On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 03:52:48 -0700 (PDT), Mizter T
 wrote:

>
>On 29 Aug, 10:40, "Peter Masson"  wrote:
>
>> "Mizter T"  wrote
>>
>> >Looking at the OP's first monday morning return journey on 22 Sept at
>> >07.05 from Manchester to London, the cheapest advance purchase ticket
>> >on offer costs £91.50, whilst the standard open single (valid on any
>> >train) costs £115.
>> >Meanwhile the return portion of the Saver Return (or Off-Peak Return
>> >under the new parlance) costs £62.40 - and is also valid on the 07.15,
>> >the 07.45, *not* the 0815 but is then valid on all trains from the
>> >08.45 onwards - and indeed is valid on all early trains prior to the
>> >07.05.
>>
>> Something is clearly broken, and as Virgin set this fare it must be down to
>> them. As you say, the National Rail Journey Planner states that the return
>> half of a Saver/Off-peak is valid on all trains *except the 0815*. The
>> Virgin site does not admit validity on any train before the 0845.

Yes it does. So it seems this is incorrect. National Rail claims to
speak for the train companies, but clearly, in this case, it doesn't
speak for Virgin.
>>
>
>Indeed the VT website doesn't admit validity. And as an aside I've
>just got confused trying to get the Virgin Trains online booking
>system to offer me a Saver Return (Off-Peak Return) for later
>departures on the monday - i.e. from 0845 onwards (when they are
>definitely valid from) - instead it offers two of VT's unique 'Saver
>Half Return' tickets at £31.20 each, i.e. £62.40 total. This is the
>same as the normal Saver Return price of £62.40, but the return ticket
>is limited to being valid only on the specified date as opposed to
>being valid for up to a month as Saver Returns are.

Clearly again VT is doing its own thing.
>
>I've no idea what the time restrictions are on Saver Half Returns -
>are they valid for the same trains as the outbound portion of a Saver
>Return, or do they benefit from the sometimes more generous validity
>of the return portion of a Saver Return?
>
>And why doesn't the VT booking system just offer a full blooded Saver
>Return instead? Argh!

They want to screw you down to a particular train?


>
>>
>> Have Virgin quoted a different validity code in the National Fares Manual
>> from the one they intended? Or has something gone wrong with programming
>> The Trainline.com?
>>
>
>It's a bit odd, as I think the VT booking engine is still based on
>TheTrainline - albeit nowadays with it's own unique interface.
>
>Anyway, TheTrainline.com and other TOC-branded Trainline sites (I
>checked both FGW and Chiltern), and the NXEC and raileasy booking
>systems all showed the return portion of Saver Returns as being valid
>on all Manchester - London trains on that monday morning *apart from
>the 0815* departure. As the NXEC and raileasy sites are independent of
>TheTrainline, I think we can rule out a programming error at
>TheTrainline - so does this mean that VT have quoted the wrong code in
>the NFM, or could something else have gone wrong in another shared
>ticketing system (I don't know how all the back office rail ticketing
>stuff meshes together so I can't say)?

Is it "going wrong" or are Virgin doing something that they shouldn't?
>
>
>>
>> Either way, if the ticket has been issued with reservations, and the
>> passenger takes documentation to link the ticket with the reservations
>> (ideally the large tickets with the reservations printed on them, but the
>> itinerary from the web-based ticket issuer should serve as well) I would
>> expect the ticket to be honoured, and the TOC to take things up with the
>> ticket issuer if the ticket and reservations have been issued irregularly. .
>>
>
>Indeed, though I can quite understand the OP's concerns. In situations
>like this the accountability seems opaque at best.
>
>Given the complexities of when off-peak tickets are actually valid, an
>extra layer of confusion due to inaccurate data provision (as appears
>to be the case here) is monumentally unhelpful.

To say the least. As I said before, it is nothing short of a scandal.

Peter

Peter

Peter Alexander wrote:

> 
> To say the least. As I said before, it is nothing short of a scandal.
> 

Expect no improvement. Here are some extracts from a 
circular issued by ATOC to train companies that comes 
to hand:

-------------------

"Ongoing consumer focused PR is in place with the aim 
of securing positive coverage in national and regional 
consumer media. This activity, already underway, will 
continue through to the launch of the Price Promise 
[what's that?] in October."

"From 10 August, terms and conditions for Anytime, 
Off-Peak and Super Off-Peak fares will be displayed to 
customers purchasing Open, Day, Saver, Cheap Day or 
other relevant tickets for travel on or after 7 September."

[Displayed?]

