If just that ticket were shown and the customer stated that they were travelling to/from Bromsgrove, it should be accepted. The easement only applies if travelling to/from Bromsgrove.

It is not valid as part of a combination of tickets for a journey to somewhere like Prestatyn.

Providing you are going "via Cheltenham Spa" and "to Bromsgrove" yes.
Different interpretations of the easements by different programmers. I quite like this as it gives us a choice and we can use the one that gives the best deal.
I can't find a Frome to Derby OPR, but OPR fares are sometimes SSRs depending on who sets the flow, but I can't find any consistent differences between an OPR and a SSR other than the OPRs tend to be more likely to be more heavily restricted (but not always).

relex109  - Penalty Fares and excess fares to Anytime tickets exist for customers who make mistakes. Some companies do seem to enjoy extracting revenue out of customers who make a mistake. If a TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) makes a mistake and lets you take a 'scenic route' then if you want to think that is 'unethical' that's your choice, but I don't see anything wrong in forming a contract if the other party agrees to the contract. Up until the time the money is taken they can decline the sale. Once the money is taken, they could still cancel it and refund you, but if they let you collect the ticket then that is binding in my opinion, and it's clear that ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here) don't disagree with that. Ethical or not? That is up to the individual to decide.

I'm not aware of a "Farezone" nor a "Farezone ticket".
If you did not have an itinerary and/or reservations it would not be valid on the basis that "but the website said..." it would only be valid if reservations and/or an itinerary were produced, which would over-rule the normal routeing restrictions.
People have already done things like Wigan-Oxenholme via London, Swindon to Three Bridges via Looe, etc.
Agreed, but we can't change the system. We could however change certain aspects of it, but my concern is that there would have to be guarantees in place to protect passengers. If you let the TOCs do anything they would severely restrict the routes we could take and bump up prices massively.

People are quite rightly confused, and it's not your fault, because the Rail industry used to use the term "Open" (yes, with a capital O!) to be a product of a ticket that had validity (on both portions) for one month, and was also valid on any train. However Thetrainline confused things by using the term "open" (note the lower case o!) to refer to a ticket that was not restricted to a particular train (but, in fact, may only have a validity of one day and may have restrictions - a far cry from an Open Return ticket!), and this terminology was then used by other booking websites.

Then we got "Simplification", where the Open Return became Anytime Return. No longer was the outward portion valid for a whole month (it was initially a day or two, then extended to 5 days) although the return portion remains valid for one month.

Now it is difficult to know what the term "open" means; does it mean any ticket that is not an Advance, including Day returns? Or does it mean a ticket that is valid on any train where the return portion is valid for a month (in some cases an Off Peak Return would count) Or does it mean something else? There is no common consensus as far as I can determine.

Therefore, my personal recommendation is to avoid using the term where possible. The rail industry has confused us all!

The only thing I can think of that may explain this, is if it was a 2-part Railcard, and the photocard part was missing. This is only applicable on Railcards that require photo ID and that are not bought online. For example a 16-25 Railcard bought at a rail ticket office.

Thanks

FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HQ^▸ (Headquarters) should of course have been informed of this fiasco; can anyone confirm if this is indeed the case? I have contacts at several TOCs^▸ (Train Operating Company) but not FGW (unless you count guards, but then they don't get told everything!)

With respect, you or I or anyone else has no right to issue such an instruction.
They shouldn't argue, because the tickets must be honoured and their Company has been compensated.

The ticket will be printed with the appropriate route e.g. "Any Permitted" however a ticket is always valid by the itinerary/reservations provided, so if a passenger presented an itineary and/or reservations that were obtained as part of the original purchase that is clear evidence of a Contract that must be honoured (and ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here) have confirmed will be honoured)
You would have an itinerary via Inverness, and provided you ticked the box to obtain reservations you would be issued reservations via Inverness.
If someone buys a ticket that a guard does not like and travels exactly according to the itinerary and/or reservataions supplied at the time the ticket was purchased, the guard can either accept the ticket, or withdraw it for investigation (so the issuing office/website can get a telling off if it's wrong and be asked to fix it in future!!) but if they do withdraw it they must issue a free of charge zero-fare replacement ticket allowing the customer to complete their journey as per their itinerary.

I do not know what you mean by "cover the TOCs" but if you are asking about compensation then I have it on good authority that TOCs have been compensated, a deal was reached by ATOC. TOC managers have been told to honour such tickets and have been told they have been compensated but have not been told of exact figures (revenue is distributed through ORCATS^▸ (Operational Research Computerised Allocation of Tickets to Services)).

The tickets must be honoured, as the Contract was agreed by the relevant parties when the sale was made.

So far I am aware of one UPFN^▸ (Un Paid Fare Notice (used on XC^▸ (Cross Country Trains (franchise)))) which is being appealed and will be successful (the head of revenue at the TOC concerned has already agreed such tickets are of course valid and will be honoured) and one FGW^▸ (First Great Western) guard asked for money up front (an appeal is being sent next week). These appeals will be successful because a debt the same civil debt cannot be pursued from two separate parties.