Disrupted service 1st Capital Connect decline to pay my costs

[Son of Shoestring]

duplicate - please delete

[Son of Shoestring]

If you could define "Reasonable" then you would be very rich, good luck to you in your quest and let us know how you get on so that it may help other people in the same situation in future

 

As I said above, I don't have to define it. That's for the Judge to decide.

[Son of Shoestring]

I really don't understand why you think you'll win this case. You've been offered first class tickets, which you refused. You weren't forced to take a taxi. You had the choice of public transport.

 

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.

[Conniff]

I don't agree with the "have provided recompense" statement. It's not recompense if you never use trains and you can bet your life there is a cut off date for use and a not transferable clause.

it's at no cost whatsoever to the company. Now if it was an M&S voucher, or the such, to the value of the tickets, then that wouldn't be so bad.

[Son of Shoestring]

Are you sure about that

 

Good point. I'll have to reconsider this. Do Donkey Operators have unlawful TOCs? do you think?

[Son of Shoestring]

There is as big difference btween being stubborn and just plain foolish, First classx and RPI are the 'experts' here, both working I blieve for TOC's, yes, its true staute law would indeed overide any contractula provisions but you have failed to point out what part of the SOGA would overide the provisions of the TOC contract, you canmt just go to court' hoping for tye best you really will need to point to specific law and indeed any case law (I'm unaware of any case law but I suspect there may be some and not min your favour).

 

A specilaist lawyer may indeed be able to help but as they would charge at least £200 per hour (and this cost would not be recoverable) I fail to see how this would help given the relaitively low cost involved.

 

Andy

 

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.

[Old-CodJA]

I don't agree with the "have provided recompense" statement. It's not recompense if you never use trains and you can bet your life there is a cut off date for use and a not transferable clause.

it's at no cost whatsoever to the company. Now if it was an M&S voucher, or the such, to the value of the tickets, then that wouldn't be so bad.

 

Conniff, we agree there actually. What I should have said is have provided a 'form of recompense'

 

I agree that the OP might not wish to accept recompense in that form and could probably negotiate on that point, others have done so successfully and taken payment in cash, but the substantive claim that he is pursuing has been made hundreds of times and the TOCs have never lost.

 

If you wish to get the 'recompense' paid in cash then pursue that argument. You paid in cash or whatever form of payment you used, you have every right to have that payment made to you in the same form. In this instance it is Network Rail who were responsible for the infrastructure failure, FCC have agreed to give you soome compensation for their delay.

 

I cannot see any reason to believe that your argument for incurring further costs by your choice, which do not directly relate to the journey ticket for which you paid, is going to have any value in this case.

 

Of course, if the OP has some magic 'card' that he doesn't wish to reveal then that's a matter for him, but in coming to a public forum asking for advice I would expect his query to be a genuine one.

 

If that is the attitude that people wish to adopt, then perhaps we, voluntary contributors who have some experience of the industry and the Courts, might chose to 'withhold' information that could be of assistance too.

 

I don't think that is in the spirit of this resource, do you?

Edited March 18, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[Son of Shoestring]

You will end up with a massive bill, especially when FCC refer the matter to the DfT/ORR (who regulate and approved the current NRCoC).

 

ATOC, who represents ALL of the TOCs in Great Britain will fund a strong defence to the tune of many millions of pounds, purely because, if your case was to win, it would open the floodgates to all sorts of consequential loss claims. The government will support the Train Operating Companies.

 

If your case was likely to be successful, do you not think that the barristers, solicitors and bankers paying £10,000 a year for their first class seasons into London, would have tried to claim for consequential loss every time they are delayed??

 

If you did not like the NRCoC terms and conditions, you should not have opted to buy a ticket and agree to those terms, (including their maximum liability to you).

 

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....

[Son of Shoestring]

Can I ask the OP if he/she reported his/her plight to a member of train staff at the first sign of a problem? Or perhaps upon arrival at the 'station further down the line'? Or did the OP take it upon him/herself to order taxis?

 

If not, i doubt very much that a claim for the reimbursement of the taxi fares will be successfull. IMHO you havn't given the train operator an opportunity to arrange alternative transport for you. They could argue that they could of arranged a taxi for a lot less in cost than what you actually paid. Most TC's have arrangements with local taxi companies for such events. Train operators (like any other organisation) are allowed to mitigate their costs when things go wrong.

