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 m
  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 stron
  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 avai
  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 h
  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 teleph
  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 (s
  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 clai
  • Create New...