Commuter wins legal battle against FCC

[whole diary]

[ReWind]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2449710/Commuter-discovered-season-ticket-loophole-saved-700-year-wins-legal-battle-train-company-tried-GAG-him.html

"A rail commuter who learned he could have saved ^700 a year by buying his season ticket from a different station has won a landmark victory against the train company.

City lawyer Andrew Myers sued First Capital Connect (FCC^▸ (First Capital Connect)) when he discovered he was not sold the cheapest available fare for his route into London but the firm tried to make him settle out of court and gag him so other commuters wouldn't find out.

Mr Myers, who lives in St Albans, found he could buy a ^3,068-a-year season ticket from Watford North, which is closer to London, but it could still be used from his home station, saving him ^700.

FCC initially tried to hit him with a 'gagging order' and settle out of court to keep his money-saving discovery a secret.

But he pursued them for the cash and after winning is urging others to take advantage of the ruling and do the same if they are being 'ripped off'.

He said: 'Anyone who has bought a ticket in the past seven months should ask the company why they have been charged ^700 more when they realised back in March a cheaper fare was available.

It is outrageous that FCC have been selling season tickets for ^700 more. I did not think it right that they could buy my silence.'

Passenger groups and unions today praised the commuter for his legal fight.

Manuel Cortes, leader of the TSSA^» (Transport Salaried Staffs' Association - about) rail union, said: 'The most worrying part of this case is that FCC tried to buy Mr Myers' silence.

'They were worried that thousands of other passengers would follow his example and buy season tickets ^700 cheaper as well.

'This is another example of First Group treating its passengers as cash cows.'

David Sidebottom, head of Passenger Focus, the rail travellers' pressure group, said: 'Passengers often say that they feel "ripped-off" and don't trust the railway industry to sell them the best-value ticket.

'If the industry is to rebuild passenger confidence, then it must act to tackle the complex and illogical fares system.

'This must include making terms attached to tickets much easier to work out.'

He added: 'We are disappointed to see that, in this case, the company continued to resist making a speedy apology and provide recompense to the passenger, when internally it had already accepted it was wrong.'

Mr Myers won the case at St Albans County Court, where a judge ruled the firm's behaviour was unreasonable.

The firm was also ordered to pay his costs of ^2,193.

Mr Myers was able to make his saving because of an obscure and historic rule which enables passengers who have purchased tickets from Watford North to travel via St Albans if they so wish.

This meant that by purchasing his season ticket from Watford North Mr Meyers was eligible to get off the train a further seven miles up the track at his home station of St Albans at no extra cost.

First Capital Connect said that Mr Myers had uncovered a 'previously unknown historic routing guide error', dating back to the days of British Rail.

The firm said the Association of Train Operating Companies (ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here)) was now taking steps to close the loophole.

The rail company's spokesman said : 'The Association of Train Operating Companies is closing this loophole on our behalf. We are not aware of any other anomaly and believe that this was an isolated case. '

A Department for Transport spokesman said it was still considering ATOC's request.

An ATOC spokesman said: 'This is an example of a very obscure error in a system that offers millions of tickets for travel between more than 2,500 stations.

'If other such errors are found, we will look to correct them to ensure that all passengers are treated fairly.'

[JayMac]

It'll be interesting to know whether London Midland (the fare setter for Watford North-London Zones 1-6) will accede to First Capital Connect's and ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here)'s request to amend the flow. Which will mean changing the routeing on the ticket from Any Permitted to something that compels you to travel into the zonal area via the WCML^▸ (West Coast Main Line) or Watford DC^▸ (Direct Current) Lines, such as via Watford Junc.

Also, the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) might have something to say if the flow is a protected one. And there's the small matter of 'shortest route', which should always be valid. For journeys from Watford North to some points within Zones 1-6 the shortest route is via a walk between the two St Albans stations.

[Brucey]

And what about the residents of Watford North, who may actually need to travel via. St Albans?  I can't see this being corrected anytime soon.

I also love the way a journalist has (presumably) just given themselves a crash course in the Routeing Guide, even including screenshots in the article

[Fourbee]

When I first heard of this, I went through the motions and ended up looking at map LB - so it is a permitted route. I cannot see how that easement quoted applies though?

IIRC^▸ (if I recall/remember/read correctly) other stations on the branch to St Albans Abbey from Watford Junction are associated with West Hampstead routing point too which allows map LB.

My first thought was like bignosemac, adding a restrictive via (after consultation) would solve it.

Credit to Mr Myers, if he went along with the gagging order he could have been selfish and milked this for himself, now everyone else can benefit (well, until it is "fixed").

[Fourbee]

now everyone else can benefit (well, until it is "fixed").

Which apparently it has been:
http://www.firstcapitalconnect.co.uk/about-us/media-centre/news/2013/st-albans-tickets-routing-anomaly/

Raises the question though if he had bought his annual season prior to the fix, it should still be valid IMO^▸ (in my opinion) as this amounts to moving the goalposts. Unfair terms and all that.

[ChrisB]

So - does that Easement still exist in the Routing Guide, folks?

Coz if it does, until it doesn't, surely pax can still demand to be sold seasons from Watford North.

And as Fourbee states, once the ticket is bought, the contract entered into can't bechanged unilaterally, and should be valid until expiry.

Can the TOC^▸ (Train Operating Company) refund the remaining ticket value & cancel said contract? Anyone know?

