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

robt_2

No

poet123 wrote: »

1. I bought a ticket online at www.virgintrains.co.uk on Friday 21 November, for outbound travel on 25 November, return travel on 27 November 2008

What was he doing then?????????????

I think somoene needs to relax.

poet123

You are right
*walks away*.....then can't resist coming back!!

dazbyd

... all in all, its just another example of a railway system operating different rules and regulations up and down the length and breadth of the country ... and yet, its a railway system funded and supported, in part, by the taxpayer ... bit of a joke really !!

... but hey ... "Where getting there" :rotfl: :rotfl:

KeithP

Can I just add my two-pennies worth...

I always thought that the idea of producing the card that was used to purchase the ticket, at the time of ticket collection, was to ensure that only one ticket was issued (be it by machine or person).
Clearly the op wasn't trying to get more than he had paid for, but it is surely possible for some devious people to try to exploit the system by say...
Person A goes to one station and says "I have lost my credit card. Here is my driving licence, please can I have my ticket".
At the same time Person B goes to a ticket machine and gets the ticket, using the credit card.
At the same time Person C could be at another station saying "I have lost my credit card. Here is my passport, please can I have my ticket".

I am sure this scheme wouldn't work. Computer systems are brighter than that aren't they.:beer:

omelette451

poet123 wrote: »

I am talking about the ID issue,and wondering what other additional forms of ID (other than passport,ticket print out,statement relating to CC card used)would cause the the staff to use their stated "discretion".

I may be wrong, but I suspect that if the card had been reported stolen rather than lost and a crime reference number had been presented at the ticket desk, the staff would have issued the ticket. This is no help to the OP; I just thought it might help solve what seems to be a residual question.

Incidentally, it is a reasonable proposition to suggest that a thief could easily have obtained all the documents the OP had at Euston, which does (c.f. posts above) theoretically render them useless. One way around this particular scenario, and I say this purely hypothetically and knowing that doing so risks pouring oil on the fire, is the introduction of the current government's infamous ID cards, which will contain incontrovertable biometric data, such as fingerprints, that could be used to establish identity once and for all.

Alias_Omega

Silent_Mule wrote: »

Thanks Robt. After much "Googling" and other adventures in investigation land, I can confirm that, under current ORCAT rules, for a restricted ticket sale, the company that makes the sale gets 9% and the companywith whom you travel gets the other 91%. So, if I buy through VT for a VT journey they get 100% of the money that I part with.

The same is not true of an open return, where the money is divided up equally amongst all train companies whose services I could use (that'll be ZaNu Labour ever-muddying the waters, I suspect).

There is nothing that says a restricted ticket cannot be sold as a walk-up fare (that I've been able to unearth).

OTHER UPDATES:

Received a letter from VT on 19th January, dated 15th January (presumably not sent using a walk-up stamp), simply saying:

"Dear Mr .....

"Thank you very much for your correspondence which was received on 7 January 2009.

"We will write again soon with a further response

"Yours sincerely"

Note the lack of reference to which correspondence I had sent (the one on 27 November or the on of 3 January, etc).

Letter number 2, received 22 January, dated 20 January:

"Dear Mr.....

"Thank you very much for your correspondence, which was rceieved in this office on 7 January 2009.

"I do appreciate your frustration at having to purchase another ticket for your journey. [Starts well, methinks.] You are asked to agree to the terms and conditions befoe going ahead with the booking and this [sic] does state that the card used to make the booking must be produced in conjunction with the e-ticket to make this valid for travel. This is one of the security measures in place to ensure that the printed ticket is not being used fraudulently. We realise that there are occasions where customers may not be able to do so, but as explained to you by our call centre, this authorisation is provided at the discretion of the station staff. [So, two points: 1: the reason that they require the card is for security purposes - and it would seem that passport + driving licence + credit card statment + ticket = not secure enough in their minds, 2: the station staff have the discretionary ability to authorise travel.]

"If customers are unable to produce either a valid ticket or the appropriate supporting documentation, then they will be asked to purchase a new ticket for the journey at the fare available on the day of travel. As your initial booking was for a First Class return journey between London and Manchester, the equivalent fare available on the day of travel is the First Anytime Return you purchased. There are cheaper Standard Class tickets available had you requested this option. [So, it is completely OK for them to not inform you of the options and charge the absolute highest fare that they can get away with and its your fault for not asking for the approipriate cheaper fare or part thereof.]

"I am sorry if you feel that the situation was handled inappropriately by the members of staff that you spoke with and I will ensure your comments are used as part of our feedback process. However, this does not negate the fact that your were unable to fulfil the terms and conditions of the tickets you booked initially. In view of this, I am unable to agree a refund of the additional ticket you had to buy but as a gesture of goodwill, I would like you to accept the enclosed cheque for £95.50 in refund of the unused original booking. [Banging the gong again about me not fulfiilling the conditions... well, no !!!! Shirlock - it was a physical impossibility leading to my belief that this creates an unfair contract under the Unfair Contract Terms Act]

"Thank you for taking the time to contact us.

