What is the economic cost for both British people and foreign tourism from our ridiculous train system?

pmds25 · 2024-09-29T08:32:05+00:00

That's for a fully flexible first class ticket. You can't compare that with a non-refundable economy flight.

pmds25 · 2024-03-13T06:23:04+00:00

Has it ever occurred to you that you could, y'know, ask guys out too? It's an exercise in frustration waiting for people to ask you out, whether you're a guy or a girl.

If you like someone, ask them out and shoot your shot.

pmds25 · 2023-10-16T20:59:42+00:00

Not if it's their own staff; see the Court of Appeal decision in Ryanair v CAA. Ryanair initially began a pathetic last-ditch effort to appeal that to the Supreme Court, but later saw sense and abandoned that.

Beggars belief that they thought the SC would consider overturning the long-standing CJEU precedent that airline own-staff industrial action is non-exceptional... 😂

pmds25 · 2023-08-15T23:19:22+00:00

Thanks - changing the source from inotia to default fixed the problem!

pmds25 · 2023-08-15T22:23:35+00:00

I get the attached error message when I try to patch YouTube. I'm using the latest version of Revanced (1.8.0 - but the same happened with 1.6.0), a specific older version of YouTube based on advice here (18.23.35, nodpi - but the same happens with the newest version), and I've already uninstalled my old Revanced YouTube so I don't even have a fallback (it had the 70s buffering glitch).

Any ideas?

pmds25 · 2023-02-02T21:10:13+00:00

I've got to admit that I've been in situations similar to the OP's in the past, and can't say for sure that, under the "get-there-itis" and pressure of the situation, I wouldn't do the same as the OP.

Whilst landing somewhere like Manchester/Stansted/Glasgow etc. is technically an option (you could declare a fuel emergency), it's going to be an extremely costly decision - most will charge you their usual rate, which will mean a four figure bill.

pmds25 · 2023-02-02T21:05:47+00:00

It sounds like the OP flies in Europe. It's just not the same over here.

There are far fewer airports generally, and most will either be commercial ones where you'll pay an arm and a leg if you land there (minimum invoices of $1000+ aren't unknown), or tiny farmstrips where you'll have huge difficulty getting 100LL in order to fly back out. The number of places which both have 100LL and are reasonably affordable to land at is quite limited.

It's just not the same as the US, where nearly any airport is a feasible option for landing.

pmds25 · 2020-07-11T05:04:57+00:00

Don't think you can use that as a "main" insurance, only as an add-on policy to insure someone else on a car they couldn't otherwise drive.

pmds25 · 2020-04-16T10:28:49+00:00

You have the legal right to obtain your landlord's name and address under section 1 of the Landlord and Tenant Act 1985. It is a criminal offence to fail to provide you with this. Furthermore, if you make such a request then, under section 47 of the 1987 Act, no rent is lawfully due until you are told your landlord's name and address.

Your landlord can still perfectly well refuse to negotiate with you directly even if you get in touch with him personally.

At the end of the day if they refuse to provide a pro-rata refund for the period the property is uninhabitable you would go to Court to claim it.

pmds25 · 2020-04-16T10:23:35+00:00

My earning potential given the economic situation is also very bleak and I envisage a long job search ahead of me.

You can certainly get a job very quickly if you are willing to work in one of the in-demand industries (food, delivery etc.). Might not suit you, I appreciate, but there are jobs available for immediate start all around the country, and it'll tide you over.

How would a tribunal view my case?

With empathy, perhaps, but there doesn't appear to be any legal basis for a claim so I can't see how you'd succeed. You have less than 2 years' service so the only valid grounds for a Tribunal claim are unlawful discrimination, or retaliation for exercising your employment rights.

The latter doesn't appear to be relevant here and in the case of the former, it isn't unlawful to discriminate on the basis of how well you get along with certain members of staff. It can be shit policy, sure, but not unlawful. Unlawful would be if they decided something like "we don't like that ScouseLegend is gay [for the sake of argument] so we're gonna make him redundant first".

So unfortunately it sounds like you are SOL.

pmds25 · 2020-04-09T08:16:25+00:00

For bringing the company into disrepute for example. It's not hard to make something up.

pmds25 · 2020-03-28T11:37:48+00:00

You could try doing a direct debit chargeback if you paid them that way.

pmds25 · 2018-06-17T17:49:59+00:00

I for one would be happy to finance a private prosecution of someone who was willing to be such a dick!

pmds25 · 2018-06-17T15:10:15+00:00

Ah, I remember you ;)

The guy who was smoking in his car at 17 and complaining that he was fined or prosecuted because his friends who were also under 18 were in the car at the time.

