This hasn't happened to me, or anyone I know (yet) but anecdotal
evidence is quite strong.

On September 7th there is a major re-vamp of the way that train tickets
are named (and to some extent what their validity is). But the various
ticket-selling sites (operated by the railway industry) seem to be
having some teething problems.

People are being sold tickets (sometimes with seat reservations) on
specific trains where the ticket is not "valid" as a result of it being
a peak train but an off-peak ticket [1].

Whose fault is this, and what happens when the traveller is challenged?

There is some truth in the view that passengers should enquire about
ticket validity before buying, but isn't that what the online sites are
doing? You ask for a specific train, and get quoted a price.

The confusion is compounded because the names of all the tickets are
changing (no more "Savers" for example) to just "Anytime" and "Offpeak".
There has even been one example quoted where the "Anytime" fare isn't
valid during the morning rush hour whereas a corresponding "Off Peak"
one is. All because of hiccups in the way the old-fashioned-names have
been mapped onto the new-fangled-names.

[1] The definition of "Peak" has not been standardised, and means
different things on different routes
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:

This hasn't happened to me, or anyone I know (yet) but anecdotal
evidence is quite strong.

On September 7th there is a major re-vamp of the way that train tickets
are named (and to some extent what their validity is). But the various
ticket-selling sites (operated by the railway industry) seem to be
having some teething problems.

People are being sold tickets (sometimes with seat reservations) on
specific trains where the ticket is not "valid" as a result of it being
a peak train but an off-peak ticket [1].

I travel regularly on trains and the pre-booked tickets I buy
beforehand only apply to a specific train departing at a specific
time. I don't see what the problem is as the train time you book for
is either peak or non-peak. Surely if you want to pay for a cheaper
ticket you must be willing to accept the additional restrictions that
make the ticket less desirable hence the lower price?

Whose fault is this, and what happens when the traveller is challenged?

I've always been curious to know how is it that people who mistakenly
have the wrong travel documents cough up their personal details on
demand, thus allowing themselves to be taken to court. Is it illegal
to decline to identify yourself and just offer to pay the inspector
the ticket fare and possibly the fine in cash?

There is some truth in the view that passengers should enquire about
ticket validity before buying, but isn't that what the online sites are
doing? You ask for a specific train, and get quoted a price.

The confusion is compounded because the names of all the tickets are
changing (no more "Savers" for example) to just "Anytime" and "Offpeak".
There has even been one example quoted where the "Anytime" fare isn't
valid during the morning rush hour whereas a corresponding "Off Peak"
one is. All because of hiccups in the way the old-fashioned-names have
been mapped onto the new-fangled-names.

[1] The definition of "Peak" has not been standardised, and means
different things on different routes
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
This hasn't happened to me, or anyone I know (yet) but anecdotal evidence
is quite strong.

On September 7th there is a major re-vamp of the way that train tickets
are named (and to some extent what their validity is). But the various
ticket-selling sites (operated by the railway industry) seem to be having
some teething problems.

People are being sold tickets (sometimes with seat reservations) on
specific trains where the ticket is not "valid" as a result of it being a
peak train but an off-peak ticket [1].

Whose fault is this, and what happens when the traveller is challenged?

There is some truth in the view that passengers should enquire about
ticket validity before buying, but isn't that what the online sites are
doing? You ask for a specific train, and get quoted a price.

The confusion is compounded because the names of all the tickets are
changing (no more "Savers" for example) to just "Anytime" and "Offpeak".
There has even been one example quoted where the "Anytime" fare isn't
valid during the morning rush hour whereas a corresponding "Off Peak" one
is. All because of hiccups in the way the old-fashioned-names have been
mapped onto the new-fangled-names.

