Great Western Coffee Shop

Hi All,

Its that magical day of the year when I get to go and renew my annual season ticket.  Fine, we all know its going to hurt, but something just doesn't add up this year and I wondered if someone can explain why I appear to have had a 15% increase in my Maidenhead-->London season ticket.

I keep my receipts for these purchases and they are as follows:

Renewal on 30th December 2011 (so 2011 prices) - Maidenhead-->London z1-6 travelcard, including 1st Class Eastbound Only.  ^3,454.20.
(I believe this included a 5% discount??)

Today's renewal (so 2012 prices) - Maidenhead-->London z1-6 travelcard, including 1st Class Eastbound Only.  ^3,982.40
(Again, including a 5% discount)

Thats an increase of ^528 or 15%.

Please can someone explain how this has come about, and if the 15% increase isn't right then which price is wrong?

Thanks

Nick

PS. I questioned and queried the woman selling me the ticket about the 15% increase.  She said she couldn't do the maths, and couldn't tell me if it was right or not.  So that was very helpful.  >:(

Looking at National Rail pricing, Maidenhead to London 1 - 6:

4680.00 (today) -> 4876.00 (3rd Jan) First
3356.00 (today) -> 3496.00 (3rd Jan) Standard

Site does NOT price the oneway First, oneway Standard ticket, which (I suspect) is an unregulated fare.   

I'm guessing that the split fare was introduced at a very good price as an introductory offer, and has now risen to about halfway between standard and first seasons.

It does, you have to search Standard Class rather than First Class tickets. Bottom two options:
I've added it into your list above.

Thanks for the replies.
My question was really about the increase between 2011 prices and 2012 prices for a 1st Eastbound ticket, rather than the relative price of Standard vs 1st.

Is the 1st Eastbound an unregulated ticket (as suggested) and therefore the 15% rise is genuine??

Thanks

The 1st Class Eastbound Seasons are unregulated and thus FGW are free to price them as they see fit and at a level they think the market for them will bear. Only Standard Class Seasons are regulated and limited to the RPI+n% price rises.

You could vote with your wallet and trade down to a Standard Class Season and complain to FGW that the reason you've done so is because of the 15% increase to the 1st Class Eastbound Season.

Thanks for the confirmation. 
This is a shame.  I guess I'll enjoy my final year as a 1st class eastbound commuter (Translation: get a seat most days) and return back to standard travel when this ticket expires.  My wallet can't sustain stupid price rises like that.

 :(

Incidentally I've also worked out that FGW charge an extra 25% for London Underground travel with a First Class Eastbound ticket than with a standard ticket, and 1st both ways.

Difference between Maidenhead-->Paddington Standard with Underground and without Underground = ^712
Difference between Maidenhead-->Paddington 1st Eastbound with Underground and without Underground = ^888
Difference between Maidenhead-->Paddington 1st Class with Underground and without Underground = ^712

Cynical or criminal.  Bit of both in my view.

That sounds like an error to me? Unless you're entitled to a whole tube carriage to yourself for that?  ::)

I just keep hoping that the Eastbound 1st season ticket will be extended just one more station to the West so I can buy one at Reading.

Season ticket from Overton (OVR) to London Terminals or Paddington (PAD) might be suitable for you Laird. Plus you would get free first class travel to Basingstoke whenever you wanted. It's quite a good deal and valid by Reading (RDG).

Yearly 1ST Season tickets:
OVR -> PAD ^6480 (Valid RDG -> PAD without question)
RDG -> PAD ^8232

Agreed. I've never been questioned on tickets West of Basingstoke - London being passed via Reading. In some cases that is actually quicker.

*edited to add:*

I recall a certain Tweeter @FGW informing such tickets are valid. The particular one I was using was Salisbury - London Terminals. Valid via Reading or Woking ;D Not valid via Warminster >:(

Just to keep you updated I raised this to FGW Customer Services over two weeks ago but haven't heard diddly fro mthem.  When I receive an answer I'll let you all know the outcome.

Indeed. The National Rail Enqs site says the following about Overton to London Terminals season ticket validity:

Using National Rail services you can travel to / from the following London stations: London Bridge [LBG], London Cannon Street [CST], London Charing Cross [CHX], Vauxhall [VXH], London Blackfriars [BFR], London Waterloo East [WAE], London Victoria [VIC], London Waterloo [WAT], London Paddington [PAD], City Thameslink [CTK]

But we already know this. Everything I post is gospel!! :)

I think FGW are supposed to answer faster than that.. I thought it was supposed to be within 5 days usually..Although they may be overwhelmed with complaints I guess.. Might be worth re-sending it?

