 Poster: A snowHead
|
feef, recently the speed limit on a section of road close to me was dropped from 40 to 30 (due most likely to residential development nearby). The road was already subject to enforcement by cameras and all the authorities had to do was post up the new 30 limit and then start fining those still doing 40. The limit would be posted and ignorance of the change would indeed be no defense especially given that there was notice given by the revised posted limit.
What they did do was place larger placards some distance before the new limit warning road users of the revision. That to me seemed reasonable, as whilst we should all be aware of the limit where we are driving, and observe road signs, if you have been driving a section of road at 40mph for the last 20 years..........
So whilst the actual terms of the lift pass has not changed, the tech has, and what was effectively an unenforceable limit on a non photo multi-day pass is now being increasingly enforced and I think it is the duty of the lift company to make sure that people realise that even a pass where they do not ask for your name nor (to your knowledge) take your photo is not in fact transferable.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
talking about the rules did anybody get Feef's rules posted in any resorts this season?? They are awesome 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
TBH I've never been aware that my photo will be taken on first lift and used to validate my pass on every trip - are companies allowed to take your photo for such purposes without telling you it is being done? I know CCTV takes your pictures all the time, but somehow this seems different. I could well have completely innocently loaned a pass to another person in my party who might have lost theirs to get home for whatever reason. I think that information about the photo being taken should be publicised when you buy a ticket.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Just to clarify a couple of points as so many have said it is in the terms and conditions so therefore wrong or even possibly illegal.
How many have had refunds from credit cards because of what they did under their terms and conditions ?
A company's terms and conditions have no real relevance in law if they clash with laws. Terms and conditions have to be fair to both parties and transparent, so please do not say you have no right to transfer something you paid for.
It was paid you have a right to use it and if that means you allow someone else who is eligible for it at the same price to use it we should be asking these company's to justify why they say we can not do so, what laws say we can not do so and their terms and conditions can and will be challenged.
It is not stealing it is not fraud you have paid the going rate, ( if two people use it on the same day then yes it could be viewed as stealing or fraud ).
These resorts sharing info in the same season I view as fine but for that to still be used the year after does bring up questions that could well include asking about the legality of such information still being held and shared by company's on different continents.
For those saying oh but it is discounted ie say a 1 day pass is 40 euro's you get a 6 day for 200 euro's go check the price for a season pass in comparison and many resorts have discounts for locals. Now I am not saying this is wrong in fact fair play, but short term lift passes are not cheap and even if they would or do give refunds on unused days I would be surprised if you did not get a reduced refund due to admin fee's etc.
I am not trying to say that we are right company's are wrong or vice versa but we do have a right to challenge any company's terms and conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
"if two people use it on the same day then yes it could be viewed as stealing or fraud ". By your logic, why could it?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
Megamum, actually with you andTomW that makes it closer to 40%, which imo makes it obvious that it is not obvious and the companies efforts to communicate it's T&C's are failing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| midgetbiker wrote: |
| Megamum, actually with you andTomW that makes it closer to 40%, which imo makes it obvious that it is not obvious and the companies efforts to communicate it's T&C's are failing. |
Or we are too lazy to read the ones that are published??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PS that wasn't a personal attack - I too am guilty (as I imagine most are) too lazy to read the Ts&Cs
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
altis, using them when provided (as long as covered by t's and c's) is fine. Sharing them is not. There are also lots of DPA rules around sharing other details across borders but there are ways around these as there are loopholes if the data is accessed from the local system from a cross border partner as long as the data is not stored by the receiving partner.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| thecramps wrote: |
| "if two people use it on the same day then yes it could be viewed as stealing or fraud ". By your logic, why could it? |
I take it that way because then how do you prove two people did not go up one ski's down with the pass for another person to go up and all three ski down together so by saying the person who uses it on that day is the only one it does stop true fraud of two skiing at the same time for the price of one.
It comes down to fair terms and conditions fair would be understanding the above problem, and equally as fair that only one person is using a pass on a given day even if it is not the same person because the company have received payment for the use of the lift system for one person.
Sorry if I came across blunt in my previous post just fed up with company's who think their T&C are more relevant than laws or should be treated as law.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| midgetbiker wrote: |
| Megamum, actually with you andTomW that makes it closer to 40%, which imo makes it obvious that it is not obvious and the companies efforts to communicate it's T&C's are failing. |
I would suggest it's the user that is failing to understand the issue and not the provider trying to hide the details. The easy way around it would be to put a bloody big message,
Terms and conditions apply read or we will stiff you!
That would do it I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
ansta1, Or the employment of a T & C's hammer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ansta1, or add a photo to every pass (not hard these days), or a name on every pass (again not hard) or write in large type across the top "not transferable" (language issues aside).