[1] The definition of "Peak" has not been standardised, and means
different things on different routes
I should think that the evidence that the passenger had bought the ticket
from a TOC's site and could even make a reservation or get a print out
showing the ticket was valid would be a defence to any charges.
I also think that a letter to this effect would get a refund and
compensation from the TOC. I certainly got this when I was mis-sold a
ticket by a 'fasticket' machine operated by FGW*.

*It said a cheap day was valid when it wasn't and there was nothing on the
machine to say otherwise, even though a list of validities for other tickets
was displayed.

On Thu, 28 Aug 2008 22:05:05 +0100, J B put finger to keyboard and
typed:

Roland Perry wrote:

This hasn't happened to me, or anyone I know (yet) but anecdotal
evidence is quite strong.

On September 7th there is a major re-vamp of the way that train tickets
are named (and to some extent what their validity is). But the various
ticket-selling sites (operated by the railway industry) seem to be
having some teething problems.

People are being sold tickets (sometimes with seat reservations) on
specific trains where the ticket is not "valid" as a result of it being
a peak train but an off-peak ticket [1].

I travel regularly on trains and the pre-booked tickets I buy
beforehand only apply to a specific train departing at a specific
time. I don't see what the problem is as the train time you book for
is either peak or non-peak. Surely if you want to pay for a cheaper
ticket you must be willing to accept the additional restrictions that
make the ticket less desirable hence the lower price?

I think Roland's point is that the system is selling tickets for a
specific train at a specific time, but on a specific ticket type that
isn't valid on that specific train. So the customer ends up with an
unusable ticket, because the ticket type isn't valid on the train that
it's allocated to, and it can't be used on a train where it is valid
as it can only be used on the train named on the ticket.

To answer Roland's question, I think it's pretty clear that the
responsibility lies with the vendor of the ticket. Ideally, the TOC
should accept the ticket on the allocated train and then take it up
with the ticket vendor afterwards. But, if the passenger is forced to
rebook or pay a penalty fare, then those costs should be recoverable
from the vendor.

Mark

In article e.net,
Mark Goodge wrote:
To answer Roland's question, I think it's pretty clear that the
responsibility lies with the vendor of the ticket. Ideally, the TOC
should accept the ticket on the allocated train and then take it up
with the ticket vendor afterwards. But, if the passenger is forced to
rebook or pay a penalty fare, then those costs should be recoverable
from the vendor.

In practice surely what will usually happen is that the mistake won't
be discovered until the passenger is already travelling.

Should the passenger, when challenged, simply give their name and
address and tell the conductor that the train company will have to
sue ? What if the conductor insists that the passenger must pay right
away and when faced with a refusal insists that the passenger must
leave the train ?

Anyone but the most determined passnger will surely be browbeaten by
the staff into paying a penalty fare, or buying an entirely new
ticket. Most passengers won't even know their rights and will
probably not manage to reclaim the extra money from anyone.

In these kind of situations, who, if anyone, and under what
circumstances, would be committing an offence under s9 of the
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (No. 1277) ?

--
Ian Jackson personal email:
These opinions are my own. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/~ijackson/
PGP2 key 1024R/0x23f5addb, fingerprint 5906F687 BD03ACAD 0D8E602E FCF37657

In message
, at
22:05:05 on Thu, 28 Aug 2008, J B
remarked:

This hasn't happened to me, or anyone I know (yet) but anecdotal
evidence is quite strong.

On September 7th there is a major re-vamp of the way that train tickets
are named (and to some extent what their validity is). But the various
ticket-selling sites (operated by the railway industry) seem to be
having some teething problems.

People are being sold tickets (sometimes with seat reservations) on
specific trains where the ticket is not "valid" as a result of it being
a peak train but an off-peak ticket [1].

I travel regularly on trains and the pre-booked tickets I buy
beforehand only apply to a specific train departing at a specific
time.

If it's an Advance ticket (formerly an "Advance Purchase [AP]) ticket
then it is indeed only valid on one train. You can tell that because
across the top it will say "Valid only with reservation".