I have the same query in (and others) - currently there is a high volume of complaints and it's "awaiting a response from head office". GW aim to respond in 5 days, there is no obligation to.

From the FGW Passenger's Charter:


That says 'we will' and not 'we aim'. Although if a missive is sent by email then I suspect an auto-response will be sufficient as 'initial acknowledgement'. Posted missives should have a response sent out within five working days, either an acknowledgement or full response.

However, even with 'we will', there is no statutory obligation on FGW to adhere to what they say. Apart the rights already covered by the National Rail Conditions of Carriage, everything in a TOCs Passenger Charter is merely an aspiration. And arguably not worth the paper it is written on.

The autoresponse... (As I said earlier...gospel... :P)

I'll add, when I've sent in writing my issues/comments, I have always received a very similar email to the above to the (email) address I had listed.

Yes I feel a little aggrieved by the lack of response.  I have sent two chasers to date which curiously get logged as new tickets - which can't help their stats!?!

As an aside, those are some interesting observations about the conflict between National Rail Conditions of Carriage and the FGW Passengers Charter.  I had a long running dispute with FGW in 2011 along the line that National Rail CoC says if you have a 1st class ticket and can't get a seat "on any train" you can get a refund, but FGW says this doesn't apply to 'Turbo' services.  I took this through appeal and through Passenger Focus and in the end FGW told me their Passenger Charter took priority and (politely) to go and play in the traffic.

Either way, its Meet The Manager at Paddington tonight.   :D

You could always email the Fares Strategy Manager (Chris.Brock@firstgroup.com) - he's a decent chap. You're likely to get a more cut and dry response than you would from Customer Relations. (That is to say; it went up because of X. Thanks for getting in contact)

After 3 weeks I had an email AND a phonecall from FGW this morning. 
The verdict: FGW prices are incorrect and I'm due a ^184 refund.

How these prices were allowed to be published wasn't explained, and the same error is on 2012 and 2013 prices.

I asked whether FGW would be contacting everyone affected but apparently this is not possible, even when everyone affected has a photocard and registered address.  So its off to the press for me, and a quest to find as many people due refunds as possible!

Happy days.

Wow well done Nick.. It did look wrong to me so I am glad they have admitted it..

But they must know all their passengers details surely? Or is it just annual season ticket holders that they have contact information for? Hopefully someone on here will know that as I don't expect you to  ::)

As all you need for a weekly or a monthly is a simple photocard, then I don't think it is unreasonable for them to not have contact information. It's only within recent times that photocards have even had barcodes on them!

If FGW really did say that the Passenger's Charter takes precedence over the NRCoC then that's highly irregular: the NRCoC are absolutely explicit that they set out the minimum standard of service to which you are entitled, and that a train company may not take any of those rights away from you. From the introduction (my emphasis):


However, in this case the only Condition I can find that relates to travelling in standard with a first class ticket is number 38:


There's a bit of wriggle room for the operator here: it's possible to read it as first class not being provided (so a unit with only standard class seating working a service that's advertised as having first class available in the GBTT) rather than simply full. However, I have no concept of how FGW can twist that to mean that the refund rights do apply to HST/180-operated services and not Turbos.

That is what I thought... I think in the past thought, when I've had an Annual ticket, they do have my details.. And the problem here appears to be (though may not be restricted to) an annual ticket renewal..

That's not how the conditions of carriage read at all. A 1ST class ticket doesn't guarantee a seat, so you have to suck it up and stand in the first class section.

You're wrongly stirring here.

Under CoC, I know you're right EBrown.   Morally, by paying extra for First Class (especially on a service without catering), you're paying in addition to the standard fare in the anticipation of additional space / comfort, and if you don't get it you shouldn't end up being out of pocket by that additional amount.

Interesting to hear the different interpretations of CoC even on here.  But as grahame says, why would anyone buy a 1st class ticket if the travelling conditions are the same as standing in standard class?  If CoC give you a refund for the declassification of 1st class (ie. you have a 1st class experience but are forced to share it with standard class ticket holders) why would you not get a refund for standing in standard class?

Either way, FGW made their postion clear. 

One final question though - who is responsible for enforcing CoC? ie. if I had a query like this about interpretation of CoC then who could passengers go to, above  FGW and Passenger Focus?

PF would do the trick, by leaning heavily on them....

