Jump to content


Registered Users

Change your profile picture
  • Content Count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

1 Neutral

1 Follower

About WickedWolfie

  • Rank
    Basic Account Holder
  1. I am afraid I don't think the OP has a legal leg to stand on. Not only does the NRCOC specifically exclude compensation for consequential loss by the relevant consumer legislation which is the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 NOT SOGA 1979 which only relates to physical goods.There are specific exclusions to the application of SOGSA82, one of which is that it does not apply to certain sectors which are governed by specific statutes (e.g. the carriage of passengers and goods).See link, Services para p20:http://www.bis.gov.uk/files/file25486.pdf
  2. Your example is of course pejorative. If you do not purchase at the intermediate station and either do not purchase a ticket at all or one covering the whole journey on the second train and then proceed to walk out of the final destination station then of course you have commited an offense and of course you deserve to be punished. If you purchase on the second train or at the destination station on the other hand a ticket which does indeed cover the whole journey then you have met your obligations.
  3. Do I agree passengers should pay their fares, absolutely. Do I believe that TOCs should make the facilities to do so available and follow the procedures available in NRCOC? Again absolutely."• Interchange. A passenger who changes onto a penalty fares train at a penalty fares station may normally be charged a penalty fare if ticket facilities were available at the interchange station and warning notices were displayed where they could be seen by anyone changing onto the penalty fares train. However, under condition 7 of the National Rail Conditions ofCarriage, the full normal range of tickets must be made available to any passenger who started their journey at a station where no ticket facilities were available. In these circumstances, a passenger should not be expected to buy a ticket at the interchange station if they do not have enough time to do so without missing their connection. If it is not possible to check whether or not ticket facilities were available at the station where the passenger started their journey (which may be a station run by a different train company), a penalty fare should not be charged."Refers to a slightly different (but actually harsher) situation but the intent, particularly of the third sentence is VERY clear.I have also seen numerous views from experienced rail staff on RailUK Forums who take a different stance to you. For example, from a poster called kwvr45 "There is no requirement to waste time at an interchange station buying tickets - the ruling, as I have always seen it, applies to where you started your journey, which in this case was Oakham which was unstaffed. The length of the connection time is, in this case, irrelevant".
  4. I find it fascinating that a number of posters on here assert that the NRCOC says that you must seek out a guard if there si no means to make a payment at your initial point of departure or indeed that you must stop at an intermediate station, even if you delay your journey, to do so. The reason that I find this fascinating is that this is directly contrary to an ATOC document which I have seen posted on another forum I frequent. As such I must ask the posters making this assertion to justify it.
  5. There has been extensive albeit inconclusive discussion on UKRail forum on exactly this matter. Given that Gatwick Express is a trading name of Southern (confirmed by its website) and not a train operating company in its own right there are BIG question marks over whether the NRCOC mean that Southern only tickets are not valid. What is clear is that Southern have refunded ALL of those who made this arguement when excessed or penalty fared.....
  6. While Wriggler and Old-CodJA offer sensible advice in the main, I have a feeling that in this case they are advising effectively pleading guilty in a situation where no offence took place. If 1st class was "declassified" (as it would be if not officially offered on the service in question) then the RFI who issued the Penalty Fare was acting in an illegitimate manner - something which seesm far too common on FCC according to a more specialist forum (RailUKforum) I also view.As such I have taken the liberty of posting a link to this thread on that forum as was suggested by "yorkie2" who I strongly suspect is "yorkie" on that forum and as such is an absolute expert on rail ticketing issues, the rail National Conditions of Carriage and other related issues.I am unable to post links (not enough posts on here) but see:www . railforums . co .uk, (remove spaces)Fares, tickets & routingFrom another website - CAG
  7. (my bold and italics) It is not quite as black and white as that, however. Many FCC trains have decontrolled 1st class off peak. I have seen reference in another forum (www railforums co uk) to FCC staff attempting to impose penalty fares on passengers in 1st class accommodation on such off peak trains. I also recall having in the past seen reference to the fact that some TOCs (not sure if FCC is one) allow people with standard class tickets with specific medical conditions (eg pregnant women) to use 1st class accomodation without additional charge when no standard class seat is available - though pre-authorisation might be required. I am unsure what time you are travelling, though I would guess the fact that the train was so crowded suggests it was peak time.
  8. My bold and italics Question: In cases where liability has been denied and there has been no court involvement is this not libelous? Surely these clowns must prove their statements not just make assertions?
