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.'
Exactly. Or claim your money back because they hadn't provided the exact service you paid for.
They should buy the right ticket to start with then,
And he wasn't charged twice.
I know he wasn't. But I'm talking in general terms about people who buy tickets in advance and then their plans change at the last minute, or there is an emergency and they want to go somewhere else instead etc.
Like I've already said, I buy monthly tickets, If one day I wanted to get off a stop early I wouldn't even consider buying another ticket.
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.
And like I just said, he wasn't charged twice. But doesn't create a good headline does it.
Aren't you good then. Unfortunately though, not everybody will have enough money to be able to pay for the same journey twice.
If you can't afford a service then - shockingly - you don't get to use it. It's not paying for the same journey twice, it's paying for the journey you actually take. You don't turn up to a railway station with no money and expect to get a train without running the risk of getting caught, do you?
I honestly don't understand how the people on this thread defending the train company, can possibly have the stomach to do so.
I can understand people offering theories on why the train company might have done it. But I can't understand them saying it's ok / acceptable / reasonable etc. I bet every one of those people would refuse to pay the £155 if it happened to them.
I know he wasn't. But I'm talking in general terms about people who buy tickets in advance and then their plans change at the last minute, or there is an emergency and they want to go somewhere else instead etc.
Like I've already said, I buy monthly tickets, If one day I wanted to get off a stop early I wouldn't even consider buying another ticket.
Quite rightly - if you have a season ticket it allows for travel anywhere between the two stations named. He had a discounted ticket between two fixed points.
See I kind of thought that it was ok to break up your journey. For example, if I want to travel ultimately from A to C, but I need to stop at point B to run an errand. I can get off at B, run my errand and use my ticket to get back on the train and travel from B to C. That's how it works in Glasgow anyway. You can use any route as long as you dont go beyond your ultimate destination.
I also buy discounted tickets to travel across the country. So if I'm travelling to Aberdeen for example, I have yet to have any problems, with ticket barriers or anything, if I get off for a short while in Dundee or Perth. As long as the travel is on the right day and I don't go beyond Aberdeen. I thought that was how it is everywhere. It makes sense anyway.
What about using Orange Wednesday, but only using one of the tickets? Should you be made to occupy two seats...or pay for the second seat if it's not being used?
The logic of the train company doesn't seem right. However, like I stated earlier, if travelling from A to C on a special discounted discount worked out cheaper than travelling from A to B, then I can understand why train companies would want to penalise a passenger for (effectively) abusing the system...
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.'
I think you will find that yes, if train companies cancel trains or they run significantly late you are entitled to compensation. I guess you'd be happy if they tried to weasel out of it though.
See I kind of thought that it was ok to break up your journey. For example, if I want to travel ultimately from A to C, but I need to stop at point B to run an errand. I can get off at B, run my errand and use my ticket to get back on the train and travel from B to C. That's how it works in Glasgow anyway. You can use any route as long as you dont go beyond your ultimate destination.
It has got nothing to do with how it works in Glasgow - it depends what type of ticket you have
What about using Orange Wednesday, but only using one of the tickets? Should you be made to occupy two seats...or pay for the second seat if it's not being used?
The logic of the train company doesn't seem right. However, like I stated earlier, if travelling from A to C on a special discounted discount worked out cheaper than travelling from A to B, then I can understand why train companies would want to penalise a passenger for (effectively) abusing the system...
I can understand why there might be a penalty for breaking the terms and conditions.
But £155 does not seem a proportional punishment to the crime!
I think you will find that yes, if train companies cancel trains or they run significantly late you are entitled to compensation. I guess you'd be happy if they tried to weasel out of it though.
Actually it doesn't bother me hence why I've never made a complaint about it. But I'm sure the train companies would lose a lot more money if they had to pay every customer comepnsation every day than they would if some people got off their train a stop early.
I think you will find that yes, if train companies cancel trains or they run significantly late you are entitled to compensation. I guess you'd be happy if they tried to weasel out of it though.
It would have to be significantly late though and if everybody started making claims then we'd see the prices rise.
They should buy the right ticket to start with then,
And he wasn't charged twice.
He was charged twice, they sent him an invoice for the second amount - that is a charge. The fact that they waived it afterwards after complaining is irrelevant. The charge was still there.
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.
The T&Cs will have something in them that warns about delays and cancellations.
As per my previous post:Services don't have to be fit for a specific purpose the way goods do. Services are allowed to fail like that. The law says you are paying for the attempt not the result. As long as the provider takes reasonable care, charges a reasonable amount(*) and warns you about possible problems then the law's happy.
(*)This is the bit where things get sticky. £155 still sounds a lot to me but I can't be bothered to look up the full undiscounted journey price.
I'd be inclined to agree (as I wrote) but there is another way of looking at it. As a result of his actions a seat might have sat empty for no good reason. That might have annoyed someone sufficiently for them to complain to the company. That might lead to them being fined by the rail regulator.
But more likely I think it's related to the discount scheme I mentioned. Discounts are often based on making more efficient use of resources. It's entirely possible for a discount to make a longer journey cheaper than a shorter one. I have no idea if that was the case here but it's simpler for the rail company to try and deal with that by a carte-blanche insistence that you always complete the journey in full.
But just to be clear here. I'm not supporting the demand for more money. I think the rail company did the right thing in waiving it. I'm just trying to help explain why it might have come about.