Let's try and keep things civilized shall we, EBrown? No need to take that tone at all. Clearly Passenger Focus thought there was some merit in the argument, or they wouldn't have taken on the case. Are you accusing them of "stirring" as well?

For what it's worth, I work in the industry (not for FGW though) and was convinced before I went back to check the CoC that there *were* arrangements in there to compensate passengers with FC tickets who had to use SC.

I've certainly had refunds on my FC season ticket for the days it was totally unusable. Definitely worth asking...Mind you with the absolute total lack of ticket checking this year so far (on the trains I have been on that don't already have train managers.. so quite a lot) it's becoming a bit of a joke

The argument is civilised. Where have I not been polite? Sorry, but CoC, Byelaws and PF Regulations & Rules are my 'home turf' so a curt answer can be expected, if anyone has an issue with what I post, drop me a DM and I'll see if I can change it.

The CoC are clear there is no 'interpretation issues here, the current version (May 12) and the previous version do not say that "When first class is full you can have a refund". I suspect passenger focus are more interested in the application only to 'Turbo' services. First haven't given the evidence I have infront of me - done anything wrong (except misinformed the customer), as such Pax Focus will no doubt side with them.

Nick, the Conditions of Carriage are enforced by a variety of different people, generally it will be enforced (in different ways) at several points on your journey. (When you buy a ticket, when you put your ticket in the gateline, when your ticket is inspected etc)

My issue is with your use of language. Neither "suck it up" nor "you're wrongly stirring" are an especially polite way of making your point. All these ins and outs may well be your "home turf" but they're not everyone else's.

Accusing another poster of stirring when they have made a complaint to FGW in good faith, a complaint which Passenger Focus considered had sufficient merit that they were prepared to take it up on his behalf, is unnecessarily hostile. Please desist from such blunt, unfounded accusations in future. I hope you are prepared to take that judgement, from me in my capacity as a moderator, with good grace.

Noted.

I'll send you a message later, and perhaps you'll consider being more courteous and sending me a message in future so I can remedy anything you have issue with quicker and without the need for public bickering.

This is a public readable board, and comments posted here and their responses can be read by anyone.  Some general thoughts and observations.

* It's very easy to come across as brusque when that's not intended, especially when replying to / answering a specific post.  We tend to think as we write such answers of the person who we're answering, of whom we may have quite a long knowledge / experience but in fact we're going to be read by hundreds.

* Having posted in public, the natural response is also in public.   It allows the complete audience group to continue to be involved in the ongoing discussion, and it saves on multiple responses of the same sort via personal message, post reports, emails, etc. which would only reach a tiny part of the ongoing audience group.

* It's possible for people to ask for notifications to be sent to them by email when a thread to which they started / contributed has received a further post, and that lets them get back onto the issue quickly without having to keep coming back just in case more has been contributed.  It is, though, courteous for someone making a strong post in response to another member to send them a personal message to alert them, and perhaps to add more personal background if they wish.  In the normal turn of events, it could be considered hypocritical to post in public, yet have responses sent back to you in private;  if you start something in public ...

* Things get brought to the attention of the moderator / admin team in which they haven't been involved - things that clearly cause enough concern to at least one member of the audience groups for that person to write.  Sometimes the only follow up will be to write back to the person who raised the question and explain something / why / wherefore.  But many times it will be to bring the matter to the attention of the poster who wrote what's been brought up ... and the audience group too may well need to know.  So very often, the action will be a public one, perhaps backed up by personal message.   To respond only in private leaves the concerning thread uncommented to the rest of the audience group - ripe for an avalanche of complaints, and misleading the majority of the audience group into thinking that the post about which the moderators have been contacted is uncontroversial.  On some occasions, the only public response may be to lock the thread and add a brief comment that it's being considered / worked on.  And occasionally, especially where it's the moderators who have picked up a possible issue, it might be done by p.m. only; this runs the risk of a mushrooming workload for the moderators / admins though, as others may pick up and be asking too, and our volunteer's time is limited! Posters should in general be aware that posts they make on public boards will generate responses, including those they may not have intended or anticipated, also in public.

A lot of general comments there. Probably an unfairly long response from me to a little incident, but good documentation that I can add to my FAQ store.  :D

Edit - slight reformat - G

Well done NickB.. The/your article on this has made page 7 of the Maidenhead Advertiser this week so hopefully other people affected will see it and go and ask for their refunds too..

Interesting news item in the Maidenhead Advertiser last week about FGW overcharging First Class passengers from Maidenhead:

http://www.maidenhead-advertiser.co.uk/News/Areas/Maidenhead/Commuter-issues-season-ticket-warning-after-being-overcharged-30012013.htm

Apparently, even though they know they did it, they're refusing to refund passengers unless they specifically demand a refund!