 

Unless you did approach the train company on the day to ask them to get you to the O2 as per expected arrival time, I think you should accept what they have offered you. I think you will find this will be the advice a Commercial Contract lawyer will give.

 

Sailor Sam, have you considered how many stations are now unmanned either wholly or partly? Just a passing thought.

[Old-CodJA]

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....

 

 

You can 'suspect' whatever you like

 

FCC were contracted to convey you from A to B and provided a service, albeit very badly delayed by influences outside FCC control

 

You chose not to stay with the provision and I understand why, but like all the others who have tried to provide the help that YOU asked for, I believe that you are on a hiding to nothing

[sailor sam]

I note the OP hasn't answered my questions in post #24. Did he/she approach any rail staff to advise of the situation they were in?

[Son of Shoestring]

You can 'suspect' whatever you like

 

That's correct, I can. And do. No disrespect to you btw.

 

FCC were contracted to convey you from A to B and provided a service, albeit very badly delayed by influences outside FCC control

 

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.

 

You chose not to stay with the provision and I understand why, but like all the others who have tried to provide the help that YOU asked for, I believe that you are on a hiding to nothing

 

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.

[Son of Shoestring]

I note the OP hasn't answered my questions in post #24. Did he/she approach any rail staff to advise of the situation they were in?

 

Really? How remiss of me.

[honeybee13]

Really? How remiss of me.

 

Hello there. I've flagged your thread for the site team legal people in case they can add anything to this debate.

 

I'm sure Sailor Sam had a good reason for asking this question. It's up to you whether you provide the information, obviously, but it affects the guys' ability to give you advice.

 

My best, HB

[sailor sam]

Sailor Sam, have you considered how many stations are now unmanned either wholly or partly? Just a passing thought.

 

Ahh, missed this amongst all the arrogance.

 

Yes I have considered that. But you still are not answering my question. You say that the original train had to off load you and you had to connect with replacement buses 'further down the line'. I take it there were staff to direct you? Hard to imagine that passengers would be left to direct themselves to the buses. In any event, these 'unmanned stations' will have a communication facility.

 

It's clear that you made no attempt to inform anyone at the time of your plight. Thus not allowing the TOC the opportunity to attempt to get you to your destination in good time. As I mentioned earlier, TOC staff have the discretion to lay on taxis in certain circumstances. Had you approached a member of staff, they may have done this for you. But as you chose to arrange this yourself, I cannot see how you have cause for complaint. Your right to complain however still remains BUT ultimately to get the compensation you seek, you may have to take the matter through the small claims court using the SOGA. IMHO, you have prejudiced your claim by not giving the TOC an opportunity to mitigate it's losses whereby it may of been able to provide you with a taxi at a cost considerably less than the one you arranged yourself.

 

Therefore I stand by my comments in post 24 and this is as far as I am prepared to contribute to the matter. Your arrogance does you no favours!

Edited March 18, 2013 by sailor sam

[Son of Shoestring]

Hello there. I've flagged your thread for the site team legal people in case they can add anything to this debate.

 

I'm sure Sailor Sam had a good reason for asking this question. It's up to you whether you provide the information, obviously, but it affects the guys' ability to give you advice.

 

My best, HB

 

Thanks Honeybee13, I appreciate you doing that.

[Son of Shoestring]

Ahh, missed this amongst all the arrogance.

 

Yes I have considered that. But you still are not answering my question. You say that the original train had to off load you and you had to connect with replacement buses 'further down the line'. I take it there were staff to direct you? Hard to imagine that passengers would be left to direct themselves to the buses. In any event, these 'unmanned stations' will have a communication facility.

 

It's clear that you made no attempt to inform anyone at the time of your plight. Thus not allowing the TOC the opportunity to attempt to get you to your destination in good time. As I mentioned earlier, TOC staff have the discretion to lay on taxis in certain circumstances. Had you approached a member of staff, they may have done this for you. But as you chose to arrange this yourself, I cannot see how you have cause for complaint. Your right to complain however still remains BUT ultimately to get the compensation you seek, you may have to take the matter through the small claims court using the SOGA. IMHO, you have prejudiced your claim by not giving the TOC an opportunity to mitigate it's losses whereby it may of been able to provide you with a taxi at a cost considerably less than the one you arranged yourself.

 

Therefore I stand by my comments in post 24 and this is as far as I am prepared to contribute to the matter. Your arrogance does you no favours!

 

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.

