a Megatrain ticket would offer customers additional benefits in the case of a refund.

The Case Law cited in posts above will not apply to these tickets and would result in dismissal and perhaps some embarrasment if cited. Again, they appear to be refered to here as if they might bestow greater privileges and rights to a customer issued with a Megatrain ticket than one who does not, which would be surprising if that is the aim in citing those authorities.

Having said all the above, I will of course be very intereted to learn of any hearing in which the refund of a Megtrain Ticket is offered and challenged, whether on grounds of trading in financial 'futures', bananas or travel.

Some of the key distinctions between Scots Law and English Law in terms of Contracts are:
Equity is not a principle of Scots Law.
The right of a customer to demand perfomance by the Contractor is likely to fail in a challenge if the 'specific performance' can be provided by another Operator (e.g. Virgin).
'Consideration' is not a principle of Scots Contract Law.

The Small Claims Court is, in my opinion, closer to an Arbitration service than a Court of Law. Its decisions are not binding on any other Court, its standards of Evidence are low and lax, it seeks a pragmatic resolution which the 2 parties are content to accept, and it requires the parties to accept that principle and to conclude the matter on that basis (subject to the Right of Appeal to the same Court on the same principles).

The Advertising Standards Authority will not and cannot assist the passenger. It can, if it deems it appropriate, require the advertiser to remove or cease making an assertions which the Authority deems to be innapropriate or misleading.

 

[island]

It should be noted that Scots law only applies to railway tickets if purchased in Scotland for a journey wholly within Scotland. Glasgow to Euston will come under the law of England and Wales.

 

[All Line Rover]

There is no point in "refusing" a refund and then anticipating a challenge in Law. A successful challenge will award the dissapointed passenger the refund that they had refused.
The 'Damages' will be limited to the cost of that cancelled and refunded ticket. There are no 'damages' other than the liquidated damages of the refunded fare.

If the passenger then buys another ticket to make the same journey (from another Operator or by any other means) that does not form a liability on behalf of Megatrain, though the ability to do so, at whatever cost, demonstrates that the customer is not frustrated from travel as planned, thus negating any and all consequential inconvenience and could be used by Megatrain as evidence that 'specific performance' was still available to the passenger.
'Normal' Rail tickets give passengers the right to be conveyed and this need not be by rail. I have not looked, but doubt that a Megatrain ticket would bestow the additional obligation of travel by rail that was not attached to a Virgin ticket.
The refund rights given to passengers under contract with RSP Ltd are limited to the value of the ticket, and again, although I have not looked, I doubt that a Megatrain ticket would offer customers additional benefits in the case of a refund.

The Case Law cited in posts above will not apply to these tickets and would result in dismissal and perhaps some embarrasment if cited. Again, they appear to be refered to here as if they might bestow greater privileges and rights to a customer issued with a Megatrain ticket than one who does not, which would be surprising if that is the aim in citing those authorities.

Having said all the above, I will of course be very intereted to learn of any hearing in which the refund of a Megtrain Ticket is offered and challenged, whether on grounds of trading in financial 'futures', bananas or travel.

Some of the key distinctions between Scots Law and English Law in terms of Contracts are:
Equity is not a principle of Scots Law.
The right of a customer to demand perfomance by the Contractor is likely to fail in a challenge if the 'specific performance' can be provided by another Operator (e.g. Virgin).
'Consideration' is not a principle of Scots Contract Law.

If a consumer purchases a "normal" Advance ticket six weeks in advance of the date of travel, they do so with the expectation that this will allow them to travel from A to B for less than the cost of a walk-up ticket. Applying this to the OP's circumstances, the OP buys a £12 Advance ticket from www.virgintrains.co.uk six weeks before the date of travel. One week before the date of travel, Virgin arbitrarily pull out of the contract, citing a "mistake with the quotas," and offer a full refund but no compensation ("damages"). No Advance tickets are left, so the OP now needs to purchase an Off-Peak single at £73.20, leaving them £61.20 out of pocket compared to if the contract had been fulfilled. Are you saying Virgin would be within their rights to do this?

The Megabus example is even worse. The OP buys a £1.50 Megatrain ticket six weeks in advance of the date of travel. At that moment in time, a "normal" Advance ticket is also available at £12 (I'm making an assumption here). Megabus pull out of the contract one week before the date of travel, refunding £1.50. No Advance tickets are left, so the OP now needs to purchase an Off-Peak single at £73.20. This leaves them £71.70 out of pocket on the basis that the Megabus contract would have been fulfilled, but also leaves them £61.20 out of pocket had they had the opportunity to purchase the £12 Advance ticket, which they would have done had they known that Megabus would pull out of the contract. Are you saying that Megabus are entitled to arbitrarily pull out of the contract with the sole recompense to the OP £1.50?

If the answer to either of those questions is "yes," what is the point of the consumer entering into either contract in the first place, seeing as it leaves them no better off compared to purchasing a walk-up ticket? In the second example concerning Megabus, the contract actually leaves the consumer worse off, as had the consumer not entered into the Megabus contract, they would have purchased the £12 Advance ticket, which would still have saved them a significant sum compared to purchasing the walk-up ticket.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

My point is that I expect they are within their rights to offer to transport you to the destination by another means and if you refuse give you a refund. There was no need for a lesson in contract law based on the refund only option which I never alluded to!

I agree with you. I apologise that this forum has a habit of 'talking among ourselves' and wandering into other matters which are of little or no help to the OP. I hope you can find something of assistance in these wanderings. I'm sorry if there isn't.

It should be noted that Scots law only applies to railway tickets if purchased in Scotland for a journey wholly within Scotland. Glasgow to Euston will come under the law of England and Wales.

Really?
That looks familiar to me from the determination of jurisdiction by parties to RSP Ltd.

Here is what I found when quickly researching a Contract between Megatrain (Stagecoach Group plc registered in Perth) and an online customer:

in the event of any dispute, the relevant parties shall irrevocably submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Scottish Courts.

However, the English Courts are always happy to be asked to consider matters brought to their attention from other Jurisdictions! Parties must either accept the Jurisdiction as stated in the clause, or, choose another body of Law. The Courts will accept that Arbitration and Jurisdiction are separable (though Mediation and Jurisdiction are not). ["After Mediation, you wouldn't want the conclusion accepted in Mediation to be voided by a change in the body of Law" - Longmore LJ 2012]
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

If a consumer purchases a "normal" Advance ticket six weeks in advance of the date of travel, they do so with the expectation that this will allow them to travel from A to B for less than the cost of a walk-up ticket.

I hesitate to accept that we are discussing "a consumer".
Their expectations may be many and varied. So what? Please confine your presumptions to Terms in the Contract.

The Megabus example is even worse. The OP buys a £1.50 Megatrain ticket . . . Megabus pull out of the contract . . . . so the OP now needs to purchase an Off-Peak single at £73.20.

What leads us to conclude that the OP "needs to" do anything that is, or is wholly necessitated by complying with, a Term of the Contract with Megatrain?

If the answer to either of those questions is "yes," what is the point of the consumer entering into either contract in the first place, seeing as . . . . .

Perhaps it is an expectation, common in the market place, that the offer is an attractive one, and that the risks are acceptable? I'm not sure what our assessments of another person's market choices might tell us. We are all permitted to enter into Contracts which others, or ourselves at another time, might consider to follow from 'poor choices'.

I'll assume from the style of your post, based on the fact that it follows from a repetition of mine in its entireity, that you were not pleased by my analysis.
That, I can understand. Someone buying a ticket at far below the open market price from a rail operator might have some apprehension that 'the apparent bargain' is not all that it seems, and yet still feel dissapointment when the less welcome conditions of 'the apparent bargain' become effective.
That, too, I can understand.
But I wonder if you thought that I had made an error in my analysis. Have I, and if so, where?

 

[All Line Rover]

Perhaps it is an expectation, common in the market place, that the offer is an attractive one, and that the risks are acceptable? I'm not sure what our assessments of another person's market choices might tell us.

I'll assume from the style of your post, based on the fact that it follows from a repetition of mine in its entireity, that you were not pleased by my analysis. That, I can understand. Someone buying a ticket at far below the open market price from a rail operator might have some apprehension that 'the apparent bargain' is not all that it seems, and yet still feel dissapointment when the less welcome conditions of 'the apparent bargain' become effective. That, too, I can understand.
But I wonder if you thought that I had made an error in my analysis. Have I, and if so, where?

The sole reason why anyone would purchase an item months in advance (be it a travel ticket or a consumable good), is that they can purchase that item(s) for below the market rate and be assured that the order will be fulfilled. To offer the seller the option of exiting the contract by just refunding the amount paid renders the contract pointless.

My question is really quite simple, which is where in the T&C's are Megabus allowed to exit a contract by giving a refund with the sole justification that they have not been allocated a quota? I see no such exemption. With no such exemption as far as I can tell, this seems to be a remarkably shaky "contract."
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There is no point in "refusing" a refund and then anticipating a challenge in Law. A successful challenge will award the dissapointed passenger the refund that they had refused.
The 'Damages' will be limited to the cost of that cancelled and refunded ticket. There are no 'damages' other than the liquidated damages of the refunded fare.

If the passenger then buys another ticket to make the same journey (from another Operator or by any other means) that does not form a liability on behalf of Megatrain, though the ability to do so, at whatever cost, demonstrates that the customer is not frustrated from travel as planned, thus negating any and all consequential inconvenience and could be used by Megatrain as evidence that 'specific performance' was still available to the passenger.

In what way does this eliminate Megabus' contractual responsibility to transport the OP from London to Liverpool? The banana example, although odd, is similar in that it is based on the principle that the further in advance you pay, the cheaper the price you pay. I can't imagine Tesco saying "ASDA still have bananas, albeit at triple the price you paid us. So we'll just refund your money and you can buy the bananas from ASDA instead." I use a C2B scenario to make it simplistic, although of course a B2B scenario would be more likely.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

My point is that I expect they are within their rights to offer to transport you to the destination by another means and if you refuse give you a refund.

I suspect this is the case. But I am concerned by DaveNewcastle's claim that Megabus are free to cancel the contract by refunding you all of £1.50, meaning that you then have to spend £73.20 on a London to Liverpool SVS.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I think that all the talk about the Advertising Standards Agency is a bit of a red herring. I can't see anything where they would either be able to take action, or even to investigate! We are discussing the finer points of the Contract between Megatrain and the Customer, of which I think has already been pointed out, the ASA have no jurisdiction over.

Back in June when we had the first Megatrain cancellation thread, I posted that I didn't think Megatrain had the right in the Contract to withdraw the ticket if the allocation from the TOC didn't appear. Since then I did a bit of research on the finer points of Contract Law and I've come to the same conclusion as DaveNewcastle that Megatrain can, in these situations, withdraw the tickets. Much as that might be unpalatable for members here!

 

[DaveNewcastle]

. . . . To offer the seller the option of exiting the contract by just refunding the amount paid renders the contract pointless.

I disagree.
I'll hazard that the thousands of people who have travelled at Megatrain's extremely low prices to date, might also disagree.

My question is really quite simple, which is where in the T&C's are Megabus allowed to exit a contract by giving a refund. . . .

Lets just pause there for a moment.
I'm sure we've covered that, but as it is demonstrably clear that any hopeful passenger can still travel, thus rendering the 'specific performance' intact, then the refund is an adequate remedy and no further detail in the T&Cs is necessary.
Now, back to your full question:

. . . where in the T&C's are Megabus allowed to exit a contract by giving a refund with the sole justification that they have not been allocated a quota? I see no such exemption. With no such exemption as far as I can tell, this seems to be a remarkably shaky "contract."

The 'quota' explanation is somewhat specialist language for railway ticket specialists, and I doubt the details are of much help to an intending passenger; there might be other foreseeable or more probably unforeseeable explanations. The blanket term is surely 'factors beyond our control' which, although indeterminate, is, in my opinion, adequate and reasonable; particularly when considered in the broader range of factors which actually do apply (and not analagous circumstances in other markets).

In what way does this eliminate Megabus' contractual responsibility to transport the OP from London to Liverpool?

As above.

The banana example, although odd, is similar in that it is based on the principle that the further in advance you pay, the cheaper the price you pay. I can't imagine Tesco saying "ASDA still have bananas, albeit at triple the price you paid us. So we'll just refund your money and you can buy the bananas from ASDA instead."

I can see a similarity, yes thanks.
I can't see that happenning either.
The poor OP must, by now, be thinking of using the word 'bananas' in another context!

 

[All Line Rover]

I think that all the talk about the Advertising Standards Agency is a bit of a red herring. I can't see anything where they would either be able to take action, or even to investigate! We are discussing the finer points of the Contract between Megatrain and the Customer, of which I think has already been pointed out, the ASA have no jurisdiction over.

Back in June when we had the first Megatrain cancellation thread, I posted that I didn't think Megatrain had the right in the Contract to withdraw the ticket if the allocation from the TOC didn't appear. Since then I did a bit of research on the finer points of Contract Law and I've come to the same conclusion as DaveNewcastle that Megatrain can, in these situations, withdraw the tickets. Much as that might be unpalatable for members here!

It's nice that you've done some deeper research into this and I would appreciate it if you could explain to us why you have come to that conclusion.

I am confused as, with my Tesco example, Tesco could not pull out of the contract just because their banana wholesaler refused to provide the bananas. They would still have to provide me with my bananas (from another wholesaler, for example, even if it meant them making a loss on the order), or else compensate me for the loss I have incurred through buying the bananas from another supplier. This is the primary reason why I agreed to the contract in the first place!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I'm sure we've covered that, but as it is demonstrably clear that any hopeful passenger can still travel, thus rendering the 'specific performance' intact, then the refund is an adequate remedy and no further detail in the T&Cs is necessary.

Yes, of course they can still travel, but at the market rate. The primary reason why they originally entered into that contract was to travel at less than the market rate.

Now, back to your full question:The 'quota' explanation is somewhat specialist language for railway ticket specialists, and I doubt the details are of much help to an intending passenger; there might be other foreseeable or more probably unforeseeable explanations. The blanket term is surely 'factors beyond our control' which, although indeterminate, is, in my opinion, adequate and reasonable; particularly when considered in the broader range of factors which actually do apply (and not analagous circumstances in other markets).

I disagree that a lack of quotas is a factor beyond Megabus' control, as they should have ensured that an adequate quota was in place before selling the tickets.

As I posted earlier, Megabus explain in a fair amount of detail what constitutes "other conditions" for refusing travel, which is:

"Force Majeure and Other Conditions - Whenever such action is necessary or advisable by reason of weather or other conditions beyond megabus.com control including, but not limited to, acts of God, force majeure, strikes, civil commotions, embargoes, wars, hostilities, terrorist activities, or disturbances, whether actual, threatened, or reported."​

A lack of quota, which is perfectly avoidable if Megabus performed an adequate amount of forward planning, does not, in my honest opinion, fall under circumstances such as "acts of God," "strikes," "wars," and "terrorist activities."

 

[DaveNewcastle]

This is the primary reason why I agreed to the contract in the first place!

But that is at your own hazard.

It is not a Term, Condition, Duty, Right or any other form of binding element of an agreement.

 

[All Line Rover]

But that is at your own hazard.

It is not a Term, Condition, Duty, Right or any other form of binding element of an agreement.

When I purchase a train ticket (be it through Megabus, or another retailer), the agreement at its simplest is: "I give you my money and you transport me from A to B." I do not purchase the ticket with the "expectation" that Megabus may pull out of the contract at any time. This could severely disrupt other parts of my trip. Of course, I accept that Megabus may pull out of the contract in certain limited circumstances as outlined in the Terms and Conditions, but I disagree that such circumstances apply here.

Also, if I book my train ticket months in advance (why? to get a cheaper price), and Megabus are no longer able to fulfill their side of the agreement for a reason which does not fall under the exemptions mentioned in their Terms and Conditions (and in this instance, I believe they don't), Megabus must still transport me from A to B. If they can't do so themselves, they must remedy that breach of contract, if necessary by paying for the cost of a walk-up ticket.

 

[island]

ALR, I think your argument holds water in the court of public opinion. It would not, however, hold water in a law court.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I'm now concerned that we have someone on here posting the same opinion repeatedly as if by repetition making it true:

Also, if I book my train ticket months in advance (why? to get a cheaper price), and Megabus are no longer able to fulfill their side of the agreement for a reason which does not fall under the exemptions mentioned in their Terms and Conditions (and in this instance, I believe they don't), Megabus must still transport me from A to B. If they can't do so themselves, they must remedy that breach of contract, if necessary by paying for the cost of a walk-up ticket.

We've already shown that this is an unsubstantiated opinion, and the customer's "reason" of seeking a cheaper price is of no material significance.

My real reason for coming back to this is having discovered the following from last night, which is veering towards the sort of post that can bring a forum into disrepute:

Is it a legal requirement for Megatrain to pay damages to customers whose contracts have been breached and not resolved by the time of travel? Yes.

Let there be no doubt that I refute this "legal requirement" absolutely (if 'damages' is taken to amount to any more in value than the repayment of the cost of the ticket).

At the risk of being guilty of repeating my-self, I'll leave it at that, for now.

 

[rogACE]

it seems like megabus.com want to act as agents to sell cheap tickets.
just like say thomas cook or bath travel could...ie bulk buy a contract block of seats
from a rail or air operator.
note that you are not buying it from the actual rail line.

if that rail line then tears up that cheap seat contract with its agent (here being megabus) then i would say megabus is purely obliged only to refund you in full for what you paid but not obliged to get you from A to B as you had booked.

BUT
under their own T&C i just read:
section 10 Bookings for megatrain services are in accordance with the National Rail Conditions of Carriage. (and under those the operator has to transport you fom A to B)

BUT THEN they say:
10h
h. No compensation will be offered if your journey is cancelled or delayed.

and that is against the National Rail Conditions of Carriage because compensation arrangements do exist

AND THEY GO ONTO SAY IN 10g
g. If the rail part of the megatrain service you are booked on is cancelled, or delayed by 60 minutes or more, please seek advice from station staff as you may travel on the next available rail service towards your destination.

so as they have now ''cancelled'' your train i would turn at the station and just get the next available one it seems!

i would give TS a call...i found them very helpful with travel companies taking the p***
Basically megabus terms and cond's stink like an off kipper

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Please don't quote the Terms and Conditions out of context rogACE, it isn't helpful.

For reference, what is actually said is:

Bookings for megatrain services are in accordance with the National Rail Conditions of Carriage. Some of these conditions are clarified or specifically amended below.

 

[rogACE]

Please don't quote the Terms and Conditions out of context rogACE, it isn't helpful.

For reference, what is actually said is:

yes i see what you mean...but its very clouded in the OP situation don't you agree>?

thanks

 

[ralphchadkirk]

I'm afraid I don't. I agree with DaveNewcastle's analysis of it that the agreed terms do (whether we may like it or not) allow Megatrain to cancel tickets if something outside their control prevents the ticket being used.

 

[rogACE]

lol i seem to remember Hoover offering 'free tickets' to the USA some years back upon a purchase of one of their products and the take-up was so huge and Hoover tried to wiggle out of it...they could not...they had to transport the customer from the UK to the USA and back...even putting many of them on BA and Virgin and not charter flights.

i am surprised that megawhatever can simply cancel the 'deal' at any time and just say here is your money back...megabus is not a 'george cole spiv operation' it is part of a huge company.
so offering deals to the public 'which scream buyer beware its too good to be true' is not what you would expect of such an organisation...
they do not operate from romford market stalls!

but if easy jet cancels your flight before you travel you get your money back if there is no suitable next flight and thats it, (unless you are already checked in when you get HOTAC and meals until the next flight) but here in the OP case the train is not actually cancelled it is still operating so
its messy imho

 

[andykn]

I'm afraid I don't. I agree with DaveNewcastle's analysis of it that the agreed terms do (whether we may like it or not) allow Megatrain to cancel tickets if something outside their control prevents the ticket being used.

Is that DaveNewcastle's reason, for it seems to me that it isn't outside Megabus' control, they could still purchase a ticket from the operator to fulfil the contract.

 

[34D]

Is that DaveNewcastle's reason, for it seems to me that it isn't outside Megabus' control, they could still purchase a ticket from the operator to fulfil the contract.

I must say this is the thing that puzzles me, however I do respect dave newcastle's opinion.

May I say well done to all line rover for taking on Dave, as upon reading through he made a very credible attempt at intelligent debate. I wonder whether dave thinks so too, or just thinks he's an impertinent whippersnapper.

Anyway, we haven't given any actual advice to the OP. As suggested earlier in the thread, might I suggest that the best way to get the right outcome for this member is to either try trading standards or the advice column of a national newspaper - would others agree that this is the best practical advice for this OP?

Obviously if the OP feels like a fight, then he may wish to board without a valid ticket, but I'm assuming he wants a quiet life?

 

[185]

I can see this being mildly damaging at quite a delicate time for Virgin Trains.

The whiter than white image which Branson is trying to portray himself to the DfT is slowly fading away, revealling the true satan behind the beard.

well... this guy
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/img/photos/biz/photo_10373_wide_crop.jpg

 

[nedchester]

I can see this being mildly damaging at quite a delicate time for Virgin Trains.

The whiter than white image which Branson is trying to portray himself to the DfT is slowly fading away, revealling the true satan behind the beard.

well... this guy
http://www.thecourier.co.uk/img/photos/biz/photo_10373_wide_crop.jpg

Very true! Virgin hate bad publicity so the national newspaper angle is a good one to try.

 

[Harlesden]

Call 0141 332 9644 instead if it's cheaper

 

[michael769]

I think that all the talk about the Advertising Standards Agency is a bit of a red herring. I can't see anything where they would either be able to take action, or even to investigate! We are discussing the finer points of the Contract between Megatrain and the Customer, of which I think has already been pointed out, the ASA have no jurisdiction over.

People seem to be conflating the issue of misleading advertising with breach of contract. It is true that the ASA have no relevance to the contract issue.

However there is another issue at play here, in that Megabus may have advertised tickets at a price and then have subsequently failed to make them available at that price, without making it adequately clear that this could happen. If that is the case then it is a breach of the Advertising code (CAP 3.28) and is entirely within the purview of the ASA. To be clear the ASA have no powers to give the OP any redress, their only role is to investigate of the advertising is indeed misleading and if it is to ensure that there is no repeat. The only purpose this will serve is to ensure that no consumers are similarly misled in future.

A complaint upheld or not by the ASA would have no bearing whatsover on the OP's dispute with Megabus.

 

[steadmane]

Thanks for all the input. This was much more than I ever expected. My personal opinion is that regardless of whether they are within their T+Cs to put me on alternative transport, if the train is still running and tickets are being sold for that train, it is an unethical business practice.

I don't really want a fight on the train, I want to be able to enjoy the journey rather than wait for the inevitable standoff. I am assuming the ticket inspectors cross-check the email reservation with some sort of printout and I don't really want to go down the line of paying full/penalty fare then attempt some sort of retrospective claim.

I will respond to the email and initially ask why MB/MT think they can do what they are doing.

 

[theblackwatch]

I will respond to the email and initially ask why MB/MT think they can do what they are doing.

Please let us know how you get on with your e-mail discussions.

 

[jon0844]

If they can legally cancel and refund your ticket at any time (and I can't say for sure that they can't) then it must mean going to the media is the best - perhaps only - option. (I would consider the ASA though, as they might need to be made to add some more terms that state they can cancel your ticket at any time).

The law might not be capable of dealing with such problems, but the media can.

If people come to realise that they might plan a trip in the future, booking a nice cheap train, hotel and other stuff separately (as anyone might reasonably do as it's often a lot cheaper than booking as a package) and then discover just days before setting off that their train ticket has been cancelled and they've got nothing but a refund for their troubles (and either need to buy an expensive new ticket, or even find that they're all booked) - that would make using megatrain pretty high-risk, to the point of being unusable. Almost like saying a product is not fit for purpose.

I am not sure what hotels generally do in similar circumstances, but if a room suddenly became unavailable (even after using the spares held back) due to damage or something, they'd almost certainly transfer you to another hotel that they've got a reciprocal arrangement with.

Given there can be no way of knowing that you'll not be affected (and buying a train ticket shouldn't be akin to putting a bet on a horse at your local bookies), I am sure the media would be interested and they'll have to approach the company for a statement. It's at this point that they'd either need to admit that they can do this, or categorically deny it would happen and give some sort of assurance - which can then be used against them in the future.

Sadly in this day and age, public opinion is probably far more effective than the legal route in many cases. You basically need to name and shame, and this forum has partially done that but needs to be opened out to a wider audience.

BTW, August is silly season where the media is often struggling for stories. Okay, this year they've got the Olympics, but if you time things right you'll definitely get one to take up the story to fill some column inches when the Government is in recess and loads of people are on holiday.

 

[snail]

I am not sure what hotels generally do in similar circumstances, but if a room suddenly became unavailable (even after using the spares held back) due to damage or something, they'd almost certainly transfer you to another hotel that they've got a reciprocal arrangement with.

There are lots of similies being quoted in this thread. It is all very entertaining I must say. At least hotels are closer to train travel than a kilo of bananas!

We have to be careful to compare like with like. In your hotel situation, as with Megatrain, it will depend on the booking T&Cs. In practice, hotels - particularly the 'brand' ones - have their reputation to protect and will offer alternatives or upgrades as a goodwill gesture. TOCs do the same, if you can't travel on your booked train or in your booked seat you will in 99% of cases end up on another train or in 1st Class instead of standard. Or have your money refunded.

Megatrain appear to have decided to operate strictly within their T&Cs, they are confident that they allow them to cancel and refund if they cannot operate their service. To me (IANAL but am used to writing legal documents), that emphasis is important: is a Megatrain ticket for a Megatrain journey? Ok, it may be on a Virgin train or whatever, but does that make it a Virgin journey? Only a person in a wooly wig can decide that I think.

That leaves remedies for failure to provide the ticketed service: Should you be put back into the same financial position you were before booking or be provided with your journey, whatever the cost? Some have suggested the OP would be able to reject the refund and claim the additional cost of providing the journey but I'm not sure even the NRCoC really allows this at any cost. (Nor am I sure Tesco could claim the cost of sourcing bananas from elsewhere, but that's too much of a tangent to wander down).

Finally, I agree with those that doubt the ability of the ASA to do anything. Unless these specific tickets have been advertised, and it can be proven that they didn't exist at the time of advertising, they won't have the power to rule. Even if they did, that power is limited to prohibiting the company from placing similar ads in the future.

So what would I do? I think I would take the refund and try to find a sympathetic media outlet...

 

[jon0844]

You've hit the nail on the head - most businesses have a reputation to protect and Megatrain might not realise that, if made public, their reputation could be seriously impacted - especially if any rival decides to take advantage by pointing out that its ticket sales are 'no risk'.

I think my hotel reference wasn't supposed to be seen as a direct comparison, but relevant because you might book a train trip AND a hotel - and can be let down with one, but not the other.

Imagine you were invited to a wedding and planned ahead by booking the train, transfer and hotel.. then when you turn up at the station find out they cancelled and had already refunded your card. What do you do then?

If you can't claim for any damages (actual losses of course) then you'd clearly not be able to use Megatrain in the first place (and that's where the negative publicity from such a policy could be very damaging). We've argued and discussed about whether you should buy advance tickets if you might have plans that can change (and that you give up the flexibility in return for a large saving and if you don't like it, buy an open) but few would expect to be talking about the risk of suddenly having your ticket cancelled altogether when it's then too late to plan an alternative, or far more expensive.

In fact, who would still risk Megatrain? Just to book on the off chance and being quite happy to just stay at home if the train is cancelled? But what if it's your return journey that is cancelled?