Small vs Train company to overturn Unpaid Fare Notice

[BazzaS]

They told me to appeal the UFN not pay it. They also told me that if the appeal is not successful I would be reimbursed as a gesture of good will.

 

Why does a simple thing like that have to be repeated to you. What is wrong with you?

 

What is "wrong with me" is that I took note of what you wrote, rather than what you think you wrote or wished you'd written. Attention to detail is apparently what is "wrong" with me..... It helped me expose iambilly's fibs when his story changed ......

 

Compare and contrast:

"if it is not dropped on appeal I should write to them and they would consider a gesture of goodwill in the amount of the fare"

 

and "if the appeal is not successful I would be reimbursed as a gesture of good will."

 

You have written both.

One means you will be reimbursed, one means you MIGHT be reimbursed.

 

So, which is it?

It is indeed simple, if you quote them correctly.

You make it complex by (for at least one of the two) not quoting them accurately.

 

So, what is wrong with you?

[BazzaS]

Can I just clarify (for the benefit of myself & others, not for mere, as they don't need my help) : you are appealing the UFN and won't be paying it within the 21 days?

And someone within EC has told you this is what to do?

[mere]

Can I just clarify (for the benefit of myself & others, not for mere, as they don't need my help) : you are appealing the UFN and won't be paying it within the 21 days?

And someone within EC has told you this is what to do?

 

if you are unclear it is because you've applied an over-literal interpretation of what I reported for reasons only you know but I can surely imagine.

 

The EC said " they cannot interfere with the appeals process" tells a reasonable person everything they need to know.

 

Misinterpreting things and demanding clarification.....entailing endless repetition.......

[BazzaS]

if you are unclear it is because you've applied an over-literal interpretation of what I reported for reasons only you know but I can surely imagine.

 

The EC said " they cannot interfere with the appeals process" tells a reasonable person everything they need to know.

 

Misinterpreting things and demanding clarification.....entailing endless repetition.......

 

It is just that you have been so vague about if you are going to pay the UFN, and now that you've said that "you'll pay it if your appeal fails"..... when you are going to pay it.

 

Now, and then appeal?

After the first appeal to RPSS fails?

After the second appeal to Passenger Focus fails?

 

I look for inconsistencies, a bit like your "will refund it" c.f. "Might refund it"

 

Inconsistencies can show up when someone is fibbing, the great thing about the truth is there is only 1 version to remember.

 

So, why not humour me .... Answer, truthfully. Your replies will then be consistent & make sense, you'll show me up to be a needless pedant, and readers will see how you "have won"....... Rather than wondering if you are a troll or as dumb and vague as you have appeared ....

[Vauban]

I think mere may be hitting the buffers on this one ... What a really odd thread.

 

Of course if someone wouldclike to take a look at my question on a separate train thread, I'd be genuinely grateful for any thoughts (unlike Mr. Mere, it seems).

[honeybee13]

I think mere may be hitting the buffers on this one ... What a really odd thread.

 

Of course if someone wouldclike to take a look at my question on a separate train thread, I'd be genuinely grateful for any thoughts (unlike Mr. Mere, it seems).

 

Hello there. Can you provide a link to your thread please?

 

HB

[Vauban]

Hello there. Can you provide a link to your thread please?

 

HB

 

Bazza kindly offered his thoughts, but he's a lone voice:

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?434156-Annual-Gold-Card&p=4624440#post4624440

[mere]

It is just that you have been so vague about if you are going to pay the UFN, and now that you've said that "you'll pay it if your appeal fails"..... when you are going to pay it.

 

Now, and then appeal?

After the first appeal to RPSS fails?

After the second appeal to Passenger Focus fails?

 

I look for inconsistencies, a bit like your "will refund it" c.f. "Might refund it"

 

Inconsistencies can show up when someone is fibbing, the great thing about the truth is there is only 1 version to remember.

 

So, why not humour me .... Answer, truthfully. Your replies will then be consistent & make sense, you'll show me up to be a needless pedant, and readers will see how you "have won"....... Rather than wondering if you are a troll or as dumb and vague as you have appeared ....

