Are you paying twice for your train journey? The court ruling that affects millions of commuters

Court rejects claim accusing train companies of overcharging passengers as campaigner renews push for fairer fares.

The Competition Appeal Tribunal has dismissed a claim that three major train companies abused its dominant position to overcharge millions of consumers. 

The case, brought by consumer campaigner Justin Gutmann, alleged that the companies failed to make “boundary fares” – cheaper tickets for Transport for London (TfL) Travelcard holders travelling beyond their zones – sufficiently available or well publicised.

After hearings in June and July 2024, the Tribunal found no breach of competition law by Govia Thameslink, Southeastern and South Western Railway. The decision comes 16 months after the trial concluded.

Gutmann said he was disappointed but vowed to continue campaigning for fairer, more transparent fares: 

“This is a scandal that’s been going on for nigh on 30 years. People who bought Travelcards and then used them to travel on trains going out of London were denied the opportunity to buy fares from the edge of the Travelcard boundary.”

A £25 million settlement had previously been agreed and distributed to affected consumers by Stagecoach, one of the operators in the South Western train case. Gutmann confirmed there will be no appeal.

What the boundary fares claim was about

If you hold a TfL Travelcard and travel beyond your zones – for example, from London Bridge to Brighton – you should be able to buy a cheaper boundary fare starting from the edge of your Travelcard zone.

Gutmann argued that millions of passengers never knew this was possible because boundary fares weren’t promoted or easy to find on ticket machines or online. According to Gutmann, economic analysis for the case suggested around three million travellers between 2015 and 2019 may have paid more than they needed.

The train companies defended themselves by saying boundary fares were a “niche market” and that promoting them would have been costly and constrained by Department for Transport (DfT) contracts. The Tribunal agreed, finding no abuse of dominance under the Competition Act 1998.

Despite the setback, Gutmann secured one earlier success, a £25 million settlement with Stagecoach South Western Railway, which he said was “a little glimmer of sunshine.”

Why the court dismissed the claim

The Tribunal criticised the case for not presenting sufficient data on consumer awareness of boundary fares. Gutmann acknowledged that no consumer awareness survey was commissioned or, crucially, that his economist wasn’t called to explain key data.

“We were criticised by the CAT because they didn’t think the figures spoke for themselves,” he said. “That was a mistake on our part.” 

The Tribunal also decided that the train companies’ behaviour was “reasonable and commercially normal” given regulatory oversight of rail franchises.

Train companies did not abuse their dominant position

Under the Competition Act 1998, dominant companies must not abuse their position to the detriment of consumers. The Tribunal ruled that while train companies were dominant on their routes, their conduct wasn’t an abuse of dominance.

Gutmann says this exposes a gap in consumer protection.

“Abuse of dominance isn’t a remedy for general consumer disadvantage,” he explained. “But this is exactly the kind of thing consumers need protection from.”

He believes the issue could have been fixed years ago by regulators – and he didn’t hold back:

“I have no faith that going forward the Office of Rail and Road or the Department for Transport, or indeed Transport Focus, will take any action whatsoever. So it remains down to consumers to navigate an opaque and confusing ticket system.”

“Now that we’ve lost the case and there is no simple remedy left… we’re at the end of the line.”

End of the line for affected rail passengers?

It was claimed that anyone who travelled on South Western Railway, Southeastern or Govia Thameslink Railway while holding a TfL Travelcard between 2015 and 2019 could have overpaid.

Gutmann and his team have decided not to appeal the decision. 

“We have now reached a decision not to appeal the judgment in the boundary fares cases after consultation with counsel and my funder,” Gutmann told Consumer Voice.

“Having carefully considered the judgment, we do not believe there are sufficient grounds – either in law or on the facts – to appeal.”

Although the boundary fares claim has failed, Gutmann insists that collective actions remain vital for holding companies to account:

“The fact that I’ve lost doesn’t discourage me in the slightest about the collective redress regime,” he said. “Cases are there to be won and lost, and although this isn’t the outcome I wanted for consumers, it shows the rigour of the system in enabling them to challenge big companies.”

The boundary fares case has shone a light on how confusing train fares remain – and why transparency matters. And, although unsuccessful in his claim “the wider battle for fair fares and consumer protection continues,” Gutmann added.

How to avoid paying twice

If you use a Travelcard and travel outside your zones:

• Ask at the ticket office whether boundary fares are available.
• Check online retailers and ticket machines for boundary or split-ticket options.
• Compare prices using multiple journey planning apps and websites.
• Challenge unclear pricing – you’re entitled to ask why a cheaper fare wasn’t offered.

“Consumers have limited time and knowledge,” Gutmann said. “That’s why it’s incumbent on any operator to make things as easy as possible for customers.”