However, you can (and many people do) pre-book tickets such as Savers
and Day Returns, that are valid on a wide range of trains, albeit some
will have restrictions on the time of day. When you book online they
insist on issuing a seat reservation for a train, but you don't have to
travel on that train.

I don't see what the problem is as the train time you book for
is either peak or non-peak.

Advance fares are not sold as either "peak" or "offpeak", they just
quote a custom fare for each train.

Surely if you want to pay for a cheaper ticket you must be willing to
accept the additional restrictions that make the ticket less desirable
hence the lower price?

Yes, but what happens when the booking site sells you an off-peak ticket
(and a seat reservation) when you ask to travel on what later turns out
to be a peak train. The booking sites aren't supposed to do that. Whose
"fault" is it, and is the ticket valid for travel?

Whose fault is this, and what happens when the traveller is challenged?

I've always been curious to know how is it that people who mistakenly
have the wrong travel documents cough up their personal details on
demand, thus allowing themselves to be taken to court. Is it illegal
to decline to identify yourself and just offer to pay the inspector
the ticket fare and possibly the fine in cash?

It depends whether the ticket inspector thinks its deliberate fare
evasion or not. If so, he's quite likely to demand ID (and I believe can
call in the BTP to make sure he gets it). If he thinks it's a customer
being stupid, then depending on the local rules he'll either charge a
penalty fare, or sell a completely new "highest price" ticket. The
traveller will *not* be given an allowance for trading-in the 'invalid'
ticket.
--
Roland Perry

In message e.net, at
22:35:04 on Thu, 28 Aug 2008, Mark Goodge
remarked:
I think Roland's point is that the system is selling tickets for a
specific train at a specific time, but on a specific ticket type that
isn't valid on that specific train. So the customer ends up with an
unusable ticket, because the ticket type isn't valid on the train that
it's allocated to, and it can't be used on a train where it is valid
as it can only be used on the train named on the ticket.

If it's an off-peak ticket (eg a Saver) then it *can* normally be used
on a train later in the day. But once you are aboard the first train
that's too late, and the later train may not allow you to get to work on
time.

To answer Roland's question, I think it's pretty clear that the
responsibility lies with the vendor of the ticket. Ideally, the TOC
should accept the ticket on the allocated train and then take it up
with the ticket vendor afterwards.

Virgin, one of the train operators in question, has now said they would
not accept the ticket and that the mis-sale was entirely the customer's
fault. So much for customer service! Or indeed one train company being
the agent of another.

But, if the passenger is forced to rebook or pay a penalty fare, then
those costs should be recoverable from the vendor.

That does seem to me to be the next best solution, although I expect
that all they'd do voluntarily is refund the 'mis-sold' ticket, rather
than pay for the replacement ticket.
--
Roland Perry

In message , at 15:40:10 on Fri,
29 Aug 2008, Ian Jackson remarked:
In article e.net,
Mark Goodge wrote:
To answer Roland's question, I think it's pretty clear that the
responsibility lies with the vendor of the ticket. Ideally, the TOC
should accept the ticket on the allocated train and then take it up
with the ticket vendor afterwards. But, if the passenger is forced to
rebook or pay a penalty fare, then those costs should be recoverable
from the vendor.

In practice surely what will usually happen is that the mistake won't
be discovered until the passenger is already travelling.

Should the passenger, when challenged, simply give their name and
address and tell the conductor that the train company will have to
sue ?

The problem is that they will probably prosecute (or threaten to),
rather than sue.

What if the conductor insists that the passenger must pay right
away and when faced with a refusal insists that the passenger must
leave the train ?

Anyone but the most determined passnger will surely be browbeaten by
the staff into paying a penalty fare, or buying an entirely new
ticket.

That's the usual scenario.

Most passengers won't even know their rights and will
probably not manage to reclaim the extra money from anyone.