"Potential Issues:

"Possible worsening of some fare conditions for some 
passengers. These include restrictions on fares that 
previously did not have restrictions (e.g. unrestricted 
Savers becoming restricted Off-Peak fares) and the 
validity of the outward portion of Anytime fares 
changing from one calendar month to one day.

"Fares increases planned for 7 September may be 
associated with the new fares names.

"Off-Peak fares with no time restrictions may cause 
confusion with customers. These fares will have a ‘no 
break of journey’ restriction, so are classified as 
Off-Peak rather than Anytime fares.

"Potential expectation from customers and opinion 
formers that restrictions will be standardised 
nationwide for Off-Peak ticket types."

------------

Charlie

Charlie Hulme wrote:
> "Ongoing consumer focused PR is in place with the aim of securing 
> positive coverage in national and regional consumer media. This 
> activity, already underway, will continue through to the launch of the 
> Price Promise [what's that?] in October."

The Minister spoke thus to Passenger Focus on 24th April:

"It will also be important to back up this simplified fares structure 
with a Price Promise, whereby passengers would be refunded the 
difference if they found a better deal than the ticket they were sold.

ATOC is working on the Price Promise and I hope they can make speedy 
progress."

I am not sure what this means.  It is already part of ATOC's legal duty 
to sell a passenger the most cost-effective ticket for their requested 
journey (on a through fare basis).

I am quite sure that tactics such as buying a combination of tickets 
will not be covered by this "Price Promise", even though the result of 
this would of course meet the definition of "a better deal than the 
ticket they were sold".

Graeme wrote:
> I am not sure what this means.  It is already part of ATOC's legal duty 
> to sell a passenger the most cost-effective ticket for their requested 
> journey (on a through fare basis).
> 
> I am quite sure that tactics such as buying a combination of tickets 
> will not be covered by this "Price Promise", even though the result of 
> this would of course meet the definition of "a better deal than the 
> ticket they were sold".

Research conducted for Passenger Focus [1] explains a bit more about 
this "Promise".

As can be seen, the distrust of ATOC runs deep:

"The concept of the 'Off Peak Price Promise' provided a degree of 
theoretical reassurance to rail users but exposure to its details was 
often counter productive for the purpose of the research exercise since 
this tended to have the effect of raising concerns about the impact of 
deregulation that had often not emerged spontaneously. Although the 
Promise communicates the correct sentiment, many expected that they 
would be likely to be disadvantaged by TOCs who would take advantage of 
passengers in what would become effective monopoly situations following 
deregulation and the removal of the Saver 'safeguard'. Many were 
concerned that TOCs would have freedom to raise the price of the new Off 
Peak fare and still adhere to the conditions of the Promise rather than 
the spirit of it."

[1] http://tinyurl.com/5rxl6j

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 19:51:16 +0100, Graeme 
wrote:

>Graeme wrote:
>> I am not sure what this means.  It is already part of ATOC's legal duty 
>> to sell a passenger the most cost-effective ticket for their requested 
>> journey (on a through fare basis).

[...]

>Research conducted for Passenger Focus [1] explains a bit more about 
>this "Promise".
>
>As can be seen, the distrust of ATOC runs deep:
>
>"The concept of the 'Off Peak Price Promise' provided a degree of 
>theoretical reassurance to rail users but exposure to its details was 
>often counter productive for the purpose of the research exercise since 
>this tended to have the effect of raising concerns about the impact of 
>deregulation that had often not emerged spontaneously.

Indeed - all this price promise stuff is complete bollocks.  It would
damage the reputation of the railways, where it deserves one.

You should be sold the correct fare wherever you buy it from.  If it
is incorrect, the seller should be responsible and they can take it up
with whoever sets the fare for that flow and/or their own supplier of
whatever IT system said it was valid.  If the train operator wants to
take any action it can approach the seller, behind the scenes.

I wouldn't mind a discussion with a guard (etc.) - who are IMX mostly
very reasonable - about the validity of a ticket that I had bought for
a particular train.  I'd welcome it!  The trouble is, the only way to
demonstrate that you have been offered a particular train (a web page
printout could have been fiddled) is to get a possibly unwanted
reservation on it, but at least it's a start.  The next step would be
to cut away any spurious restriction codes and fully document the
rest.  At the very least, even a credit card size ticket could have
the code printed on it.  More expensively, the systems could be
altered to print a further coupon with the validity summary on it.

Richard.

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:17:56 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Mizter T
 wrote this:-

>Something has gone wrong. Perhaps, as Peter Masson suggested, VT
>initially fed the wrong data to ATOC for inclusion in the National
>Fares Manual, and said data has been corrected on the VT website and
>on the NR Journey Planner but remains incorrect on the other online
>booking databases. I just don't know enough about the systems to say.