Indeed this is true - for I am the very same passenger who found the problem and raised it to FGW.  (see thread in Fare's Fair section)

When the error was admitted I asked what kind of restorative action FGW were going to take.  They said none, so I took it to the paper.  Not porud, not pretty, but what else could be done?

This affects all First class eatbound tickets issued from Twyford, Maidenhead, and all branch lines for at least the past 2 years.  If you go on the website the incorrect prices are still there.

Well done Nick!.

Does you know what the "correct" fair is, or where to find or calculate it?

I think you did exactly the right thing.  I'm never one who usually advocates a trip to the local press, but if FGW were not willing to contact those people who are affected directly then this will highlight them of the problem and they can go and sort it out.  I'm sure that is was a administrative error, rather than any sleight of hand, but I'm a little surprised FGW aren't making the effort to contact those concerned themselves on a positive customer service level - after all, we're not talking about thousands of people here.

Thanks - I appreciate the support.  I wasn't sure how this would be received, but to be clear my motive was not a witchhunt against FGW but just to inform other passengers of an acknowledged issue.

Incidentally gpn01, I see that you are a fellow 07.08 traveller - I'd be happy to say hello and chat about this if you wanted to(?)

So the 'formula' for working out the correct price is as follows:
- Work out the difference in price between a 1st Class Eastbound to Paddington, and a 1st Class Eastbound with z1-6 Tube (should be ^3496-^2756 = ^740).
- Work out the difference in price between a Standard Class to Paddington, and a Standard Class with z1-6 Tube (should be ^4368-^3444 = ^924).
- The overcharge is ^924-^740 = ^184.

The same applies for Twyford and branch line tickets, and both 2012 and 2013 prices. 

Another 'Well Done' Nick,
I read your bit on the letters page of the Maidenhead Advertiser and thought - crikey he's done well to spot that!
I guess another dent in First's profits.....

Well done Nick from me too ;)


Interesting, Is this only for season tickets? I've had a few refunds of the difference between 1ST and STD where I've purchased a First Class Walk Up ticket and then not been able to get a seat in First Class, so had to sit in Standard instead. Also had them when TM's have Declassified First Class.

All occasions this has happened I have been refunded the difference between First and Standard Class Fares, One occasion the whole ticket and a bit more as I boarded the train which by the time I got to Reading was over 2 hours.

So am I to assume EBrown you're referring to season tickets under the CoC. As I am reasonably sure I've seen in multiple places that refunds of the difference are given between First and Standard Class Tickets where a Passenger has a First Class Ticket and has to plonk themselves down in Standard assuming they can even do that :o

Or have I just been receiving Good Will Gestures? :D

Thanks Nick.  All I know is that I paid ^3982.40 for Maidenhead ^ Paddington Annual Season ticket in November with 1ST eastbound including London Zones 1 - 6 and that's after the 5% discount (which they took off the tube component!).  Think I^ll send an email asking what the correct fair should be.

I^ve switched from the 07:08 to the 06:43 as the 07:08 has been completely unreliable for the past few days.  No doubt we^ll bump into each other at some point though.  Be good to say HI!

Nick - may I add my support - especially bearing in mind the reasons for you going to the press.  This was indeed something of an unusual situation; it needed careful weighing up and from what I know you reached the right conclusion.  More typically - in most other cases - taking a complaint to the press simply strengthens the resolve of the company you're complaining about and makes it far harder to work constructively with them on future issues. 

No, all 1ST class ticket come without the guarantee of a seat. Unless of course you have a seat reservation - which still isn't really a guarantee of a seat, but FGW will refund as a good will gesture on standard class seats as a minimum if you are unable to have a seat.

Good will gesture.

Requirement under the CoC to refund the difference between ticket costs when First is declassified. The CoC also changed the 'rules' for when to declassify in the recent update to May 12.

Many TOCs will as a goodwill gesture. It's not a requirement. 1ST ticket holders are allowed to use STD if they so wish.


Yes, very much so.

Would you mind expanding a bit on the points below? Not so much that I doubt you, more that it would help me to understand if you could "show your working", to use the old chestnut from exam questions...


