Virgin Trains are bunch of con artists IMHO. Be warned!

FARE-COP

Silent Mule, I apologise if you feel that I personally doubted all of the details in your story.
I did not. However, I did use generalisations that may seem much too case specific in your mind, but much of my comment was aimed at helping others to avoid the difficulty in future.

So far as UK contract law and the recognition of credit card receipts is concerned, you are correct.

My comment regarding the test of conditions was relating to tickets and the language could have been clearer. I apologise if I bore you with the blindingly obvious, but without a ticket you would have no right to access the train. To do so would have been a breach of byelaw. Those conditions are tested in court several hundred times a week.

Your argument re unfair conditions in relation to the credit card transaction is a different matter. That is probably something that you might like to challenge in a civil action and I shall refrain from further comment on that.

It was the fact that you referred to those factors, which you now make clear you regret mentioning, that brought forth my comments about them. If you didn't aggravate the situation by swearing or mentioning your job, why mention them now?

OK, I accept that might be unfair, but look at it this way, it begs the question have you come onto an open public forum seeking help and advice or, with a pre-meditated intention simply to slag-off Virgin? Many readers might already have asked themselves that question.

By the way, I don't have any love of Virgin and I don't work for them either.

Like Moonrakerz, I only have an element of scepticism because I find it odd that the CEO of a multi-national company should choose a public forum to seek amateur help.

In your position, I am sure that a very experienced legal team must be at hand for that very purpose and only too keen to sharpen their collective courtroom manner in readiness.

I genuinely wish you the best of luck, whatever the outcome and I apologise again for any misunderstanding

Silent_Mule

Yes

robt wrote: »

Proof or purchase does not need even need to be a statement (or anything else mentioned in the link provided). The link deals with your rights to a refund on a faulty product (NOT a service). The service you paid for was provided (the train ran). That is a very important but subtle difference.

Point taken - thanks for the clarification.

robt wrote: »

The CCTV will be long gone by now, unless they kept a copy because they felt your behaviour was not appropiate (which I assume they wouldn't have from what you say). If it went to court, I suspect they have more witnesses than you. The original person, the supervisor, the person in the next booth/desk etc etc.

Who knows. I suspect this won't go as far as the courts. It would be useful to know of an previous court decisions on a similar matter though.

robt wrote: »

I really do think you need to stop playing the big man

Not sure I understand this bit but...

robt wrote: »

and do what has been suggested - accept that there is no fault on their part other than, what appears to be deliberatly, not offering to sell you a single ticket. Accept their cheque, claim on the credit card for the other and move on. If you really are the "CEO of a multi national company" then time is money right? :rolleyes:

OK, next steps for me are to write and ask them to explain why they think a simple credit card is more secure than passport, etc... fill in the credit card form... and wait and see what transpires (probably means waiting 21 days so doubt there'll be much by way of update here [don't all jump for joy at the same time.. that can cause a tidal wave you know] for a while).
On the time is money... yes it is which is why many of my responses are at the weekend or late at night. That said, I think that it is important to see somethng through to conclusion once started. A lot of companies rely on attrition and complacency as tools in their armoury (as do politicians, IMHO).

Silent_Mule

Yes

FARE-COP wrote: »

Silent Mule, I apologise if you feel that I personally doubted all of the details in your story.
I did not. However, I did use generalisations that may seem much too case specific in your mind, but much of my comment was aimed at helping others to avoid the difficulty in future.

My bad, I think. Not so easy sometimes to understand true meaning in text.

FARE-COP wrote: »

<...snip>I genuinely wish you the best of luck, whatever the outcome and I apologise again for any misunderstanding

Thanks

poet123

robt wrote: »

Proof or purchase does not need even need to be a statement (or anything else mentioned in the link provided). The link deals with your rights to a refund on a faulty product (NOT a service). The service you paid for was provided (the train ran). That is a very important but subtle difference.



The CCTV will be long gone by now, unless they kept a copy because they felt your behaviour was not appropiate (which I assume they wouldn't have from what you say). If it went to court, I suspect they have more witnesses than you. The original person, the supervisor, the person in the next booth/desk etc etc.