 

Bruv. I've reported what they told me. You've introduced words that I've never used and twisted it.

 

That's not much different to lying in my book.

 

Now I'm happy with the outcome. If you remain unsatisfied I don't really care.

[BazzaS]

Bruv. I've reported what they told me. You've introduced words that I've never used and twisted it.

 

That's not much different to lying in my book.

 

Now I'm happy with the outcome. If you remain unsatisfied I don't really care.

 

 

Yet, I've quoted where you have said two different things.

I QUOTED it : so where have I "introduced words" and "twisted" it that is "not much different to lying" then.

 

I've quoted you, or paraphrased you without changing the meaning : So, show me up to be a liar by giving examples.

It isn't hard if you are being truthful - just cite it. You can't.

 

I'm glad if you are content.

 

I'm with Connif that we'll never hear back, or you'll come back crowing how it turned out just as you believed.

 

The problem is people won't believe you.

Too many niggling inconsistencies.

 

Differences between what you posted on the other forum and here.

Differences between comments from the TOC you've "quoted" here.

Differences between what you say the TOC's website says and what it actually says.

Differences between what you say the TOC has told you and their normal practice.

 

I've highlighted these previously : I think it is why your responses are so vague and devoid of precision or relevant quoting : you've seen you get caught out by the details.

 

Good luck.

[mere]

If you continue to indulge in context free interpretations of words and sentences you will forever have problems with the English language. There was sufficient context given and repeated for you.

 

What you and your mates choose to believe is completely irrelevant.

 

Couple of things. A police sergeant came up with a phrase that describes the dynamic at play between myself and the ticket inspector. He calls it going into tell mode.

 

It's when a person (often in uniform) vested with some authority makes a demand that exceeds their authority and goes over the top when they are (correctly) met with non-compliance.

 

e.g Give me proof of address - I don't have to give you that - You're right and you don't have to travel either.

 

Then they use their power to punish you for not doing something they had no right to insist on you doing in the first place.

 

Or being asked to show id when you've committed no offence.

 

There are also some very naive notions of how lawyers operate. I'm not a lawyer but I dated one for two years and socialized alot with them. They say don't go to court expecting justice.

 

A skilled judge will decide on the outcome he/she wants and write a judgement that makes it stick. The best recent example is the judge in the John Terry Anton Ferdinand case. The judge could have found him guilty if he had wanted to and written up an unappeallable (as in correct in law) judgement. So all this stuff about what TOC's will or won't prosecute is a bit of a nonsense and very naive because the TOC's themselves are well aware that they weren't given those powers to pursue people for double bubble penalty fares.

 

Some people believe you should take s**t from people who have a little bit of power and some of us know you don't have to.

[mere]

Why did you delay the train to throw the passenger off it.

 

Because he refused to give me proof of address when I asked him.

 

Why didn't you just use our system to verify the address he offered to give you.....

 

Oh to be a fly on the wall when she is being interviewed by her management.

[BazzaS]

If you continue to indulge in context free interpretations of words and sentences you will forever have problems with the English language. There was sufficient context given and repeated for you.

 

What you and your mates choose to believe is completely irrelevant.

 

In other words "I can't substantiate the accusation of "almost lying".

 

It's simple if you want to show you aren't blustering : give examples. You made the accusation & I've called you out on it.

 

Since you've already had the chance to give examples and chosen not to, I'm happy for the site team to close the thread, as although I've been accused - I'm happy the reasonable observer can conclude the truth from the lack of examples ....

 

Is there any other reason to keep the thread open?

It appears mere isn't after advice, only validation....

[mere]

If you twist somebody's words so that they say what you want them to say and not what they said and refuse to take on board the clarification you are given then it's dishonest and thats not much different from lying.

 

If you ask somebody to respond truthfully (which is what you did) you are implying that you have been lied to.

 

There's a saiying. If you roll in the mud don't complain when some dirt sticks to you.

 

If you can't take it don't give it.

 

Good night.

[ims21]

 

Good night.

 

Yes goodnight.

 

It seems that you are never going to listen to anyone apart from your own self I agree with BazzaS...there is no point whatsoever to this thread and it is now closed.