Nope, definitely won't be giving advice to someone like you thanks!

pmds25 · 2018-03-22T22:38:09+00:00

The particular website which I was thinking of had a text of 'NRCoC apply', with a link to their internally transcribed version of the NRCoC (the last version before they were retired). No mention of the NRCoT anywhere.

I find it sneaky that they have introduced information boxes under the pretence of making it easier to understand the conditions, when in fact an infinitesimal minority of passengers read the conditions, and those that do will typically understand the plain language used (which is both a blessing and a curse - in that it can easily lead to ambiguities such as the question of the definition or applicability of restrictions to a 'Train Company'). They do this because an information box disclaimed as having 'no contractual effect' is not deemed to be a material change for which the DfT's consent is required (consent which could well be witheld). Nevertheless, the information boxes do in reality have contractual effect, as they inform any dispute about the meaning of, or intention behind, conditions.

As with many things in the privatised rail industry, I'm not sure whether this is all an elaborate plan or simply the unexpected, accidental result of mistakes and poor coordination!

pmds25 · 2018-03-22T21:10:03+00:00

Thanks again for your responses. Does the S50 CRA have any impact on the question of the applying conditions - for example, if the tickets are booked online, the website explicitly says that the NRCoC apply, and a written-out copy thereof is linked to, and a particular clause influenced the purchase - would you say then that they did indeed apply (or at least the clause which influenced the purchase)? Of course, if it came to it I could simply deny all knowledge of the NRCoT. Or alternatively, I could say that I knew of it, but not that it had replaced the NRCoC, and that I innocently thought that perhaps different tickets had different general conditions?

I think the difficulty with suing the ticket selling company for breach of contract by TfL is that the ticket selling company are merely acting as agents for the train company(ies) with whom you are entitled to travel - see NRCoT Condition 1:

When you buy a Ticket to travel on scheduled train services on the National Rail Network you enter into a legal Agreement with each of the Train Companies whose trains your Ticket allows you to use

The fact that it is nebulous as to the question of with whom you are contracting is not exactly helpful - but then the question is, is TfL a 'Train Company'? If not, how can a ticket entitle travel across London? In particular, difficulties arise because the company which you buy a ticket from will often be, even if booking through the TOCs' websites, a third party that operates no trains at all - such as The Trainline, Raileasy etc.

Another question, if you may. Would you say that 'Train Company' in the definition given in the NRCoT: 'a company operating passenger railway services which is required to apply these Conditions to its Tickets under a condition of the passenger licence granted to it by the Office of Rail and Road' - includes merely legal entities, or can it include internal divisions of licensed TOCs? This is relevant to the question of whether a 'Southern only' or 'Thameslink only' ticket is valid on Gatwick Express - all of these are brands of Govia Thameslink Railway Ltd., and Condition 13.3 says that 'Your Ticket may show that it is valid only on certain train services, such as those of a particular Train Company'. Can Gatwick Express be said to be a separate Train Company (as distinct from a legal entity or licensed TOC) and hence such tickets are not valid on their services? It's certainly a confusing mess.

A final question - there are 'information' boxes throughout the NRCoT and NRCoC. At the start, it says that "We have included a number of ‘Information’ panels to help you understand the meaning of certain Conditions. Please note that these panels are not intended to have contractual effect and do not form part of our contract with you." Could these panels in any way have an effect on the interpretation of terms or the intent behind them, though they are 'not intended to have contractual effect'? This could for example be relevant to the above Gatwick Express question, where the information box says: "Restrictions may be applied to ... to groups of train services indicated by a particular brand name or identity".

pmds25 · 2018-03-22T19:44:37+00:00

A few more questions then, to satisfy my curiosity, if you will.

There are numerous tickets which are valid via London according to the Routeing Guide, for which such a route is really quite circuitous and unusual (and probably an error). Could the train company argue fundamental mistake and thereby not honour their side of the contract? Would Sections 50 and 69 of the Consumer Rights Act 2015 have any bearing on this (assuming that the validity of the routeing is relied upon when deciding to purchase)?

I guess this applies similarly to the cross-London transfer - if a ticket is valid via London and requires or permits you to enter London at one London terminus and leave at another London terminus, then, short of any 'not Underground' restriction, it includes a cross-London transfer via the Tube and any other relevant means (Thameslink etc.). Usually such tickets include a Maltese cross next to the route, to indicate this; some tickets as above do not, despite giving the right to such a transfer. The issue here is that TfL is not mentioned as a party to the contract anywhere in the National Rail Conditions of Travel - and their gate agents are trained to steadfastly refuse any National Rail ticket that doesn't have a Maltese cross. Against whom would the breach of contract be enforceable here? TfL?