Quite possibly. However, the internal machinations of railway
companies are irrelevant for the passenger and passengers should not
be fooled into getting involved in such anorak details.

The passenger has been sold a ticket for a particular train. End of
discussion as far as the passenger should be concerned. If something
has gone wrong that is something for the Mickey Mouse companies to
sort out between themselves. Having made a contract, which they did
when selling the ticket, trying to add supplementary conditions
after the contract was made should just be laughed at. They shoud
just grin and bear it and sort it out for future contracts. All the
liabilities of the company cannot be off loaded on the passenger.



-- 
  David Hansen, Edinburgh 
 I will *always* explain revoked encryption keys, unless RIP prevents me
 http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2000/00023--e.htm#54

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 17:14:13 +0100, David Hansen
 wrote:

>On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 08:17:56 -0700 (PDT) someone who may be Mizter T
> wrote this:-
>
>>Something has gone wrong. Perhaps, as Peter Masson suggested, VT
>>initially fed the wrong data to ATOC for inclusion in the National
>>Fares Manual, and said data has been corrected on the VT website and
>>on the NR Journey Planner but remains incorrect on the other online
>>booking databases. I just don't know enough about the systems to say.
>
>Quite possibly. However, the internal machinations of railway
>companies are irrelevant for the passenger and passengers should not
>be fooled into getting involved in such anorak details.
>
>The passenger has been sold a ticket for a particular train. End of
>discussion as far as the passenger should be concerned. If something
>has gone wrong that is something for the Mickey Mouse companies to
>sort out between themselves. Having made a contract, which they did
>when selling the ticket, trying to add supplementary conditions
>after the contract was made should just be laughed at. They shoud
>just grin and bear it and sort it out for future contracts. All the
>liabilities of the company cannot be off loaded on the passenger.

Ah. You mean "shouldn't be" not "cannot" I think.  The point I keep
making and only one or two take on board, is that almost certainly,
unless I am very lucky, the TM will insist on me ( well my Mrs) paying
the full fare as my ticket is invalid. Resistance will meet with a
likely (soon) future date with the Old Bill, who, bless'em are not
noted for their common sense,

I have no idea what discretion Train Managers have, but it seems that
Virgin's instructions to its staff are clear. Of course the TM could
use *his* common sense, but is that likely? No. I (my wife) would be
in for a very unpleasant experience through no fault of our own, with
very little redress until (at best) much later.

It is disgraceful.
Peter

On Sat, 30 Aug 2008 18:39:59 +0100, Roland Perry 
wrote:

>In message , at 18:32:41 on 
>Sat, 30 Aug 2008, Peter Alexander  remarked:
>>The point I keep making and only one or two take on board, is that 
>>almost certainly, unless I am very lucky, the TM will insist on me ( 
>>well my Mrs) paying the full fare as my ticket is invalid. Resistance 
>>will meet with a likely (soon) future date with the Old Bill, who, 
>>bless'em are not noted for their common sense,
>
>I fully understand your position on this. Someone with experience, and 
>maybe some time to waste to make the point, could simply ask the TM what 
>train the seat reservation on the ticket was for, and then refuse to 
>discuss it further. But that's not a course of action for the average 
>passenger.

I'd give it a go myself but it isn't me that is travelling.

>I'm not sure if you've applied for your money back on the 'invalid' 
>ticket, but if you wish to make a point it's worth reporting the 
>possibility of a problem to Trading Standards, and see what they say.

Not yet and of course we will be deducted £10 by First Scotrail for
the privilege of being sold a duff ticket by them. They are based in
Edinburgh (or rather the tickets come from there) so I guess it would
be a problem knowing which Trading Standards to go to.
>
>The very best outcome would be for one of their people to do a "mystery 
>shopping" exercise, and then nail them for mis-selling if the ticket is 
>refused on the train. But you might struggle to find someone 
>enthusiastic enough to do that.
Probably, but I will write to both First Scotrail and VT Customer
Services as well as copying my email to  anyone I can think of,
including my MP, asking who is responsible for sorting out this
nonsense.

And giving me my tenner back (-;
Peter

Peter Alexander wrote:

> And giving me my tenner back (-;

Feel free to send on to them my email (posted here by 
me earlier) from The Trainline technical support. In my 
view that is conclusive proof that you are, at the very 
least, entitled to a replacement ticket with no fee.

It's quite remarkable that this error was apparently 
not noticed until we reported it. I wonder how long it 
has been like that?

Charlie