In these kind of situations, who, if anyone, and under what
circumstances, would be committing an offence under s9 of the
Consumer Protection from Unfair Trading Regulations 2008 (No. 1277) ?

(Assuming it covers railway tickets - I'm not absolutely sure either
way) We are back to the agency situation. The train company selling the
ticket (via its website) is relying upon information about the validity
of tickets, supplied by the train operator (Virgin in one case). If
Virgin is telling them that the ticket is valid (and so they sell it)
but then when you get on the train Virgin say it's not valid, which of
them is being misleading?
--
Roland Perry

In message , at
00:50:06 on Sat, 30 Aug 2008, Owain
remarked:
Roland Perry wrote:
Yes, but what happens when the booking site sells you an off-peak
ticket (and a seat reservation) when you ask to travel on what later
turns out to be a peak train. The booking sites aren't supposed to do
that. Whose "fault" is it, and is the ticket valid for travel?

The information I have seen - and this may only apply to ScotRail - is
that although the names of the tickets have changed, the ticket codes
(eg SOR for Standard Open Return) and the eligible times have not
generally changed.

The ticket names are changing. SOR becomes "Anytime".

Eligible times are changing - for example the fares on the Midland
Mainline that used to be called "Savers" are to be called "Super
Off-Peak" and a whole hour has been trimmed off each end of their
validity during the day (eg last departure from London now 14.55 not
15.55)

Most advance tickets are valid only with reservation, and if there is a
reservation for the current train then the ticket is valid prima facie.

The problem I'm talking about does NOT involve "Advance" tickets.

Whose fault is this, and what happens when the traveller is challenged?
I've always been curious to know how is it that people who mistakenly
have the wrong travel documents cough up their personal details on
demand, thus allowing themselves to be taken to court. Is it illegal
to decline to identify yourself and just offer to pay the inspector
the ticket fare and possibly the fine in cash?

A person may commit an offence if he (a) travels without a ticket, and
(b) refuses to buy a ticket, and (c) refuses to give his name and
address to a railway employee authorised to examine tickets.

Therefore if the person is willing to buy a ticket (including penalty
fare if in a penalty fare area) then no offence is committed.

That's not how it works in an official "Penalty fares" area. But let's
not get too tied up with that, because once again the fares under
discussion are not for travel within a penalty fares area.

The offence which someone trying to use the allegedly mis-sold ticket
would be committing, is refusing to tear up the return half of a £60
ticket and buy a £115 'open' ticket to replace it.

It depends whether the ticket inspector thinks its deliberate fare
evasion or not. If so, he's quite likely to demand ID (and I believe
can call in the BTP to make sure he gets it). If he thinks it's a
customer being stupid, then depending on the local rules he'll either
charge a penalty fare, or sell a completely new "highest price"
ticket. The traveller will *not* be given an allowance for trading-in
the 'invalid' ticket.

It's fairly standard practice to 'excess' a ticket from eg a Saver
Return to an Open Return.

Really? Anecdotal evidence from all the major long distance ToCs I'm
familiar with is that they'll only sell the replacement ticket at face
value. They also make on-train announcements to this effect on every
service, just to make sure.

This assumes the ticket is valid - even if it is not valid on that
particular train. Only if the ticket is not valid - eg it has a YNG
discount but the passenger cannot produce a YNG railcard - is the
passenger treated as travelling without a valid ticket and has to pay a
full fare. Again this is Scotrail practice and may vary elsewhere.

Yes, I think practice in England is different.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message
, at It
depends whether the ticket inspector thinks its deliberate fare evasion or
not. If so, he's quite likely to demand ID (and I believe can call in the
BTP to make sure he gets it). If he thinks it's a customer being stupid,
then depending on the local rules he'll either charge a penalty fare, or
sell a completely new "highest price" ticket. The traveller will *not* be
given an allowance for trading-in the 'invalid' ticket.
They'd both have a long wait then seeing as there's no obligation to carry
any form of ID.