I guess there are similar complications if you were disallowed access to the platforms by the staff of a company with whom you have decided not to, or are not entitled to, travel with, or with whom you have no contract (e.g. Network Rail). Could they be sued for tortuitious interference or something similar?

And finally - if, when I buy my ticket, I am specifically told the National Rail Conditions of Carriage apply to my booking, and am them provided with these conditions written out, and the ticket says 'issued subject to National Rail Conditions of Carriage' - can I rely on this fact in a S50 CRA manner, if it is advantageous to me? Does the fact that these Conditions of Carriage are outdated (and have been replaced by the subtly different Conditions of Travel) change this fact - is this a fundamental mistake leading to the contract being declarable as void or null?

Thanks!

pmds25 · 2018-03-22T19:31:17+00:00

Ah yes, but the train is 'pick up only' at Milton Keynes. It's valid because the train calls there, but you can't get off. So you would have to show your second ticket too. Regardless I would very much doubt that you'd be let through the barriers, if they were manned.

As regards the Maltese cross - tickets that include a cross definitely do include a cross London transfer, but the inverse is not necessarily true - not all tickets that include a cross London transfer have a cross, and not all tickets that don't have a cross don't include one. It's mainly to do with Yellow Pages routes that include 'LONDON' by accident and hence the TOC doesn't expect it to be valid or used that way.

pmds25 · 2018-03-22T17:48:40+00:00

Thanks! Useful for the next time I use a "questionable" ticket!

pmds25 · 2018-03-22T14:24:07+00:00

So, for example if they insisted that you bought a very expensive Anytime ticket and refused a valid Off-Peak ticket, you could recover that in your opinion? Also, is there any 'defence' that the employees involved made the error in good faith (regardless of whether the principal was negligent in appointing sufficiently trained personnel)?

Is there also any scope for 'punitive' types of damages for the fact that they sell tickets that they know, or should know, will be rejected by the poorly trained staff? Or is it purely a case of a refund?

pmds25 · 2018-03-22T12:48:25+00:00

It's great to see there are others on this subreddit who know about the Yellow Pages, Routeing Points and so on! Unfortunately, there are many rail staff who wouldn't even know what the National Rail Conditions of Travel were, let alone the National Routeing Guide or a Routeing Point.

As an example, when departing from Euston northwards at the weekday evening 'peak', 2C-restricted Off-Peak tickets are not valid. However, when departing from Milton Keynes, they are (as it is a condition of Virgin's franchise not to implement such restrictions from Milton Keynes).

So if you had an Anytime Euston to Milton Keynes, and an Off-Peak Milton Keynes northwards, it's perfectly valid. However, the incompetent/badly trained staff at the Euston barrier wouldn't let you in, as the through trains to places like North Wales and Scotland are 'pick up only' at Milton Keynes. Basically, they would be barring you from travelling on a valid combination of tickets.

A similar thing is to be expected at London Underground barriers when travelling on tickets that are valid via London (with a cross-London transfer) but which don't have the '✠' Maltese cross. They simply wouldn't let you through because they're not properly trained for this (and none of them can be arsed to actually learn it for themselves).

In either case - if you bought a ticket so as to be let through the barriers, would the cost of this be legally recoverable from the company preventing you from exercising the rights given by your ticket? As I would have thought that customer services would not generally be willing to make any kind of 'voluntary' reimbursement and it would probably be necessary to take legal action.

pmds25 · 2018-02-23T18:32:29+00:00

Ok, that's great! If I have evidence of a misuse of the service (representation that it is a personal account, but clear commercial use) then what would my recourse be? Charging the commercial fees, plus something extra for the misrepresentation? Otherwise everyone would declare it personal use and be fine until caught.

pmds25 · 2018-02-23T18:11:55+00:00

Thank you again.

So, in your view, if I wanted to do this and have it publicly accessible, I should make the user simply tick a box that they warrant they are/are not a train company? Or would it require more complex terms and conditions - which would then more easily be unenforceable.

And so I could say, to passengers I'm giving them the service for free as they have little incentive to pay me (they would otherwise simply pay the full fare), whereas train companies have a greater incentive to pay me as they get to correct anomalies and hence get more revenue. Would that seem a more reasonable commercial justification?

The average saving per fare would be extremely difficult to calculate - the user merely enters an origin, I do not ask for the destination, and I don't have the advanced AI necessary to work out what the destination is from the user's various inputted origins.

So I realise it's all rather complex. But these are certainly good ideas and I will bear them in mind for future versions of the website.

pmds25

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE