Class800
Established Member
West Midland's didn't make it clear the excess was covered, but if that's true - then it's a good outcome for the OP
They didn't. Excess fares are always charged for the same origin and destination of the original ticket. For clarity, I accept fully that no excess should have been charged but I don't see that charging one could be a criminal offence.they committed a criminal offence.
They didn't. Excess fares are always charged for the same origin and destination of the original ticket. For clarity, I accept fully that no excess should have been charged but I don't see that charging one could be a criminal offence.
Yes, potentially there is a breach of contract but that is a civil matter not criminal. I don't think you could successfully bring a fraud action against Avanti.So like the situation its complicated, iv'e had a friend look into this, not on a professional basis but optional basis, they reckon there is a case based on my original ticket being a super off peak return, Avanti in order to extort me changed the conditions of my ticket or as they put it changed the terms of agreements for financial gain, my friend didn't say what options there were, but did say that this is a ''very interesting developing situation from a legal perspective'' but did say there were some legal basis based on the change of ticket type and additional fare charged where it was not applicable as the journey from Stourbridge to Birmingham was valid. I'll be honest i have no idea what he meant, hes usually quite cryptic, but we shall see what Chiltern and Avanti have to say.
Yes, potentially there is a breach of contract but that is a civil matter not criminal. I don't think you could successfully bring a fraud action against Avanti.
For any claim to succeed you've surely got to show you are out of pocket and now that WMT have reimbursed you, you're not.I'll agree with you there, i mean ultimately if i was to bring them all to court it would be in a small claims court, it would ultimately be up to the court to refer it to a criminal court, if they believe there's enough legal ground in order to do so, in all fairness i mean I've already got the win from WMT, but i don't believe the entire responsibility should fall on WMT to solve this mess especially considering they've least wronged me, i think at this point im more interested to wait for the response from Chiltern and Avanti before proceeding on or not.
The change of route/change of ticket type excess charged by Avanti, was, in my opinion, correctly calculated in order to excess away (as cheaply as possible) the requirement for the OP to have to travel via High Wycombe, which was, by that time of the evening, no longer possible.
What, of course, Avanti (and to a lesser extent Chiltern and WMR) all failed to do, was to do what they reasonably could to get the OP to their destination (London) thereby preventing the OP from the possibility of being stranded, this following disruption on the railway. Presume here that another passenger having been taken ill can't ever be deemed to be a circumstance which might avoid such obligations.
However, if the OP has now been fully recompensed, and has got their excess fare refunded, surely there's no further monetary claim that can still be claimed. A mealy-mouthed apology and/or goodwill payment might be forthcoming from Avanti, but I wouldn't hold my breath.
And in this case I think it could reasonably be argued that it is your own choice that you remain in that position.to answer @Haywain point, until i accept any form of compensation as a resolve i am still out of pocket.
The OP may end up receiving more from the other two TOCs and that is fine, but it’s not the OP’s choice.Is the OP hoping for / holding out for three lots of compo pay out?
Fanciful at best.if this reaches a public courtroom could have some particular interesting results on public opinion on your companies tied in with legitimate legal defenses for fare dodgers that could use the angle that if your companies don’t have to obey the byelaws why should they.
Blimey. What an email.
I think WMT have handled the complaint perfectly, and made a sensible and relatively generous offer in excess of what they were required to offer. I hope the OP accepts it
If I was the OP I’d wait and see what comes back from chiltern and Avanti. It’d be nice if they offered some sort of compensation, but given WMT’s offer I’d be more interested in an apology and a commitment to retraining staff where necessary *
* I know; I’ve had enough experience with Northern to know what the customer gets told may well bear no resemblance to what they actually subsequently do
If I'm being completely honest, if that post is a copy of the email you sent all three TOCs I doubt you'll get anything much at all. Too long, wordy with completely useless information (who cares how many cigarettes you were smoking?) and aggressive. You also say you want them to take your disabilities into account, yet you admit you didn't tell staff about them on the day.
Fanciful at best.
Best of luck but if it were me I would be taking a more professional tone in communications.
Ah yes, the “strong opening”. Let’s wait and see if using the words f***, s*** and p*** alongside allegations of extortion and fraud reap the desired rewards.You Good sir, has summed up my exact position in 2 short paragraphs, fair play to you
I'll agree with your perspective, it's very long winded, again like class800 the facts are relevant, as I stated in the email if the companies want to goto the petty level of checking CCTV, they have all the information they could ever need in fact checking their investigation, to prove that 1. This situation did occur 2. This is not an attempt to defraud the railway. For your part about professionalism, it's a complaint from a dissatisfied customer, not a buisness associate seeking to show a disconcern about a product while wanting to maintain a good rapport with them. I played the strong opening, now I await the answer and communicate effectively and positive effectiveness to the situation
Where disruption prevents you from completing the journey for which your Ticket is
valid and is being used, any Train Company will, where it reasonably can, provide
you with alternative means of travel to your destination, or if necessary, provide
overnight accommodation for you.
Pay the excess and complain.If I encountered such case personally, where abiding to the ticket condition is no longer possible and the interchange station demands an excess, I'll either:
1. pay the excess, hire a lawyer who charges a portion of winning, and sue the company operating the interchange station on breach of contract.
2. refuse to pay the excess, board the train anyway, and rely on NRCoT 28.2 as a defence (as I'm instructed by the staff from the company cancelling the train) if I'm prosecuted with intent of avoiding payment:
Which is the better option legally, and are there any existing precedents in court?
Pay the excess on board the train?Pay the excess and complain.
Given the amounts likely to be involved (tens of pounds) I don't see any realistic chance of getting a lawyer to agree to take the case on a basis of receiving a share of the damages. So your option (1) wouldn't be realistic.If I encountered such case personally, where abiding to the ticket condition is no longer possible and the interchange station demands an excess, I'll either:
1. pay the excess, hire a lawyer who charges a portion of winning, and sue the company operating the interchange station on breach of contract.
(...)
Which is the better option legally, and are there any existing precedents in court?
And I'm happy to pay 30% share of compensation to lawyers if a winning case means the train companies will never rip off people again.In courts, there is only one winner - lawyers
Lawyers will look at the likelihood and level of compensation before taking a case on, and in a case as you suggest I don't think they'll operate on that basis. No win, no fee might sound good but it really means they will only act for you if they think it is worth their while.And I'm happy to pay 30% share of compensation to lawyers if a winning case means the train companies will never rip off people again.
Winning one individual civil claim will not change anything. It will simply be seen as a cost of doing business.And I'm happy to pay 30% share of compensation to lawyers if a winning case means the train companies will never rip off people again.