Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
I'm seeing no dishonesty here. Care to enlighten us which bit of the OP's post was dishonest?
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
NRCoC refunds on unused tickets: taking the biscuit?
- Thread starter saxsux
- Start date
- Status
I'm seeing no dishonesty here. Care to enlighten us which bit of the OP's post was dishonest?
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
DaleCooper
Established Member
It's sad that I have to explain this but do you really think the OP was to going to admit their change of plan was unconnected to the late departure of the train? If that were the case then it would not be a truthful account.
PermitToTravel
Established Member
- It would not be dishonest to not state the reason for the change of plans
- Even if they did state the reason, the claim would still be valid
DaleCooper
Established Member
In the moral universe I inhabit you do not claim compensation from another party when the loss is entirely of you own making, clearly members of this forum have different values and I suppose there is an unbridgeable gulf between us.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
If the OP says "I didn't want to travel and your train was delayed by x minutes" then there is no dishonesty: he has stated what happened in a fair and accurate way. If the TOC choose to reimburse him that's their decision; if they choose not to that is also their decision.
It isn't dishonest to make a request, even if it is a "cheeky" one, so long as you're not misleading anyone. After all, shy bairns get nowt.
It isn't dishonest to make a request, even if it is a "cheeky" one, so long as you're not misleading anyone. After all, shy bairns get nowt.
It's clearly dishonest in my mind when someone had a last minute change of plans an didn't make a journey, only to then claim several days that this was because of a one minute delay.
This forum could never officially sanction, support or endorse a lie, even a lie by omission, as far as I'm concerned.
I'd be very surprised if a TOC did not challenge a claim of this nature in some way, if one were ever made.
This forum could never officially sanction, support or endorse a lie, even a lie by omission, as far as I'm concerned.
I'd be very surprised if a TOC did not challenge a claim of this nature in some way, if one were ever made.
I disagree - the implication is still there that the two statements are in some way related. A fair and accurate representation of events would be: "I chose not to travel. I later saw that the train was delayed by x minutes."
PermitToTravel
Established Member
The OP does not need to (and should not) lie. Condition 26 does not state that the change of plans has to be due to the delay.
Condition 26 requirements:
- the train you intend to use is cancelled, delayed or your reservation will not be honoured
- your ticket or relevant portion of it is completely unused
- you decide not to travel
- you submit a claim for a refund within 28 days of the expiry of the ticket to the Ticket Seller
Which of these is not fulfilled?
DaleCooper
Established Member
Thank you for that, I was beginning to think I was on my own.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
The rules don't say the two things have to be linked, just that a) the train was delayed and b) you decided not to travel.
Now of course there's an implication b) is because of a), so yes, I'd expect a TOC to tell the OP to get on his bike (or words to that effect), and rightly so.
But I cannot agree that chancing your arm is the same thing as being dishonest.
Anyone claiming from the same position as the OP would most definitely have to lie if they were asked by the TOC to confirm that they did not travel because of a one minute delay, and to explain how such a delay in departing would have made their journey pointless.
Regardless of any and all of the discussion about wording, it should be quite obvious that to claim not to have travelled because of a tiny delay when such a delay had nothing to do with it is dishonest.
Pedantic discussions of a hypothetical nature as happen so regularly here are only likely to make the forum seem to be one where navel gazing is a popular form of activity and is in danger of bringing the forum and it's members into disrepute in the wider world
Regardless of any and all of the discussion about wording, it should be quite obvious that to claim not to have travelled because of a tiny delay when such a delay had nothing to do with it is dishonest.
Pedantic discussions of a hypothetical nature as happen so regularly here are only likely to make the forum seem to be one where navel gazing is a popular form of activity and is in danger of bringing the forum and it's members into disrepute in the wider world
DaleCooper
Established Member
These sound like the words of an estate agent or used car salesman.
I refer you back to the T&Cs for Advance tickets which clearly state that that the decision not to travel has to be as a result of the delay.
PermitToTravel
Established Member
No they would not. They could tell the TOC that it's none of the latter's business.
Which is why none of us have suggested doing that!!!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I refer you to furlong's point that that appears as though it gives an additional refund guarantee to the CoC one.
I'm starting to believe that the OP was indeed a wind up, and was deliberately designed to provoke this kind of reaction.
I'm therefore wondering to leave things as they are, where everyone has had the opportunity to air their opinion, and close the thread to prevent the debate providing further entertainment form those who may wish to see Rail UK looking silly,
I'm therefore wondering to leave things as they are, where everyone has had the opportunity to air their opinion, and close the thread to prevent the debate providing further entertainment form those who may wish to see Rail UK looking silly,
PermitToTravel
Established Member
While fearing dragging the thread off-topic, I'd argue again that of all the truly ridiculous loopholes the forum supports exploiting and the daft interpretations of rules that are made in the forum, it's astounding that something straightforward like this causes arguments.
I have respect aplenty for DaleCooper's moral argument, absolutely. But I cannot understand those who are seeing in the restriction what is not there.
I have respect aplenty for DaleCooper's moral argument, absolutely. But I cannot understand those who are seeing in the restriction what is not there.
This one:
"the train you intend to use is cancelled, delayed or your reservation will not be honoured
Seller"
The OP did not intend to use a train that was delayed. He did not intend to use any train.
Had he
1) intended to use the train while it was still ontime
2) it was delayed by 1 minute
3) he decided not to travel
He'd be OK.