"Yours sincerely"

[I shan't name the name of the person signing.]

Let's not forget that their call centre advised me to go to the station and plead my case in person and to do it on the day of travel. They did not advise that I would be charged a far higher fare than had I gone the day before.

I am now considering whether to take the cheque (and another financial route that is open to me for another £95.50 recoup from the credit card) or whether to carry on. I will update again here once a decision is reached.

One thing I will certainly be doing from now on is booking all advance fares via East Midland line (whom I had an altogether pleasant recent experience with) so that I deprive VT of 9% each time.

Oh, and I've just cancelled my Vrigin Media service at home and ordered Sky instead. And, it's cheaper!:T

I think this thread is over really, you booked an online ticket which required the card used to be provided on collection and could not provide the card used to order the tickets. You have had a refund for the £95 for the original ticket that you did not use. I guess you paid a first class peak time fare for travel on the day, well you could of maybe waited till after 9am, and travelled regular / standard class like the rest of us.

Good luck trying to get virgin trains to pay you the difference in ticket prices, but i think your case / thread is over & a valuable lesson learnt.

Regards,

AliasOmega

dazbyd

KeithP wrote: »

Can I just add my two-pennies worth...

I always thought that the idea of producing the card that was used to purchase the ticket, at the time of ticket collection, was to ensure that only one ticket was issued (be it by machine or person).
Clearly the op wasn't trying to get more than he had paid for, but it is surely possible for some devious people to try to exploit the system by say...
Person A goes to one station and says "I have lost my credit card. Here is my driving licence, please can I have my ticket".
At the same time Person B goes to a ticket machine and gets the ticket, using the credit card.
At the same time Person C could be at another station saying "I have lost my credit card. Here is my passport, please can I have my ticket".

I am sure this scheme wouldn't work. Computer systems are brighter than that aren't they.:beer:

... once a ticket is issued, it will not allow to issue a second time

FARE-COP

Alias_Omega wrote: »

I think this thread is over really, you booked an online ticket which required the card used to be provided on collection and could not provide the card used to order the tickets. You have had a refund for the £95 for the original ticket that you did not use. I guess you paid a first class peak time fare for travel on the day, well you could of maybe waited till after 9am, and travelled regular / standard class like the rest of us.

Good luck trying to get virgin trains to pay you the difference in ticket prices, but i think your case / thread is over & a valuable lesson learnt.

Regards,

AliasOmega

That latter is my view too based on many years working in railways revenue protection & prosecutions. That is not to say that things don't change of course.

I know that Silent Mule feels aggrieved and feels that the terms & conditions imposed by the rail companies and Virgin in particular are overly restrictive, but the fact remains that the company have abided by their part of the bargain.

I really don't mind him proving me wrong and genuinely do wish him luck, but will not be holding my breath.

KeithP

dazbyd wrote: »

... once a ticket is issued, it will not allow to issue a second time

Yes, that is no doubt how it is supposed to work. I did say...

I am sure this scheme wouldn't work. Computer systems are brighter than that aren't they.

But that doesn't stop people trying, and maybe finding and exploiting a weakness.

thescouselander

Yes

FARE-COP wrote: »

That latter is my view too based on many years working in railways revenue protection & prosecutions. That is not to say that things don't change of course.

I know that Silent Mule feels aggrieved and feels that the terms & conditions imposed by the rail companies and Virgin in particular are overly restrictive, but the fact remains that the company have abided by their part of the bargain.

I really don't mind him proving me wrong and genuinely do wish him luck, but will not be holding my breath.

But that is the whole point of the thread. There have been two breaches of contract here

1) The OP did failed to produce their credit card used to book the ticket
2) Virgin Trains failed to supply the OP with a valid ticket at the station


In contract law both parties are obliged to complete their side of the contract irrespetive of whether the other party has fulfilled the agreement.

The usual remedy if a contract has been broken would be to seek damages from the party that has broken the contract (ie Virgin Trains could theoretically seek damages from the OP for the extra work that would be involved in supplying the tickets as a result of him not having his card). It does not automatically follow that the contract can be dissolved just because someone has broken a term of the agreement. Virgin would have to show a good reason why the couldn't carry out their obligations because of the OP's actions (or lack of).

Virgin Trains are saying the couldn't supply the tickets because the could not identify the OP as the ticket purchaser so a court would have to decide if this is reasonable.

The OP had

1) His Credit Card Statement
2) His driving licence (with the same address as the credit card statement)
3) His passport

The test would be - would a reasonable person ("the man on top of the Clapham Omnibus") accept this as proof that the OP was the holder of the card in question. In my opinion they would.

If this was upheld by the court then the OP could potentially claim for a consiquential loss - ie the tickets he had to buy as a replacement for the ones that were not supplied.

considering this can be perused in the small claims court for relitively little money I think it is worth a punt.