I haven't trawled in exhaustive detail through the CoC, but at a fairly brief reading I can't find anything that indicates passengers are entitled to a refund should FC be declassified. The only thing that might *suggest* this, as I read it, is Condition 38 (with my italics):


Are you reading this as saying that declassifying FC constitutes an absence of FC accommodation on a given service? If so I can see where you're coming from but it may come down to a matter of interpretation. The waters could be further muddied because, in my experience and in practice, when I've been on Intercity trains with FC declassified there has generally been one coach kept "classified" for FC ticket holders. In general on FGW that's meant that F and G were opened to standard class passengers, but H has been kept for the use of FC ticket holders. In that case I doubt any refund would be due.

And could you explain where you get the bit about 'the "rules" for when to declassify'? Again, I can find nothing in the CoC. Nor can I find any instructions in the staff section of the fares manual dealing with train accommodation, reservations or compensation. My hunch is that this decisions around declassifying FC would be a commercial decision for individual operators to make and issue the appropriate local instructions to staff. It's probably not what you're referring to, but the instructions about seeking permission from staff to occupy FC with a standard class ticket, staff not giving that permission unless they are satisfied standard is full, and the requirement for a standard ticket holder to absent themselves from FC when standard accommodation becomes available have always been there.

I certainly don't mind clarifying, this is starting to become smoke and mirrors!

[Opens can of worms...]

---

Train managers are not allowed to 'declassify' 1ST under the new CoC - unless no one is using it. This means no (part) refunds are required to First class passengers.

The exact quote is or if you like the rules for on-train staff to declassify:

Actually declassifying...
So, the only way a train can be 'properly' declassified is by the operator. This is a change to the scheduled timetable meaning that the section you quoted above applies (as there is no first class service on that timetabled train) - you are therefore entitled to a refund between the difference in ticket price under condition 38.

Loophole
Virgin for example regularly declassify one carriage of first class on packed evening services, that carriage isn't occupied by 1ST users (They use one of the alternate carriages - and get the remainder of First class services [food, drink ...] ). You will not get a refund in these circumstances.
(God knows why, this bit even confuses me).



Does that make this rather confusing topic any clearer or not? :) It was so much simpler under the old CoC.

It is these instances of 'interpretation' that make train travel so frustrating!  ;)

- I have in writing a statement from FGW that because I could not travel in 1st class due to overcrowding I am entitled to a refund.
- I also have in writing from FGW a statement that overcrowding does not entitle me to a refund (subsequently investigated for 9months by Passenger Focus)
- I have in writing from Passenger Focus quoting FGW that standing in 1st class for 20mins entitles you to a refund.
- I have a response in writing from Passenger Focus quoting FGW that declassification will lead to a refund under CoC
- I have claimed for a refund under CoC (within the past 2 months) for declassification.  The declassification was done by the train manager and was due to overcrowding in Standard.

 ??? :P

Although the text is now missing from the latest Conditions of Carriage, Train Companies can still give you more extensive rights than the minimum laid down by the NRCoC. This is often codified into their Passenger Charters.

To that end it is still acceptable for a guard to make a decision based on the best interests of the passengers on his or her train and declassify 1st Class. Without seeking higher authority or only doing the minimum as laid down by NRCoC.

I don't agree with Ebrown's interpretation that only the 'operator' can declassify. 'Accommodation' doesn't have to refer to the whole of 1st Class, it could just be one seat. Someone 'bumped up' by a guard, for example.

Inferring that on train staff can no longer declassify 1st Class by the wording of the NRCoC seems wide of the mark to me and will be news to guards/conductors/train managers everywhere.

Not really, I'm afraid. I'm going to suggest, respectfully, that you're mistaken here. The CoC prior to May 2012 said this:



The current version says this:

They're identical. This did not change in May 2012, and although I'm only relying on my memory (I can't find any older verions of the CoC prior to 2011 to back me up) I'm as sure as I can be that the wording here has been the same for years.

I agree with bnm that I don't see anything in here that prevents a train manager from declassifying first class at all. I remain convinced that it's a commercial decision for an operator to make dependent on the circumstances. I wouldn't regard declassifying certain vehicles as a loophole either.

Really sorry, but I think you've got this one wrong.

The thing is though, that even if a TM lets a certain passenger or passengers sit in first under those rules he is not 'declassifying' the whole first area as far as I can see.  The latter would mean all passengers on the train can now use the whole of first class.  The TM's discretion is not universal, he is simply instructing certain passengers to sit in first as a solution to their particular problem, but he is not necessarily allowing all the other passengers who have happily got seats in standard to make their own way to first, which is what declassification would mean?

Paul

I'm inclined to disagree with EBrown as well (sorry gov'ner) To his credit, the Passenger Charter does hint that EBrown is correct that FGW are offering above and beyond the requirements of the NRCoC. But I'm not 100% sure.

