Passenger charged £155 for getting off train one stop early

1356

Comments

  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 25,366
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    poppitypop wrote: »
    That is not a correct analogy because the man did not get on a different train. The correct analogy is going in to see Avatar but leaving halfway through. That is allowed, yes?

    Yeah, I was trying to say that by watching UP, I was getting less minutes for my money (kinda like less miles on a train)....but yes, you have made the analogy more workable.
  • nanscombenanscombe Posts: 16,588
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    You get a new mobile phone.

    You negotiate a tariff based on a 24 month contract.

    After 12 months you try to leave the contract.

    The phone company says it'll cost you to leave early because you agreed to 24 months.
  • AndrueAndrue Posts: 23,351
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    poppitypop wrote: »
    That is not a correct analogy because the man did not get on a different train. The correct analogy is going in to see Avatar but leaving halfway through. That is allowed, yes?
    Only if the cinema says it is.

    If the ticket states that you have to stay until the end then that's what you should do. When you pay for a service you are entering a legally binding contract. You agree that there are certain things you will do and other things that you won't do. It's contract law. All terms are valid and enforceable unless they are deemed unreasonable.

    Whether or not you understand the reason behind them is irrelevant. Either you accept those terms and pay or you reject them and walk away from the deal.

    Where it gets complicated is in deciding what is and isn't reasonable. That's where the lawyers get involved and is why contract law is a very lucrative career.
  • HenryGartenHenryGarten Posts: 24,800
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Seems similar to this thread. See penalty thread.
  • KidMoeKidMoe Posts: 5,851
    Forum Member
    poppitypop wrote: »
    I am sure the regulator would allow it, yes. :p
    Hundreds of people may rely on one train, the train does not rely on one person. Especially one person who has paid for a FULL ticket. It really makes no difference to them whether the person is on the train or not, so why the stupid terms?
    The issue really is not one of breaking terms, but them having unfair terms in the first place.
    Put yourself in the customers shoes. Say you have paid £155 for a ticket and got off one stop early due to for example a family emergency, would you be happy to pay another £155 ??

    I wouldn't be happy, obviously, but If I was stupid enough to break the terms of an agreement I had entered into then yes, I would pay it.

    If I didn't agree with the terms to the point where I would potentially break them I wouldn't have bought a ticket in the first place.
  • AndrueAndrue Posts: 23,351
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Phoebica wrote: »
    If a train company stopped a train for no reason that would be disrupting a whole group of people's travel. A man getting off a train one stop early disrupts nobody.
    It disrupts their ability to forward plan.

    Maybe he was the last person on the train? In that case the train trundled on to Durham empty which was a waste of fuel. I admit that's unlikely but that's the principal here. The rail companies try to run the least amount of rolling stock by anticipating where people want to go. If too many people change their minds it increases the cost of the service.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,558
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    KidMoe wrote: »
    Presumably everyone who disagrees with the charge would have no problem if the train company decided to stop a train they were on halfway into a journey? If passengers are happy to break the T&C's, why not the train companies?

    I can safely presume that you have never travelled with First Scotrail...
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 26,389
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    nanscombe wrote: »
    You get a new mobile phone.

    You negotiate a tariff based on a 24 month contract.

    After 12 months you try to leave the contract.

    The phone company says it'll cost you to leave early because you agreed to 24 months.

    Still not a good analogy. The mobile phone customer has still to pay 12 months of the contract, yet the train customer has paid IN FULL already.
    If the mobile phone customer had paid 24 months in full they are allowed to leave early.
    If you want to use the mobile phone contract analogy it would be like the customer paying 24 months in advance and then telling the customer they have to pay ANOTHER 24 months to leave early.
  • PhoebicaPhoebica Posts: 2,863
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    nanscombe wrote: »
    You get a new mobile phone.

    You negotiate a tariff based on a 24 month contract.

    After 12 months you try to leave the contract.

    The phone company says it'll cost you to leave early because you agreed to 24 months.

    That's completely different. The man HAD PAID for the journey, but left early. With a phone contract you pay monthly. If you paid for 24 months then wanted to leave after 12 they'd have no problem with that.
  • KidMoeKidMoe Posts: 5,851
    Forum Member
    Phoebica wrote: »
    Yeah because that's the same thing isn't it? :rolleyes:

    If a train company stopped a train for no reason that would be disrupting a whole group of people's travel. A man getting off a train one stop early disrupts nobody.

    Not the point. If you wish to maintain any kind of morale standpoint that customers can break the terms of contracts on a complete whim, then you can't argue that the supplier can't either.

    Besides, if they allowed one passenger to do it, then they stand to lose a truckload of money because train fares aren't charged by the mile.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 26,389
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Andrue wrote: »
    It disrupts their ability to forward plan.

    Maybe he was the last person on the train? In that case the train trundled on to Durham empty which was a waste of fuel. I admit that's unlikely but that's the principal here. The rail companies try to run the least amount of rolling stock by anticipating where people want to go. If too many people change their minds it increases the cost of the service.

    But the train has to go on to Durham anyway. Trains don't just stop because they have no passengers, they have to stop at a set place for the journey back.
  • PhoebicaPhoebica Posts: 2,863
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Andrue wrote: »
    It disrupts their ability to forward plan.

    Maybe he was the last person on the train? In that case the train trundled on to Durham empty which was a waste of fuel. I admit that's unlikely but that's the principal here. The rail companies try to run the least amount of rolling stock by anticipating where people want to go. If too many people change their minds it increases the cost of the service.

    How can it disrupt their plan? Even if there is nobody on the train the train still has to complete the journey it is supposed to do.

