It does though. Unless of course you can prove that aga win most of their prosecution cases through people not turning up to courtThat doesnt change my point though
Cue a 5-minute wait at Beccles in both directions to ensure that the trains pass on time more often than not.The East Suffolk Line timetable at Halesworth was doubled in December 2012 from two hourly to hourly with the completion of Beccles loop. Of course this means that both up and down trains have to be on time for this to work. At the Southern end services have to mix with all the Felixstowe freight, so the line isn’t the simplest to operate. Perhaps they shouldn’t have bothered and left the two hour gaps.
I agree.They'll be after more than £350 now as there's the cost of engaging bailiffs to recover too.
It's nice when David scores against Goliath.
Surely it just sets another kind of precedent - sue us and we won't defend.Precisely given the UK system of precedents - not defending is less risky than defending and losing with all the subsequent follow on claims
Precedents are only binding on lower courts.Precisely given the UK system of precedents - not defending is less risky than defending and losing with all the subsequent follow on claims
From BBC
If only 26 of 550 journeys were more than 15 minutes late, I can’t see how the service can be said to have been performed without reasonable care and/or skill?
I agree with @Merseysider here - less than 4% of journeys were delayed so it appears that the TOC was meeting its performance targets. Was Mr Pochin entitled to some compensation? Yes. To the point of getting bailiffs in? That's questionable.
Where did you get that less than 4% of his journeys were delayed? This contradicts the article, which says that he made 550 journeys and recorded 183 delays. This is around 33%.
Isn't it 4% that were over the threshold within which the railway counts them as on time? With 33% being against the right time measure?
Or have I misread something?
The allegation was that the GA were failing to provide the service with care, but only 4% of the journeys failed to meet their franchise obligations (i.e. failed PPM).Where did you get that less than 4% of his journeys were delayed? This contradicts the article, which says that he made 550 journeys and recorded 183 delays. This is around 33%.
IndeedI think quite a few of the delays were 1 to 3 mins.
Not very well as, for a start, there’s no contract here between you and the DfTI wonder how I would get on taking the DFT to court for all the delays I suffer on the M25? Far worse that the problems this gent has.
That was at the Battle of Havant, a dispute between the LSWR and LBSCR companies resulting in the LBSCR chaining a locomotive to the track and even removing some rails to block LSWR trains from Guildford from accessing Portsmouth. It'd be interesting to see a train today clamped and towed (mind you, this seems to happen a lot with EMUs what with beind stored these days!)This did happen in the early(ish) days of railways. I cannot remember which railway it was now but there was one where a locomotive was chained to the track as a way to 'solve' a dispute.
Why on earth should the railway get to decide what does and doesn't count? Can I say that I don't have money for my whole fare but I'll pay 70% of it so that's okay?Isn't it 4% that were over the threshold within which the railway counts them as on time? With 33% being against the right time measure?
Or have I misread something?
It's not the TOC who decides, it is the DfT (who let the franchises). But, naturally, it's easier to blame the evil railway...Why on earth should the railway get to decide what does and doesn't count?
The relevance is that 'on time' is defined by the DfT and passengers' compensation rights (the right to Delay Repay) are set out in the franchise agreements let by the DfT.I fail to see what DfT's contractual agreements with a TOC have to do with a consumer's agreement with the TOC.
The relevance is that 'on time' is defined by the DfT and passengers' compensation rights (the right to Delay Repay) are set out in the franchise agreements let by the DfT.
That is true. However, to be successful any claim would have to show that GA was negligent in the way they provided the service - "We met the standard we were contracted to meet" is a pretty strong argument against any such claim.But that doesn't mean that a consumer's rights are restricted to that minimum standard.
That is true. However, to be successful any claim would have to show that GA was negligent in the way they provided the service - "We met the standard we were contracted to meet" is a pretty strong argument against any such claim.
The duty is more than just not being negligent. It's to perform the service with reasonable care and skill generally, within a reasonable time (if no timeframe is specified), and to abide by any statements or information made by them or given on their behalf (such as the timetable), assuming this has influenced the passenger's buying or travelling decision.
Which is 275 round trips.550 journeys in 363 days ! (halesworth to ipswich)
The timetables I have seen say that compensation arrangements kick in at 15/30 minutes so that puts some holes in that particular argument.It's to perform the service with reasonable care and skill generally, within a reasonable time (if no timeframe is specified), and to abide by any statements or information made by them or given on their behalf (such as the timetable), assuming this has influenced the passenger's buying or travelling decision.
Clearly, if it influenced the buying decision, the timetable is binding. But minor breaches (only a few minutes late) may be considered de minimis. So I guess it is a question of what the threshold of an actionable breach of contract is.The timetables I have seen say that compensation arrangements kick in at 15/30 minutes so that puts some holes in that particular argument.
But if the train is very frequently late (which appears to be the case) a court may not consider that de minimus applies to even small delays.Clearly, if it influenced the buying decision, the timetable is binding. But minor breaches (only a few minutes late) may be considered de minimis. So I guess it is a question of what the threshold of an actionable breach of contract is.