  9. I wrote a real snot-a-gram to the Chief Executive of Boots - three weeks later received a letter saying that they are investigating.......
  10. I have been away for work reasons - and subsequently struggling to post on here - my work IT now seems incompatible with the site!!! RLP have now passed the case to a bunch of goons in Glasgow (OPOS - a DCA???) who write exactly the same pseudo-legal babble - it almost looks like they have the same letter generator! They have also been phoning my other half repeatedly, except for last weekend unfortunately - a relative of hers who is a serving Met police officer was so looking forward to a chat, particularly about their threats to break our door down without a court order as "we have the power"!
  11. I am now getting fed up - more calls! Any comment on proposed text of a letter to RLP (content all cribbed from on here!)? I am responding to your latest letter and unrequested telephone calls of the last two days. Firstly, as a result of the latter I have consulted the Metropolitan Police Service, who have advised me to give you formal notice that I do not wish to communicate with you by telephone. Any further communication must be in writing; do not telephone me again and remove any telephone numbers you hold for me from your systems. Take further note that continued telephone calls after the receipt of a request not to call may constitute a criminal offence under Section 127 of the Communications Act 2003 and are contrary to the Administration of Justice Act 1970 Section 40 which makes it a Criminal Offence for a creditor or a creditor's agent (often a debt collection agency) to make demands (for money), which are aimed at causing ";alarm, distress or humiliation, because of their frequency or publicity or manner". As I have noted before The Protection from Harassment Act 1997 also applies. Secondly, I note that the Office of Fair Trading have stated that your company needs a consumer credit licence, but does not have one, a matter which is being investigated by the Trading Standards departments of a number of councils. Thirdly, despite your, in my view arrogant, opinion to the contrary, you are neither judge nor jury in deciding the legal position and case law precedence. Therefore I suggest that if you think you have a valid case to try and recover monies from me your next communication should be an N1 form duly filled in and filed at court. Have no doubt that I will vigorously defend any such action. I am sure that the court will note with interest your failure to comply with your obligations with respect to disclosure. Fourthly, the threat of the use of debt collector action is regrettable on your part and is of no concern to me. You well know that without court judgement in your favour the debt has neither been established nor is it enforceable. This is mere bully boy tactics also contrary to The Administration of Justice Act 1970 and The Protection from Harassment Act 1997. The manner in which you are threatening me with such action clearly falls within this act.
  12. JonCris Happy to do so - please advise how. My other half is now getting regiular phone calls from these goons, constantly threatening to send in bailiffs (no mention of the requirement for a cout case, funny that!) which is scaring her - like many others she seems not to fully understand the difference between civil and criminal court despite my trying to explain (she keeps saying 'what if I get sent to jail'). I am sure that these clowns recognise that fear and play on it. Funny old thing is that I called them from a withheld number and forcably expressed my view of them (self-abusers was one of the politest terms:D) and they have had the cheek to demand my number from her and tell her that I have been reported to "the relevant authorities"!!! I really do hope that they somehow get the number I called from because they will REALLY regret it (can't say more as it could reveal my identity and what I do for a living).
  13. My other half has received letters (now three) from RLP claiming that their cliant has identified her shoplifting and claiming £130ish. She has a long-term health condition and this, followed up by a threatening phone call today threatening to send in bailiffs (without, obviously such inessentials as court procedures), has seriously upset her. There was an incident in Boots in December when she was stopped, searched (without her permission), took a photo of her and had her mobile phone taken when she tried to call one of the doctors treating her. The security guard had the cheek to claim that he was a medical expert and that there is nothing wrong with her. I have tried to get more details out of RLP, not least as she has previously been the subject of attempted identity theft, but get the same old letters insisting that they are in the right which are freely quoted here. I have written to the Chief Exec of Boots threatening to pursue a complaint to the Metropolitan police for unlawful arrest against the security guard, and every level of Boots management involved in security policy up to and including him. I also stated that if RLP persisted I would pursue a compliant to the Met about harassment. I have also mentioned the meaningless drivel RLP put on their website about protecting their clients and its incompatability with court procedures. It is this that seems to have set RLP off again. I don't care about RLP's idle threats, but they are upsetting her. I would be grateful for any advice about getting rid of this bunch of parasites, and ideally doing them and Boots as much damage as possible. Greatful in advance for your advice. PS I know she didn't do it (not least because Boots would have involved the police and RLP would have offered some proof if they had it) so I would appreciate silence from their tame apologists on here.
  • Create New...