    What happens if someone pays £155 then changes their mond about the journey? Will the train company track them down and issue them with a fine? Of course they wouldn't, so why is it ok to fine a man who decided to get off the train early?
  • AndrueAndrue Posts: 23,351
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    poppitypop wrote: »
    Still not a good analogy. The mobile phone customer has still to pay 12 months of the contract, yet the train customer has paid IN FULL already.
    If the mobile phone customer had paid 24 months in full they are allowed to leave early.
    If you want to use the mobile phone contract analogy it would be like the customer paying 24 months in advance and then telling the customer they have to pay ANOTHER 24 months to leave early.
    Yeah but it's a different service. That's the nature of services. They all work differently. That's why the law is more lenient (you don't get 'fitness for purposes' tests for instance). The only way to judge a service or provider is to study its peers.
  • KidMoeKidMoe Posts: 5,851
    Forum Member
    poppitypop wrote: »
    But the train has to go on to Durham anyway. Trains don't just stop because they have no passengers, they have to stop at a set place for the journey back.

    It's irrelevant that the train happened to make intermediate stops on it's way to Durham.

    The guy had a ticket to Durham. He didn't have a ticket to go to Darlington. Effectively he got a journey from Durham to Darlington for free.
  • AndrueAndrue Posts: 23,351
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    poppitypop wrote: »
    But the train has to go on to Durham anyway. Trains don't just stop because they have no passengers, they have to stop at a set place for the journey back.
    Yes but they still have to plan them in advance. His journey was anticipated then he didn't do what they expected. Granted my example was unlikely but he still didn't do what he agreed to do.

    For sure we can debate the amount that the company was trying to charge but to do that properly we'd need to understand how to operate a national railway service. Damn' sure it's not simple to do that and make a profit.

    As soon as he tried to leave Darlington station he was in breach of contract. Beyond that we can't really comment.
  • PhoebicaPhoebica Posts: 2,863
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    KidMoe wrote: »
    Not the point. If you wish to maintain any kind of morale standpoint that customers can break the terms of contracts on a complete whim, then you can't argue that the supplier can't either.

    Besides, if they allowed one passenger to do it, then they stand to lose a truckload of money because train fares aren't charged by the mile.

    Ok, so say one day a friend or family member rung you up in trouble. They live in the town next to your town so you'll have to get off the train one stop early on your way home. You've already got a train ticket which was very expensive, are you telling me that you'd then buy ANOTHER ticket instead of using the one you have?
  • robtuk06robtuk06 Posts: 4,561
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    poppitypop wrote: »
    Still not a good analogy. The mobile phone customer has still to pay 12 months of the contract, yet the train customer has paid IN FULL already.
    If the mobile phone customer had paid 24 months in full they are allowed to leave early.

    Depends how you look at it.

    If he had paid in full, then he would have a flexible ticket which allows him to get off early. But he decided not to pay the full fare - he bought a cheap advance ticket with strict terms and conditions.
  • KidMoeKidMoe Posts: 5,851
    Forum Member
    Phoebica wrote: »
    Ok, so say one day a friend or family member rung you up in trouble. They live in the town next to your town so you'll have to get off the train one stop early on your way home. You've already got a train ticket which was very expensive, are you telling me that you'd then buy ANOTHER ticket instead of using the one you have?

    If my ticket was an advanced ticket from place a to b then yes, I would, much the same as if I had to get another train back to that earlier stop.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,890
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    KidMoe wrote: »
    Presumably everyone who disagrees with the charge would have no problem if the train company decided to stop a train they were on halfway into a journey? If passengers are happy to break the T&C's, why not the train companies?

    Train companies break the T&Cs or change them regularly anyway. Man books a train ticket for a train that leaves at noon. Train turns up at 12.20pm. Man gets on and train leaves at 12.25pm. Man isn't getting the service he paid for.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 1,558
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I honestly don't understand how the people on this thread defending the train company, can possibly have the stomach to do so.
  • PhoebicaPhoebica Posts: 2,863
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    KidMoe wrote: »
    If my ticket was an advanced ticket from place a to b then yes, I would, much the same as if I had to get the train back to that earlier stop.

    Aren't you good then. Unfortunately though, not everybody will have enough money to be able to pay for the same journey twice.
  • robtuk06robtuk06 Posts: 4,561
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Phoebica wrote: »
    Aren't you good then. Unfortunately though, not everybody will have enough money to be able to pay for the same journey twice.

    They should buy the right ticket to start with then,

    And he wasn't charged twice.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,890
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Phoebica wrote: »
    That's completely different. The man HAD PAID for the journey, but left early. With a phone contract you pay monthly. If you paid for 24 months then wanted to leave after 12 they'd have no problem with that.

    Exactly. The phone has been paid for for a full 24 months. So why does it matter if the person stops using it after 20 months? It's still been paid for whether he uses it or not.

    The ticket was paid for already, regardless of whether he used it the whole way, the seat was still reserved. The issue was that his ticket wouldn't work on the Darlington machine because it had been programmed under the impression the passenger would be using it in the Durham machine.

    But that doesn't warrant a £155 fine.
  • PhoebicaPhoebica Posts: 2,863
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    sleepydove wrote: »
    Train companies break the T&Cs or change them regularly anyway. Man books a train ticket for a train that leaves at noon. Train turns up at 12.20pm. Man gets on and train leaves at 12.25pm. Man isn't getting the service he paid for.

    That's pretty much a daily occurance for me. Plus add in the odd cancellation every few days. Do you think I could charge the train company £155 because (to quote someone on this thread) 'they've not done what they said they would do.'
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 4,890
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    robtuk06 wrote: »
    They should buy the right ticket to start with then,

    And he wasn't charged twice.

    Well, he was charged twice.

    He paid the price of a ticket that went Birmingham - Darlington - Durham. Then they wanted him to pay for another ticket that went Birmingham - Darlington. They wanted him to pay a second time.
Sign In or Register to comment.