Why would an empty seat annoy someone ? even if they are standing, result they just found somwhere to sit, pathetic train companys.
It would have to be significantly late though and if everybody started making claims then we'd see the prices rise.
And if large numbers of people abuse discounted tickets we can see them being phased out.
There was a reason he got a discount. I don't know what it is, you don't know what it is but there was a reason why the rail company sold him a cheap ticket. For some reason him getting off at Durham allowed the cost of his ticket to be reduced.
Then he goes and gets off at a different station.
At that point he is in the wrong and the rail company are potentially out of money. They have a right to demand some form of compensation. What I'm mildly curious about is why it was so high? I'm not so curious as to want to spend time fighting my way through web sites however.
Without reading the article I would say £155 is the standard walk on fare for the journey he actually did because he invalidated his ticket.
That's exactly what it is. If I bought a first class ticket to travel from birmingham to darlington right now then it would cost £155.
But a first class ticket to durham is £22 more so it's not like it was a case of buying a ticket to a further away destination works out cheaper.
I still find it ridiculous that they even attempted to give him the charge. It would have been cheaper for him to go back to the platform, wait for another train, go to durham and get a taxi or bus back to darlington.
Comments
Exactly. Or claim your money back because they hadn't provided the exact service you paid for.
I know he wasn't. But I'm talking in general terms about people who buy tickets in advance and then their plans change at the last minute, or there is an emergency and they want to go somewhere else instead etc.
Like I've already said, I buy monthly tickets, If one day I wanted to get off a stop early I wouldn't even consider buying another ticket.
And like I just said, he wasn't charged twice. But doesn't create a good headline does it.
If you can't afford a service then - shockingly - you don't get to use it. It's not paying for the same journey twice, it's paying for the journey you actually take. You don't turn up to a railway station with no money and expect to get a train without running the risk of getting caught, do you?
I can understand people offering theories on why the train company might have done it. But I can't understand them saying it's ok / acceptable / reasonable etc.
Quite rightly - if you have a season ticket it allows for travel anywhere between the two stations named. He had a discounted ticket between two fixed points.
He wasn't charged twice only because the fee was eventually waived when he kicked up a fuss.
They attempted to charge him twice and would've done so if he had complied.
I also buy discounted tickets to travel across the country. So if I'm travelling to Aberdeen for example, I have yet to have any problems, with ticket barriers or anything, if I get off for a short while in Dundee or Perth. As long as the travel is on the right day and I don't go beyond Aberdeen. I thought that was how it is everywhere. It makes sense anyway.
The logic of the train company doesn't seem right. However, like I stated earlier, if travelling from A to C on a special discounted discount worked out cheaper than travelling from A to B, then I can understand why train companies would want to penalise a passenger for (effectively) abusing the system...
I think you will find that yes, if train companies cancel trains or they run significantly late you are entitled to compensation. I guess you'd be happy if they tried to weasel out of it though.
It has got nothing to do with how it works in Glasgow - it depends what type of ticket you have
I can understand why there might be a penalty for breaking the terms and conditions.
But £155 does not seem a proportional punishment to the crime!
Actually it doesn't bother me hence why I've never made a complaint about it. But I'm sure the train companies would lose a lot more money if they had to pay every customer comepnsation every day than they would if some people got off their train a stop early.
It would have to be significantly late though and if everybody started making claims then we'd see the prices rise.
He was charged twice, they sent him an invoice for the second amount - that is a charge. The fact that they waived it afterwards after complaining is irrelevant. The charge was still there.
Maybe the fine is so high to prevent people from doing it?
Maybe the fine is representative of the journey he actually did? (i.e. the ticket he had therefore became invalid)?
I don't know...
As per my previous post:Services don't have to be fit for a specific purpose the way goods do. Services are allowed to fail like that. The law says you are paying for the attempt not the result. As long as the provider takes reasonable care, charges a reasonable amount(*) and warns you about possible problems then the law's happy.
(*)This is the bit where things get sticky. £155 still sounds a lot to me but I can't be bothered to look up the full undiscounted journey price.
That would only work if the possible fines were well publicised in order to put people off.
Without reading the article I would say £155 is the standard walk on fare for the journey he actually did because he invalidated his ticket.
Why would an empty seat annoy someone ? even if they are standing, result they just found somwhere to sit, pathetic train companys.
...well, this is the second type of fine I've read about in recent weeks. Seems like the fines issued are getting plenty of coverage.
Besides, aren't there signs on most trains warning of the maximum penalty for not having a valid ticket?
Not really. Rail growth over the last ten years has been phenomenal. Ryanair are hardly a glowing example of not adding petty fees are they.
There was a reason he got a discount. I don't know what it is, you don't know what it is but there was a reason why the rail company sold him a cheap ticket. For some reason him getting off at Durham allowed the cost of his ticket to be reduced.
Then he goes and gets off at a different station.
At that point he is in the wrong and the rail company are potentially out of money. They have a right to demand some form of compensation. What I'm mildly curious about is why it was so high? I'm not so curious as to want to spend time fighting my way through web sites however.
That's exactly what it is. If I bought a first class ticket to travel from birmingham to darlington right now then it would cost £155.
But a first class ticket to durham is £22 more so it's not like it was a case of buying a ticket to a further away destination works out cheaper.
I still find it ridiculous that they even attempted to give him the charge. It would have been cheaper for him to go back to the platform, wait for another train, go to durham and get a taxi or bus back to darlington.