But if you don't ask for a name, don't apply a pic, then i think it is understandable that some folks misunderstand the position on the transfer-ability.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
if you don't ask for a name
|
I've not bought a pass recently for over a day without being asked for a name (these are not for me, as I have a season pass, but for visitors). This might well vary from place to place but clearly in the situation reported in the OP there was a name - of a woman!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
|
Could it simply be that the woman kept her electronic card from USA knowing she could use it in Europe so already had her details attached to it, I used to use a Swatch Snowpass watch which probably had all my information on it and was really convenient until they system changed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
larry1950, that would be my guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| pam w wrote: |
| Quote: |
if you don't ask for a name
|
I've not bought a pass recently for over a day without being asked for a name (these are not for me, as I have a season pass, but for visitors). This might well vary from place to place but clearly in the situation reported in the OP there was a name - of a woman! |
It must vary as I bought several 6 or 7 day passes for guests this year without ever giving a name.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
midgetbiker, I didn't know either. Whilst chalet hosting last year several couples/friends staying with us shared passes, mainly for childcare reasons. It never occurred to me this was not allowed. None reported any problems. It was made clear at the point of sale that I could not share my season pass (with photo) but not that this equally applied to shorter duration non-photo passes bought without giving a name. I can't remember ever having been told this at the lift pass office when buying a 6 day pass.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Quote: |
I can't remember ever having been told this at the lift pass office when buying a 6 day pass.
|
If there is no name on the pass, and you are not asked for a name, then I do think it's reasonable to assume that two (or any number of) different people can use it. But if you have to give a name, and it's printed on the pass (and I've always had the names on 6 day passes I've bought, though recently they have all been in the same resort) then i do think it's disingenuous (despite the protests above) to claim that you don't think it matters who uses it. When I bought a family pass in advance, for friends, last year I had a major problem because they have different names (they are not married and the boys were hers, from a previous marriage). I was able to buy the pass only because I've used the same sales office for years and the woman trusts me.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
pam w, +1
I do think it would be a good idea for parents to be able to buy a 50/50 pass to help with childcare etc I will have this nightmare in a year or so when Claire and little one comes away with me!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
pam w,
| Quote: |
If there is no name on the pass, and you are not asked for a name, then I do think it's reasonable to assume that two (or any number of) different people can use it. But if you have to give a name, and it's printed on the pass (and I've always had the names on 6 day passes I've bought, though recently they have all been in the same resort) then i do think it's disingenuous (despite the protests above) to claim that you don't think it matters who uses it.
|
I agree 100% with all that you put here. My foursome has also often bought passes as a family ticket and I have often worried about the changes in surname, but so far we have never been asked to produce separate ID and none of the passes have carried names.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
One interesting wrinkle... OP's friend appears to not have actually boarded the lift. Clearly the intention was there, but the "crime" had not been committed. Shades of Tom Cruise and "pre-crime"?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
pam w, I agree it would be clear if there were a name on the pass, as with my season pass last year. However, this year I have bought 7/8 day passes in two resorts (Paradiski and Kleinwalsertal), neither of which asked for a name or said they weren't shareable (not that I did share - I wanted to ski!). But I have to agree with midgetbiker, that I don't think it's fair to assume that 'everyone' should know that all multi-day passes are non-transferable (if this is the case).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| Quote: |
I don't think it's fair to assume that 'everyone' should know that all multi-day passes are non-transferable
|
neither do I. But I think it's disingenuous to assume that a pass with a name can be shared by someone with a different name!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| larry1950 wrote: |
| Could it simply be that the woman kept her electronic card from USA knowing she could use it in Europe so already had her details attached to it, I used to use a Swatch Snowpass watch which probably had all my information on it and was really convenient until they system changed. |
it is possible.
Some very interesting points raised here, I will try to find out more detail for you but it will be a few days before I do as my criminal friend is away.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
pam w, I don't think many lift operators offer any refund.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
davidof, I did wonder if the passes were tagged male or female which would make it easy for the liftie to spot but reading back the company having a photo of the Wife raises some interesting questions. It'll be interesting to see what your friend says.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| Quote: |
Resorts should introduce a share ski passes for parents looking after a child
|
If a shared pass were introduced - at a higher daily rate than a non-shared pass, but cheaper than two separate ones (which I think is a good idea) it shouldn't just be for parents. Apart from any considerations of equity it would be difficult to police.
As with car-insurance fraud, it's in the interest of the "honest" customer that fraudulent use of passes is minimized. The paying customer is subsidising the free-loader. I'd be in favour of any use of modern technology to detect fraud, and more "spot checks" too.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
pam w, I totally agree that no one should think a pass with a name on it is shareable. So actually you and I do not disagree at all, the difference only stems from the different experience in our two home resorts, you are asked for a name, we are not.
All I have argued for is something to indicate to the purchaser that the pass cannot be shared, your resort is doing that by asking for a name, mine is not.
I guess the question now is did the resort in the OP ask for a name, and the answer (by implication) is yes.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
| pam w wrote: |
| Quote: |
Resorts should introduce a share ski passes for parents looking after a child
|
If a shared pass were introduced - at a higher daily rate than a non-shared pass, but cheaper than two separate ones (which I think is a good idea) it shouldn't just be for parents. Apart from any considerations of equity it would be difficult to police.