Going back to my 1C97 incident... I was the only one in Coach F who had a First Class Ticket. Infact the only First Class Passengers from Paddington I could count on 1 hand. To the credit of a fellow occupant, He paid excess once the TM got through just before Newbury. The conversation was one of "Can I upgrade please" and not "This is a Standard Ticket, you'll need to upgrade for XX amount"

However other pax who had no ticket at all (or ones that were certainly not valid) where only charged Standard Class Fares.

To be fair. I was holding a very much discounted ticket in the form of a First Class ^5 Gold Card Supplement. But held the return portion of a FSR from Newbury - Frome which was actually more than my SOV - NBY SVR Ticket!

That being said. I'm loathed to look at it like that. You can hold a First Class Ticket for 5p... If it's valid on the train your on, it's still a First Class Ticket. End of story.

---

But back to the argument of First Class being full I did find this from the FGW Passenger Charter June 2012 Edition here: (http://www.firstgreatwestern.co.uk/~/media/PDF/About%20us/Passenger%20charter/Passenger_Charter_WEB.pdf) which has this extract - My emphasis in bold:

What really winds me up is what happened this mroning - 07:03 Maidenhead-Paddington was delayed and was somewhat overcrowded.  It was standing room only in 1st class (for which I had a valid ticket).  In fact 1st class was so full I couldn't even get into it to stand up in!.  How do I attract the attention of a member of  train staff (it's a turbo unit so the only member of staff is the driver who's at the front and probably a bit busy).  So how do I get a refund?

Agree with the annoyance there... Been in similar situations before even on trains with a guard etc! >:(

But is a Maidenhead - Paddington turbo classed as a High Speed Service aka InterCity? Whilst the passenger charter states that it only covers HSS. My personal view is it should cover all trains FGW convey First Class Accommodation for their passengers! The cynic in me says that would be too simple :-X

gpn01.. that happened to me the other day too on a turbo.. Now if only they would do a ticket check occasionally on these trains.. As I am sure there were enough First class seats for those with First class tickets  ::)

It does seem I got that part wrong. My apologies to anyone that confused.

Given the 'confusing' matter of this, I will (eventually) write to National Rail (RSP Ltd) to seek a clarification on this. I will let you know of the result either way (I'll happily accept I'm wrong at that point or rub your noses in it [because I'd get the same from you] :P ).

And this was precisely my query to FGW.  I was only on a Turbo (7.18) because the HST (7.08) had been cancelled so in my view having to stand for 20+mins represented a breach of FGW's Passenger Charter.  Their response was that Turbo's do not qualify for refunds for standing with a 1st class ticket - only HST's. 

Which begs the question, why are Turbo services classified as having 1st class accommodation at all?  There is no catering, no paper, no table to work at (so actually less provision than some standard class carriages), no enforcement of tickets, and definitely no guarantee of a seat?

Dumb question time, driven by the fact that I've ended up on the overcrowded 07:03 twice now because of a cancelled/delayed 07:08.....How do we get the passenger charter rewritten?

Sooo... I think FGW need to tell us why they are selling people these First Class tickets (eastbound only) from Twyford and Maidenhead yet they aren't giving us the ability to then necessarily use these tickets (well there are only two trains out of quite a few each morning for Maidenhead for example that it is worth using them on (when they run as planned that is.. otherwise less than 2)).. I've still got no reply from FGW to how this is right...the passengers kind of know it's wrong... >:(

I wrote to FGW last week asking them to confirm how much my ticket should have cost (Maid-Padd, Zone1-6 + 1st Eastbound upgrade).  Still awaiting a response....

It forms part of the franchise....

As an update to the original topic I've passed this through to Passenger Focus for their input.  Whilst I was reasonably happy with the outcome of my claim (refund cheque) I have been contacted by other passengers who say that their identical claims have been refused.  When I've given them my incident reference to use as precedent the cheques start flowing again. 

I find this rather cheeky (to put it mildly) of FGW.  If they want to employ divide and rule tactics with individuals then they can answer to the collective passengers representative instead.

PS. to FGW's claim that they were unable (unwilling more like) to contact affected passengers directly because they don't have records of ticket holders I found it amusing that I received a mailout through my letterbox regarding Reading station works last week.  Play fair chaps.  ;)

NickB  - I thought exactly the same thing when I got the letter from FGW at the weekend.. And I don't even have an annual season ticket currently (although I have had one in the past)