Unsure how to Proceed with Delay Compensation **Resolved**

[Class800]

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

 

[AlterEgo]

It'll still be interesting to see how Avanti respond to being told they're f***ed and the excess was bull**** and that they committed a criminal offence. The reply may take a few more days because that sort of correspondence usually gets passed around the office a few times.

 

[Haywain]

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.

 

[Cypher]

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.

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.

@Class800 Just to clarify your point, the £47.55 would be both the full price of the super off peak return(£33.10) plus the £14.55 excess charge.

 

[Haywain]

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.

 

[Cypher]

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.

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.

 

[Haywain]

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.

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.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

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.

 

[Cypher]

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.

I understand the point of origin/destination, i may not like it but in truth that's just the way it is, but that in itself opens up a can of worms for someone other then me to decide if it is the proper course or if the condition needs amending, however and i apologize to everyone that i didn't clarify the point further, i have not responded to WMT as of yet, nor have i accepted their compensation, the reason is ultimately if i accept i then alleviate the blame from chiltern and Avanti and they get away with this scot free, i know there's a more legal way of saying it, but nonetheless i hope you can understand the Jist of what im saying, so to answer @Haywain point, until i accept any form of compensation as a resolve i am still out of pocket.

 

[Haywain]

to answer @Haywain point, until i accept any form of compensation as a resolve i am still out of pocket.

And in this case I think it could reasonably be argued that it is your own choice that you remain in that position.

 

[AlterEgo]

If it was me, I would really just take the comp tickets and the refund and leave it at that. You aren’t going to get satisfaction from the other complaints.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Is the OP hoping for / holding out for three lots of compo pay out?

 

[Class800]

I think the offer the OP has received is very good and should accept it - but it is up to the OP. I also think the OP's letter was unnecessarily verbose and brought in quite a few irrelevant points and had a bit of an aggressive tone, albeit I am sure unintended. For this reason, I think it would be far best for the OP to accept the offer made.

 

[Haywain]

Is the OP hoping for / holding out for three lots of compo pay out?

The OP may end up receiving more from the other two TOCs and that is fine, but it’s not the OP’s choice.

 

[Class800]

And accepting the resolution from West Midlands does not close the case on the other 2 complaints I don't think - unless the fact it was submitted all together to 3 companies in one email changes it.

 

[Cypher]

@Haywain the counter argument in that hypothetical situation would be had the company not broken their contractual obligations the situation would not have occurred and as they have not addressed the issue, the resolve in the situation was not adequate in the compensation offer.

@AlterEgo i appreciate your perspective in how you yourself would deal with it, but unfortunately i see the world from a different perspective.

@Mcr Warrior the compensation process is very clear as described by others here in this topic, but the compensation does not include responsibility or holding up hands and saying were wrong by shouldering all the responsibility on the company that did the least wrong in this situation, by allowing them to respond before accepting WMT offer is a matter of considerable thought in itself.

@Class800 the email was formatted exactly how i meant it to be formatted, all 3 companies received the email at the same time as they all have a part in it that needs addressing, if i had responded with a civil tone, then they would not perceive the issues described as a relevant factor of my complaint, had it been the other way round and i had been travelling on a route i was not validated for, each of these companies would send me harshly worded toned letters, the irrelevant facts aren't as irrelevant as you may think, they are because the situation where i financially supported my journey home, but had i not and as described it was a close call, the irrelevant facts would have put me in a very realistic health and safety situation, the aggressiveness of the situation was indeed intended, but also addressing the fact that i was not forwarding my anger or aggressiveness at said customer service teams, i don't expect riches, by the advice given to me i know what im entitled to, but its more of a point that the situation needs addressing for what it is instead of what i can get.

 

[skyhigh]

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.

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.

Fanciful at best.

Best of luck but if it were me I would be taking a more professional tone in communications.

 

[SteveM70]

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

 

[Cypher]

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

You Good sir, has summed up my exact position in 2 short paragraphs, fair play to you

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.

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

 

[AlterEgo]

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

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.

 

[Class800]

I agree with other responses. It's good to see OP inclined to accept west Midlands offer. I am here to help not criticise. What I can advise for future is a few years ago I was involved in a very serious situation where a guard threatened a stranding overnight if service disruption got worse. Despite complications that I was on a gwr service by authority of xc who had cancelled all Cornwall trains including my advance ticketed service I wrote xc a firm but fair email setting out concisely the circumstances and the atmosphere of fear the guards announcements caused without digression or accusations and got my delay repay plus two cross country scratch cards I used from exeter to Glasgow and back worth a couple of hundred pounds. The tone of response does influence outcomes

 

[miklcct]

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:

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.

Which is the better option legally, and are there any existing precedents in court?

 

[AlterEgo]

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 and complain.

 

[Haywain]

Pay the excess and complain.

Pay the excess on board the train?

 

[Class800]

Neither - pay excess and make a customer service complaint, asking for the excess back and potentially a complimentary ticket as a gesture of goodwill

 

[Class800]

In courts, there is only one winner - lawyers

 

[Fawkes Cat]

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?

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.

 

[miklcct]

In courts, there is only one winner - lawyers

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.

 

[Haywain]

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.

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.

 

[Watershed]

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.

You would need to prosecute TOCs for aggressive trading practices, or bring a class action claim, for anything to change. Both are very unlikely to happen given how (comparitively) rare circumstances like these are.