As with car-insurance fraud, it's in the interest of the "honest" customer that fraudulent use of passes is minimized. The paying customer is subsidising the free-loader. I'd be in favour of any use of modern technology to detect fraud, and more "spot checks" too. |
But again, here you are talking about fraud and honesty, were the only debate I see above is about whether customers are made adequately aware of the rules they should not break.
I certainly have no argument with any measures that catch and punish users who abuse their passes, so long as the parameters of allowed use are clear.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
Looking at a pile of passes that I have here (6 from the past couple of years, 2 day tickets and the others for longer periods), I see only one (a day ticket from the SkiWelt) that states clearly on it "Karte NICHT übertragbar!!!". It would seem to be a good idea for every resort to do that.
SKIDATA is a leading company providing ticketing services, at least in Austria but also worldwide, I think (their systems are also used in car parks, at concerts, etc.). You can read about the system on their website, including details of their 'Photo Compare' system. The description in the PDF file does say "All pictures taken on the current day will be available for matching" and "For each day, the first and last picture taken of individual cardhoders will be stored for future reference". Big Brother is watching you (also using tablet computers at the turn style, as I have seen in Saalbach).
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
P.S. to the above: 3 of my 6 cards do state clearly, though printed in small print on the back, in German and English, that "Ski Passes are non-transferrable".
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
PaulC1984, re the analogy with car insurance:
If you rang up to insure your car and they focus on your details as well as the cars (ie ask for named drivers and their history) then it would be reasonable to assume that only those named can drive.
If you rang up and all they focus on are the cars details (age, engine etc, like they do in a number of other countries) and don't ask anything about who may use it then it is reasonable to assume the insurance would cover any driver.
Same with the ski pass: They ask pam w for a name so she reasonably assumes only the named user can use it, in Chx they don't ask me for a name so I could reasonably assume anyone could use it ('cept I know different).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
also using tablet computers at the turn style, as I have seen in Saalbach
|
yes, that was the case in Les Saisies this last season - friends with "OAP" season passes were stopped and checked.
If a resort does not ask for a name when they sell a pass, how can they prove that the "wrong" person is using it. I suppose that a very sophisticated facial recognition system could identify that the same pass appeared to have been used by two individuals - but it would then be a big hassle to take that information forward. Asking for a name seems much simpler!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
Ever heard the phrase Caveat emptor?
|
No.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| xyzpaul wrote: |
| Quote: |
Ever heard the phrase Caveat emptor?
|
No. |
I believe they're an Austrian heavy metal apres ski band
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Why are we talking and using words like "FRAUD" ? This is not fraud unless the pass is at point of purchase made very very clear to the original purchaser it is non transferable and even then you could argue the T&C are unfair if they do not offer either a refund on un-used days or an admin fee to transfer un-used days to another person or to keep them stored for future visits. These are just as strong an argument in any court as the company's T&C and if they say well our policy is; tell them that is for them internally and has absolutely no relevance to any member of the public.
Fraud would be an adult using a child pass or an OAP pass or using a residents pass when you are not a resident and have no right to use it because then you are getting something at a reduced rate which you know you do not qualify.
Using your husband/wife's pass or a friends at the same level may be something that the company's don't want you to do but it is not a criminal matter. it is nothing like car insurance in the UK as that is valued personally from your driving experience and claims record plus location.
A pass has been purchased that allows one adult to use the pass either on a set day or one day within a set period. It is not criminal if an adult uses that pass and is therefore irrelevant which adult does so as long as they are entitled to use a pass at that price/group, Unless the pass has a name on it or photo as in the case of most season passes.
Now we do need more info on this ie was there a name on the pass etc but as it stands I see the comment of the police as a threat by the company to make you pay out quickly and although I accept they can ban you from using their lifts they still have to have a valid reason here in Europe or face the accusation of unfair discrimination. Many company's make threats like this they want you to be afraid but you have a right to see the T&C and read them through fully first. If it is not clear or they refuse to give you a copy thank them and walk out. If they try anything they are the ones who if not careful may well end up braking a law be it illegally detaining you or threatening behaviour.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Quote: |
If a resort does not ask for a name when they sell a pass, how can they prove that the "wrong" person is using it. I suppose that a very sophisticated facial recognition system could identify that the same pass appeared to have been used by two individuals - but it would then be a big hassle to take that information forward. Asking for a name seems much simpler!
|
pam w, this is exactly the nub of my gripe. For many years lift companies have not generally asked for a name when issuing a 6 day pass (for example) those passes have then been practically (if not actually in T&C terms) transferable. This has led to a perception among a sizeable minority (maybe majority) of their users that these passes are ok to 'pass along'. Now that technology (auto pic at gate on first use) has advanced to the point where the actual T&C's can be (quite justifiably) enforced then i think it is beholden on the lift companies to correct this mis-conception before punishing unwary users. The system adopted in your resort of simply asking for a name (and preferably printing on the pass) as a signal the pass 'belongs' to one individual is more than adequate to meet this need.
It may well be the case that in the areas where the enforcement is now live then the companies do indeed ask for a name. Maybe Chx will start to ask for a name when they install systems to enforce the terms (I'm confident these were not in place upto and including this last season, and given the glacial pace of the CdMB may not be for a few years yet).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