I really do think you need to stop playing the big man and do what has been suggested - accept that there is no fault on their part other than, what appears to be deliberatly, not offering to sell you a single ticket. Accept their cheque, claim on the credit card for the other and move on. If you really are the "CEO of a multi national company" then time is money right? :rolleyes:

I think you miss the point spectacularly.

Time is money,but sometimes principles are worth expending time and effort on.

My OH is a senior Director,( btw you don't generally achieve senior position without having a tenacious streak)but had the same scenario happened to him, he too would be pursuing some redress. Virgin has admitted in writing that their operative had discretion regarding the ID,discretion which. for whatever reason he chose not to exercise. In view of the ID the OP presented I believe that a SCC would find in favour of the OP. However, tbh it would not get that far,imo Virgin would not bother defending the case. Once they realised
the OP was going to run with it,they will settle. They cannot afford to have this tested in court, with the attendant publicity.

robt_2

No

poet123 wrote: »

I think you miss the point spectacularly.

Time is money,but sometimes principles are worth expending time and effort on.

My OH is a senior Director,but had the same scenario happened to him, he too would be pursuing some redress. Virgin has admitted in writing that their operative had discretion regarding the ID,discretion which. for whatever reason he chose not to exercise. In view of the ID the OP presented I believe that a SCC would find in favour of the OP. However, tbh it would not get that far,imo Virgin would not bother defending the case. Once they realised
the OP was going to run with it,they will settle. They cannot afford to have this tested in court, with the attendant publicity.

I'm not missing any point, nor do you explain what the point is that I'm missing. Thanks for the attempt at rubbishing my opinion and professional rail knowledge though.

Personally, I doubt the SCC would find in favour of the OP. The 'contract' works for tens of thousands of people every day without incident. One person who failed to keep their side of the contract does not take away from that (regardless of whos fault the lost credit card was). I would also be very suprised if Virgin did not defend it if it did go to court.

The staff can use discretion (as Virgin have told the OP) - and they decided not to allow travel. It is as black and white as that. The OP was asked to leave and threatened with arrest for their behaviour/language afterall.

poet123

The point you are missing is that any term in any contract has to be reasonable. It is not reasonable to refuse to accept the other forms of ID the OP presented,particularly when the company themselves state that there is discretion in this area.

A court will ask what form of ID would have allowed the OP to travel(other than the missing CC)how do you think they can answer that when the universally accepted form of ID that allows entry to any other country(not just train travel!!) was not deemed sufficient? What other ID could have reasonably been produced?

They will not defend,and if they do they will lose. I would bet my knowledge of the law,(which is the subject at issue)against your knowledge of the rail industry.

I was not rubbishing your opinion,but your tone was a tad sarcastic and patronising imo,especially your use of the "playing the big man" comment.

Oh,and discretion is never "as black and white as that" by definition it is open to interpretation.

robt_2

No

It IS reasonable. There is NO requirement for ID to be shown whatsoever, so whatever other forms of ID which were available is not relevant. This is what is clouding the whole issue. The card you booked with is not ID. Even the letter received from Virgin does not say the card is needed as ID.

poet123

So what purposes does the production of the card serve that could not be reasonably served by the other forms of ID? other than to form part of a restrictive term in a contract under the circumstances outlined by the OP.

robt_2

No

poet123 wrote: »

So what purposes does the production of the card serve that could not be reasonably served by the other forms of ID? other than to form part of a restrictive term in a contract under the circumstances outlined by the OP.

Other forms of ID (example a passport) does not confirm that the passenger is the card holder.

Having just re-read the OP - could they confirm if they actually had a creditcard statement with them as they suggested? It seems a strange thing to carry around?

poet123

9. I went to the ticket office and produced a) the e-ticket, b) a print out of the confirmation e-mail with my reference number, c) my driving licence, d) a copy of the credit card statement, for the card used to purchase the ticket, with my name and address on.

That is what the OP offered to the ticket office,and he had his passport too....now, tell me again it was reasonable to refuse travel,when the CC was reported lost in New York.