[Old-CodJA]

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.

 

 

May I also ask the question that still has not been answered as far as I can see

 

Did you go to rail staff, inform them of your difficulty and ask them to provide answers as to how you could meet your timetable and what arrangments were provided by FCC to get you from the point at which you had started your journey to the point to which you had paid?

[firstclassx]

Everybody has told you that you will not win this case. If you are inclined to pursue this, do not be surprised when you lose.

 

You came to the forum for advice. That advice is to cut your losses and make alternative arrangements in the future, or buy domestic travel insurance to cover against potential losses.

 

Most, if not all, FCC stations have help points or staff available. Did you speak to someone? Did you shop around and get a few different taxi quotes? Did you pre-book a cheaper taxi or jump in the first one available? How many people got in the taxi with you? Will the taxi driver, (identified from the receipt), attend court if FCC summons him to attend?

[Son of Shoestring]

 

You came to the forum for advice. That advice is to cut your losses and make alternative arrangements in the future, or buy domestic travel insurance to cover against potential losses.

 

"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?

 

Most, if not all, FCC stations have help points or staff available. Did you speak to someone? Did you shop around and get a few different taxi quotes? Did you pre-book a cheaper taxi or jump in the first one available? How many people got in the taxi with you? Will the taxi driver, (identified from the receipt), attend court if FCC summons him to attend?

 

You still haven't read the legislation have you.

[andydd]

This is getting silly, you came here for advice, many of us here have knowledge of TOC's and also the legal system and small claims, you have been advised to not go ahead with your claim, it is upto you if you wish to ignore that advise.

 

You have not pointed to any statute law or case law that would support your claim for damages, statute law means laws passed that would override the TOC T&C's, (I know of many that relate to my field of expertise, Leasehold Law, for example, a lease may say that Griound Rent is payable without deamnd, but recent laws, specificaklly S166 of Commonhold act 2002 would overide that), you need to provide specific examples of this, just pointing to SOGA will not help.

 

Case Law, if you didnt know,. is where a similar claim has already been before a higher court and created a prescedent, your scenario is quite common so I suspect there may well be case law, but it is upto you to find it and rely upon on in court.

 

To go to court you really do need to be very sure on your case, and you have failed to persuede anyone here and i suspect a Judge would take the same view.

 

Andy

[sailor sam]

"To be honest, I had hoped for more in what was once a campaigning forum". I despair sometimes at people's attitude as to what advice they expect. We do try and be realistic on CAG so there is no point us just giving out advice that you want to hear when we think it's totally unrealistic as is the case here.

 

There has to be an element or reasonableness in your argument and it has to work both ways between consumer and supplier. No matter what advice forum you use, I think you will find the general opinion on this will be the same. We cannot 'campaign' for something that is not a reasonable argument and quite frankly, your's is not.

 

Ok, so you bought a ticket(s) to travel to the O2 and you required to be there at a specific time... fair enough. You commence your journey allowing adequate time thus maintaining your side of the 'contract' you entered with the TOC(s)... fair enough. BUT unfortunately on this occasion something went wrong from the TOC(s) point of view (which obviously was not your responsibility) that prevented them from delivering the service that you had expected.

 

Most reasonable people would realise quite early on in the 'failure' that there is a risk that they may not reach their destination in time but will equally realise that the TOC will not be aware of each individual passenger's requirements thus they will not have a clue that you need to be at point B by a particular time for a particular reason.

 

You will therefore find that by not bringing your plight to the attention of the TOC at the earliest opportunity, you provide them with a very good defence to any claim that you mount whereby they will simply say that had you approached them, they could of possibly arranged alternative transport to get you to point B on time. But as you chose to make the arrangements yourself, you have removed that opportunity from them thus removing their responsibility at the same time.

 

As i've said (as others have also), what you have been offered is a reasonable outcome under the circumstances as the TOC did fulfill their side of the 'contract', all be it was later that the scheduled arrival time due to circumstances which were most likely beyond their control anyway.

 

Now if you do not like what you are getting here, you could always try elsewhere like MSE for example.

[Old-CodJA]

You still haven't read the legislation have you.

 

You clearly don't intend to answer the question (posts 24, 36 & 43) do you?

 

Until you do, it seems pretty clear that no-one here can help you further.

Edited March 18, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[Son of Shoestring]

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

[Conniff]

You might be a little muddled there. Your complaint is with a service not goods.