Jump to content

 

BankFodder BankFodder


Son of Shoestring

Disrupted service 1st Capital Connect decline to pay my costs

style="text-align:center;"> Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2498 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

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

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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

 

 

Thank you for your comment re some of our contributions, however it appears that you are now contradicting your own posts. (see below)

 

 

Thank you Sailor Sam. The legislation in question is not SOGA. "Goods" did not form part of the contract.

 

 

Hi, Anyone with insight on the small claims court procedure and taking a train operator to court of breach of contract would be appreciated. SoS

 

 

The ticket sold to you was a receipt for a fare paid, showing that a contract was in place to convey you between two specified points, no more and no less.

 

The TOC put in place a process to do excatly that, but from your account of the incident, you chose to abort the process not they. Breach of contract appears to occur at that point, not earlier or later.

 

I repeat my previous assertion that you clearly don't intend to answer the question asked in posts 24, 36 & 43 do you?

 

Perhaps if you did, you might find contributors less negatively disposed.

Edited by Old-CodJA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It was probably me who bought SOGA into it. But if the OP considers taking a legal route, the process and principal will be the very similar.


Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
It was probably me who bought SOGA into it. But if the OP considers taking a legal route, the process and principal will be the very similar.

 

I agree Sam, however the OP states on one hand that SoGA is not the relevant legislation and then, in a later post relies on it to illustrate his claim.

 

I'm not going to continue contributing to this thread because it is clear that the OP has set his mind on what almost every observer has declared to be a lost cause. Those of us on here that spend our working lives in and out of the courtrooms and have contributed, appear to have expressed very similar if not exactly the same view.

 

I have no vested interest in suggesting that forum users capitulate where there is any realistic chance that they have been hard-done-by by the TOCs and the record of posts will make that clear, but as you and others have said previously, there is absolutely no point in feeding false hope just because that's what an OP wants to hear

 

I strongly suggest that the OP seeks qualified legal advice and takes it, but it is every individuals' right to choose their own path.

 

If the OP persists we will all learn the outcome very easily as you all know

Edited by Old-CodJA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If past experience is anything to go by then this sounds like one of those cases where the person represents themselves, always fun to watch.


Views expressed in this forum by me are my own personal opinion and you take it on face value! I make any comments to the best of my knowledge but you take my advice at your own risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I agree Sam, however the OP states on one hand that SoGA is not the relevant legislation and then, in a later post relies on it to illustrate his claim.

 

I'm not going to continue contributing to this thread because it is clear that the OP has set his mind on what almost every observer has declared to be a lost cause. Those of us on here that spend our working lives in and out of the courtrooms and have contributed, appear to have expressed very similar if not exactly the same view.

 

I have no vested interest in suggesting that forum users capitulate where there is any realistic chance that they have been hard-done-by by the TOCs and the record of posts will make that clear, but as you and others have said previously, there is absolutely no point in feeding false hope just because that's what an OP wants to hear

 

I strongly suggest that the OP seeks qualified legal advice and takes it, but it is every individuals' right to choose their own path.

 

If the OP persists we will all learn the outcome very easily as you all know

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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.

 

You may well be correct that SOGA does not apply in your case but can a 'playfully illustrate' that what ever act you use (if you choose to pursue this via the civil courts), the principal of legal argument will be the same.


Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Repeated contribution:

 

I repeat my previous assertion that you clearly don't intend to answer the question asked in posts 24, 36 & 43 do you?

 

Perhaps if you did, you might find contributors less negatively disposed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Repeated contribution:

 

I repeat my previous assertion that you clearly don't intend to answer the question asked in posts 24, 36 & 43 do you?

 

Perhaps if you did, you might find contributors less negatively disposed.

 

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.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I assume that instead of us offering advice that will (and does) in effect "limit the damage", you think that we should advise people to plead not guilty (when they are), go to court and flutter their eyelashes at the Magistrate and say how broken the sytem is etc etc etc..... and you think they will get off? Get real, we offer advice here to help people, just because we work on the railway does not mean that we agree with every byelaw and every litlle section of the Conditions of Carriage and also does not mean that we are not human, people who get into bother with tickets etc are here because they have in some way fallen foul of the law, whether we agree with that law or not is a discussion for a different place.