[paul7575]

I don't think this is the result of a specific 'easement' as such. 

It seems to me it is valid under the routeing guide normal rules, one of which is that the shortest route is always valid.  To avoid a completely round the houses solution, the shortest route can include a walk... 

If it is now thought by FCC^▸ (First Capital Connect) that routes including a walk are a problem, and if that rule was removed generally, wouldn't it prevent bona fide journeys across places like Windsor as well?  Or how about in their own area the walk between the Hertford stations?

Paul

[eightf48544]

Like the bit from ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here).

"An ATOC spokesman said: 'This is an example of a very obscure error in a system that offers millions of tickets for travel between more than 2,500 stations."

Does this mean that they've regonised the problem with fares and routings? That there are too many or are they proud that there are millions of tickets?

There are a nuber of walks in through fares, the two Catford, Penge etc. It always before the Huddersfield's reversed into Westgate that the ABC had a note passengers make their own way between Wakfild Westgate to Wakefild Kirkgate.

 

[Southern Stag]

This has all got a bit more confusing today as ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here) have substantially changed, or at least attempted to substantially change routing. The routing guide is apparently no longer the definitive source of routing but merely a guide, at least that's what NRE^‡(resolve) and the routing guide itself says, which would make the routing guide itself rather pointless. All routes now have to be verified in the National Rail journey planner. However the NRCOC^▸ (National Rail Conditions of Carriage) has yet to been updated to reflect this. They seem to be so desperate to close this loophole that the section on the NRE website on tickets has a statement that tickets from Watford North etc are not valid via St Albans, the only specific restriction referenced on this page: http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types.aspx
Unsurprisingly the NRE journey planner also bars taking such a route, and supposedly is now the definitive source of routing information. However the NRCOC, the contract between the passenger and train operator allows you to take the shortest route, which this is.

[JayMac]

IMHO^▸ (in my humble opinion), unless and until the rule on 'shortest route' is changed, a Watford North - Zones 1-6 fare will continue to be valid via St Albans. The NRCoC^▸ (National Rail Conditions of Carriage) refer to the Routeing Guide, and the Routeing Guide says you only need to consult the maps and easements if you are not travelling on a direct train nor via the shortest route.

If I had the minerals I'd buy such a ticket and let myself be taken to court by FCC^▸ (First Capital Connect).

It can't be a coincidence that the Routeing Guide is changed so dramatically and detrimentally to the passenger after a Train Operating Company loses a court case over a Permitted Route. It is nothing short of spiteful on the part of First Group and their private member's club, ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here). Shame on them.

It's also time for both the supposed passengers' champion Passenger Focus and the DfT^» (Department for Transport - about) to each grow a pair and stop the train companies from abusing their position. Such changes to the Routeing Guide are simply a stealth way of raising fares. It's underhand, immoral and smacks of the worst kind of shady business practice.

It's fair to say I'm ******* spitting feathers over this. I fully intend to join those from other forums who are planning to head to Watford North, buy a Watford North - Zones 1-6 Travelcard and travel to Elstree & Borehamwood via St Albans.

Take us to court First Capital Connect. Want to lose again? 

[JayMac]

An addendum to my rant.

Both FCC^▸ (First Capital Connect) and ATOC^» (Association of Train Operating Companies See - here) are quoted in the press saying that the, "error (in the Routeing Guide) harks back to the days of British Rail."

That is a downright lie terminological inexactitude. The Routeing Guide came into being in 1996, two years after the privatisation of BR^▸ (British Rail(ways)).

[Brucey]

The Routeing Guide was today updated to include a new "easement":

700434 Customers travelling from Watford North, Garston, Bricket Wood, How Wood, Park Street and St Albans Abbey to or via London St Pancras in possession of tickets routed "Any Permitted" may not travel via St Albans. This easement applies in both directions.

[paul7575]

The Routeing Guide was today updated to include a new "easement":

700434 Customers travelling from Watford North, Garston, Bricket Wood, How Wood, Park Street and St Albans Abbey to or via London St Pancras in possession of tickets routed "Any Permitted" may not travel via St Albans. This easement applies in both directions.

That doesn't seem right.  The much discussed 'error' was about a travel card, not a ticket to St Pancras...

The problem is that with an out-boundary travel card the way you get from an origin to the London zone boundary is not defined anywhere, as far as I can see.  Perhaps someone in Atoc thinks that you must head to an appropriate London terminal first, before the travel card takes effect?

[grahame]

Around 6,500,000 journeys to and from St Albans per year ... 3,250,000 retrun trips ... say 12,000 commuters of whom 9,000 are to London - which at 700 pounds each is over 6 million pounds if they had all travelled for a year on Watford North annual seasons.   And whilst not everyone (by a long shot) would have taken advantaged of the somewhat oddfeeling lower fare, I can understand the rail industry not wanting to see a substantial reduction of millions in income.

However, [rule changes rushed through (it appears) to deal with a specfic incident / laws made in haste to react to a particular happening] tend to be poor ones, be a bit 'over the top', have all sorts of unintended side effects, and lead to lots of other questions.

[SDS]

There is a very similar easement on FGW^▸ (First Great Western) which could save certain annual card holders around ^600 a year. I cant release the easement because of having been expressly forbidden to disclose it (which I'm sure is a breach of the TSA^▸ (Ticketing and Settlement Agreement.)).