Had he
1) Intended not to use the train while it was still ontime
2) he decided not to travel
3) it was then delayed by 3 hours
That would not be Ok
I think there's an implied understanding that the delay has to be the reason you chose not to travel, its the only way I can read it that makes sense.
Would any reasonable person refuse to travel because of a 1 min delay? I think we all know the answer.
Would any reasonable person refuse to travel because of a 1 min delay? I think we all know the answer.
PermitToTravel
Established Member
I think you're correct and withdraw my previous advice to the OP.
Thank you very much for that
It basically comes down to if you consider
to mean the same thing as
I argue that they do not. If the framers of the NRCoC had intended the conditions to be treated as independent and interchangeable bullet points they would have written them as such.
PermitToTravel
Established Member
That is how "and" does always work, though. The railways haven't ever understood the importance of precision in the wording of contracts, hence the absolute abortion that is the Routeing [sic] Guide
I agree that's how it works mathematically, but not necessarily linguistically.
Mathmatically the sentence "Granddad fought in the war, got shot by a German and was buried in Calais." means the same thing as "Granddad was buried in Calais, fought in the war and got shot by German".
Last edited:
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
I don't know if they're WUMming or not, but I'm sure there's plenty of "what's the most ridiculous way I can interpret this" going on.
But we're capable of arguing the absurd without any external help
PermitToTravel
Established Member
How it works contractually is what's relevant. I'm not qualified to speak on that so have no suggestions I'm afraid.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Well quite. Never underestimate the Oxford Comma, as Nelson Mandela would have agreed
Originally posted at https://twitter.com/socratic
Last edited:
I see where you are coming from but 30 mins, or indeed any minimum time, is just not acceptable for the reason in my example(#) below. It would be very easy*, though, to reword the condition to make it clear that to qualify for a refund the decision not to travel must have been made because the train's departure was delayed.
EDIT
* Just how easy, is shown by the Advance T&Cs quoted by NajaB
~~~~~~~~
# I once made a very late decision to undertake a journey which involved a train from Sheffield to Barnsley followed by a bus from the adjacent bus station. There was 4 or 5 mins between the scheduled arrival time of the train and the scheduled departure of the bus - just about doable. When I arrived at Sheffield station the train (Lincoln to Huddersfield) was shown as on time. I left it as late as possible to buy the ticket from the TVM, in case of any incoming delay, and then boarded the train which, indeed, arrived in the platform on time.
However, it became clear that something was amiss and it turned out the driver to take the train forward had been slightly delayed. I knew the next bus from Barnsley was an hour later and that would have been too late for my purpose so I left the train and went to get a refund on the ticket. I passed the driver coming up the platform, so guess the train would have left about 5 mins late in the end.
Of course, even if the train had left on time it could still have been delayed en route but that was a risk I was prepared to take. There was absolutely no point, though, in travelling when I knew I would definitely miss the bus and the same would apply if the time between modes in Barnsley had been 20 mins and the train departure from Sheffield had been delayed by 25 mins after I had bought the ticket.
~~~~~~~
Last edited:
Yes, applying a minimum delay for refund would be difficult because you might exclude some genuine cases, which is worse than allowing a few non-genuine ones through.
If you have a journey with a connection that is the exact specified minimum required for a particular station (5 minutes or 10 minutes or whatever)
If the first train is expected to be late by 2 or 3 minutes, then you have less than the minimum connection time and might expect to miss the connection.
Even though you would probably be able to travel on a later train,
I think it would be reasonable to consider cancelling and trying again another day.
Preferably with a better itinerary
If you have a journey with a connection that is the exact specified minimum required for a particular station (5 minutes or 10 minutes or whatever)
If the first train is expected to be late by 2 or 3 minutes, then you have less than the minimum connection time and might expect to miss the connection.
Even though you would probably be able to travel on a later train,
I think it would be reasonable to consider cancelling and trying again another day.
Preferably with a better itinerary
And of course if it was just one minute late departing the origin, you would be unaware, unless you sat in the seat just staring at a watch !
1 min is below threshold for delays anyway, so there would be no record of such a 'delay' I min is ignored anyway due to clock differences,
Still I suppose claims of this nature are made by some, and of course another reason fares go up, (someone has to pay up for the compensation !)
This seems more fraudulent than 'cheeky' !
Anyone claiming from the same position as the OP would most definitely have to lie if they were asked by the TOC to confirm that they did not travel because of a one minute delay, and to explain how such a delay in departing would have made their journey pointless.
Regardless of any and all of the discussion about wording, it should be quite obvious that to claim not to have travelled because of a tiny delay when such a delay had nothing to do with it is dishonest.
Pedantic discussions of a hypothetical nature as happen so regularly here are only likely to make the forum seem to be one where navel gazing is a popular form of activity and is in danger of bringing the forum and it's members into disrepute in the wider world
No normal person would even know that at the origin their train was between 30 seconds and 60 seconds late ! (it may say 1 minute, but may have been 30 or 45 seconds and rounded up !)
WelshBluebird
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 4,923
Ok not really valid in this case because of the small amount of time.
However, in terms of getting a refund on an unused ticket because of a delay, surely the decision is based on the information available to the passenger at the time rather than the actual delay of the train? Certainly I have been in situations where the live board on the platform has said a delay of 20 minutes but in actual fact the service arrived at the platform and departed with a significantly less delay than that.
- Status