 

We have helped numerous people avoid going to court and getting a criminal record for minor offences by offering (what you call) biased advice, and it is generally people who, until they came here and were confronted with the various legislation, thought they were in the right and had done nothing wrong and usually didn't realise the seriousness of their actions.

 

You asked for advice and people have given it, you don't like that advice and thats up to you and I wish you luck in your conquest and if you do win then you can come back here and help others in the same situation.

One thing that myself and others have always said to people is that if you genuinely believe that you have done nothing wrong then plead not guilty and go to court and Old Cod-ja has on many occasions advised people to never plead guilty just for an easy life.


Views expressed in this forum by me are my own personal opinion and you take it on face value! I make any comments to the best of my knowledge but you take my advice at your own risk.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
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!ink.

 

Working for so long in that pedantic & fusty old world of prosecutions does make one check detail quite a lot. If you actually READ my comment you will see that I said, ONCE ONLY, that I do not intend to CONTRIBUTE further to the thread. I should have made clear that what I meant by contribute is to say that I do not intend to offer anything that may help, or suggestions that may assist you

 

What I will say is that in years of contributing to these threads, I have rarely seen anyone so arrogant in their responses to contributors who freely give up their time and knowledge to genuinely try to help others. It might also help to remember who it was that came seeking assistance.

 

It must be clear to you by now that there is a very good reason that several of us have repeatedly asked you to answer a very simple question and that if you did, truthfully and with clarity, you might get a comment that really would be helpful to you.

 

It does seem that you may be aware what that comment would be, but it seems equally clear that you know that if you answer truthfully, then your case falls at the first hurdle.

 

What I will offer for free is that if you continue on your chosen course and remain as evasive as you are here, drifting off at a tangent, changing the subject or pulling in irrelevances then your claim will not make it to preliminary hearing.

 

You asked for advice on breach of contract in relation to rail tickets and you know full well that when you chose to walk away from the arrangments put in place by the TOC in reaction to the delay in order to convey passengers to their paid for destination, it was you who undertook to break the contract not FCC.

 

That is my final word on this thread.

Edited by Old-CodJA

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most service providers (TOC's, Mobile Phone Providers etc) have a clause that exempts them from any responsibility from "loss of earnings" and the like. As was pointed out in the beginning of this thread. As mentioned FCC arranged buses thus honouring their part of the contract!

 

However, have you contacted the MD to see if he is willing to exchange the vouchers for cash?


Still on the lookout for buried treasure!

 

Any advice I give here is based on my own experiences throughout my life, career and training and should not be taken as accurate. If in doubt, speak to someone more qualified - a Solicitor, Citizens Advice to name but two possible avenues!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really hope you take this to court and win.

 

It would change a lot for the service we get. Thinking back to those cold nights when the trains pack in we left to fend for ourselves?!

 

Do it and win.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I really hope you take this to court and win.

 

It would change a lot for the service we get. Thinking back to those cold nights when the trains pack in we left to fend for ourselves?!

 

Do it and win.

 

IMHO the OP has got about as much chance of 'winning' a legal case against the TOC as winning the lottery without buying a ticket.

 

The TOC have a perfect defence in that the OP did not give them reasonable opportunity to rectify the problem by allowing them to arrange alternative transport to enable the OP to reach their destination on time. The OP chose to do this his/her self without even informing the TOC staff of his/her travel requirements.

 

Just like any consumer complaint under the SOGA, the 'supplier' must be given reasonable opportunity to rectify a problem. Otherwise, how can they be expected to? Furthermore, they are allowed to mitigate their costs thus meaning that hed they been given the opportunity to arrange alternative transport themselves, it would no doubt of been cheaper compared to what a member of the public would of been charged.

 

However, had the TOC staff been made aware of the OPs plight and been given the opportunity to rectify the situation but refused, THEN the OP would have had a reasonable case against the TOC.


Please Note

 

The advice I offer will be based on the information given by the person needing it. All my advice is based on my experiences and knowledge gained in working in the motor and passenger transport industries in various capacities. Although my advice will always be sincere, it should be used as guidence only.

 

I would always urge to seek face to face professional advice for clarification prior to taking any action.

 

Please click my reputation 'star' button at the bottom of my profile window on the left if you found my advice useful.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...