Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder

Son of Shoestring

Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

    135
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

14 Good

About Son of Shoestring

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. Probably not, but I do note this is your 4th time of asking. I think I understand your concern. I also note you have stated that you intend to withdraw from the discussion 3 times previously, but here you are again. Welcome back! The point I wish to make, I suppose, is that so far as I can see most of "informed" contributors here professionally represent the interests of Rail Operators, and the obvious concern of an independent must be that they may very well be inherently prejudiced because of their association. Their intensely negative disposition hitherto may reflect that. That would be the kind interpretation, I think. But that's "suspicious" old me just spit-balling. I am, however, sympathetic to Conniff's reasoned view that rail travel is a protected syndicate. Omertà anyone? A day or two prior to starting this thread, I took the time to read other threads in the Public Transport section of the forum and found - in my jaundiced view anyway - a heavy level of "negative disposition" by many of the same contributors present here - in all the cases I scanned. Most of the threads were "fare dodgers" looking for help. I didn't see an awful lot of the syrup of human kindness being spread about - even in one cases where extenuating circumstances were obvious and, I would have thought, eminently defensible. It was more the case of plead guilty gov. Fall on your knees and whimper for forgiveness. Pilate is a kind Prefect. Etc. The over-riding sense I came away with was that this asylum had been taken over by the inmates. But I can't say that it really came as a surprise. I am a long an absent member who used to visit the forum on a daily basis back in the days of the bank charges successes -- that being prior to the predictable "political" fix being put in place by the joint banks and OFT test case to finally stem the massive outflow of money being paid to claimants by banks , who were unable to defend themselves in court due to the fear of setting a serious precedent for the future. Oddly enough, firstclassx in post No. 23 of this thread reflected the very same fears about the possibility of a successful claim re consequential damages and assured me that the government would support the TOCs. There goes democracy down the drain, eh. Anyway, to repeat: I'm not going to clearly define my strategy, but note once more that I have been informed by the debate here. Thanks for that anyway. Probably best to bring this thread to a close, I think.
  2. Just to clarify. I have never considered SOGA the relevant legislation for this claim. But it was mentioned repeatedly by others that I thought, playfully, I would illustrate it. It's a strong consumer law. But it does not apply to my case.
  3. Not muddled at all Conniff, but thanks for the heads up anyway. It would be too laborious too have to read the entire thread again to get the context, so I'm not going to suggest it. But there is method behind the apparent madness.
  4. Sailor Sam and Old-CodJA, I appreciate both of your more reasoned arguments and insights. But some of the advice given during the course of the discussion has been poor and it shouldn't come as a surprise that it is received equally poorly. Under SOGA 1979, goods sold to a customer must, under the Act, be of satisfactory quality and be fit for purpose. If they are not, the customer is entitled to demand that the goods be replaced, repaired, require the retailer to reduce the price of the goods, or rescind the contract and receive a full cash refund. The choice of which of these is chosen is not the retailers to make, but the customers. And the Act allows up to 6 months, and in some cases up to 6 years, for the customer to make a lawful claim. It would, of course, be daft of me to lay out my full intentions on an open public forum, but please note I have been informed by the discussion and gained insights from this thread and for that I am grateful. SOS
  5. "Alternative arrangements in the future" I think I see what you mean: I buy a rail ticket but instead catch a passing horse and cart as the more reliable option... And then sue the horse for breach of contract when it's feet dropped off, and be offered a voucher for future equine travel? So long as I also make alternative arrangements for the future. Like buy a rail ticket, pay the horse and cart for my carriage, but wave them both on by unused, but cunningly nab a passing Chinese Rickshaw operator, stop a travel insurance salesman who just happens to be also passing the very busy (but unstaffed) station, buy travel insurance from him, and when everything goes tits up, sue him instead ---- then visit a consumer forum to be told by the resident insurance salespeople present that my law suit doesn't have a hope in hell, I'll never get my money back, it'll cost me thousands just for pushing my hair out of my eyes, - and therefore I should just "cut my losses"? Does that sum up your advice? You still haven't read the legislation have you.
  6. Thank you Sailor Sam. The legislation in question is not SOGA. "Goods" did not form part of the contract. What you call arrogance, I call a feisty defence in the light of the wholesale negativity, doomsaying and ingrained pessimism I have witnessed here. I continue to maintain that TOCs cannot stamp all over the law of the land. Most commentators here - whether by intent or inclination - seem to think that they can and, moreover, have the right to do so. To be honest, I had hoped for more in what was once a campaigning forum.
  7. That's correct, I can. And do. No disrespect to you btw. That's their problem though, isn't it. The argument you're deploying here is that a contracted service is reliant upon other - or sub-contracted - agents. However, my contract is not with the other agent/s but the principal. Ergo, their failure is FCC's de facto failure. FCC may, in turn, wish to sue Railtrack or whoever it is that was responsible. That's their choice. It's nothing to do with me. I'm more sanguine about my chances actually. My reading of the Act leads me to conclude that there is a case to answer. Alternatively, I simply bend over, smile for England, and accept a useless voucher being thrust up my fundament. I don't think so.
  8. Sailor Sam, have you considered how many stations are now unmanned either wholly or partly? Just a passing thought.
  9. Oh please. Is the strategy of trying to generate fear and all pervading negativity part of your job specs? I suspect that all of the TOCs also informally club together to fund selected persons to inhabit this and other forums to waylay simple, honest folk, to deter them from doing anything contrary to the interests of said TOCs. From a business perspective, it would be the smart thing to do. If it looks like a duck, smell like a duck and quacks like a duck, then probably it is a duck....
  10. Yes, I had rather concluded that the experts were working for TOCs. It shows. As I have stated above, I have not revealed my cards for obvious reasons. It pays to be prudent in public forums. Also it is not SOGA I have said I am going to use. It is not the appropriate Act, in fact. However, I have stated earlier which Act is appropriate and why.
  11. Good point. I'll have to reconsider this. Do Donkey Operators have unlawful TOCs? do you think?
  12. You think it was a choice, I didn't. I haven't explored all my arguments here for obvious reasons. I'm sure you understand.
×
×
  • Create New...