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

robt_2

No

thescouselander wrote: »

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.

They are not saying that at all - indeed the OP already had his ticket.

thescouselander

Yes

robt wrote: »

They are not saying that at all - indeed the OP already had his ticket.

No he didn't, he only had an e-ticket which, by its self, was not valid for use on the train.

You can get into semantics all you like, the fact is that VT did not supply the documentation required to travel on the train. This is potentially a breach of contract on their part.

robt_2

No

thescouselander wrote: »

No he didn't, he only had an e-ticket which, by its self, was not valid for use on the train.

You can get into semantics all you like, the fact is that VT did not supply the documentation required to travel on the train. This is potentially a breach of contract on their part.

IMO, since people are jumping in (not yourself) without actually knowing what has happened, I think it is quite important to say what actually has happened instead of what people assume has happened

Clive_Woody

Silent_Mule wrote: »

Virgin Trains deliberately conned me out of £360 - be warned!!!!

.....etc etc

You forgot to take your wallet with you and this is Virgin's fault.

How exactly does that work?

poet123

I think that the thread title is misleading. I do not believe the OP was conned out of his money,rather that Virgin did not act "reasonably" given the circumstances.

I agree with Scouselander,a court would not deem their actions "reasonable" and so would find in his favour. It will not go that far though,my money is on Virgin capitulating as soon as the SCC summons hits the mat.

bunking_off

I'm not a lawyer, so am interested in some of the legalities of situations like this.

Where there is a mutual breaking of contract (OP not being able to provide contractual ID, Virgin refusing to carry), or if the contract is deemed unfair, would a court award consequential damages, or would any payout be limited to the value of the original contract? Reason I ask is that the OP's had a refund of the payment made for the ticket that wasn't fulfilled...refund of any ticket needing to be purchased as a result is consequential damages. Genuine question, I don't know the answer.

Incidentally in my experience the OP's done very well to get this far. It's not unusual for Virgin to provide a full refund on a ticket...it's incredibly unusual for that to be in the form of a cheque rather than warrant for future travel.

OP might also be well advised to do some research on the structure of Virgin trains to ensure they target the correct company. From memory, the company operating the train, company operating the ticket office and company selling tickets via website are all different, albeit linked via a complex web of contracts...they may have the word "Virgin" in their name but they're not the same company.

thescouselander

Yes

bunking_off wrote: »

I'm not a lawyer, so am interested in some of the legalities of situations like this.

Where there is a mutual breaking of contract (OP not being able to provide contractual ID, Virgin refusing to carry), or if the contract is deemed unfair, would a court award consequential damages, or would any payout be limited to the value of the original contract? Reason I ask is that the OP's had a refund of the payment made for the ticket that wasn't fulfilled...refund of any ticket needing to be purchased as a result is consequential damages. Genuine question, I don't know the answer.

Incidentally in my experience the OP's done very well to get this far. It's not unusual for Virgin to provide a full refund on a ticket...it's incredibly unusual for that to be in the form of a cheque rather than warrant for future travel.

OP might also be well advised to do some research on the structure of Virgin trains to ensure they target the correct company. From memory, the company operating the train, company operating the ticket office and company selling tickets via website are all different, albeit linked via a complex web of contracts...they may have the word "Virgin" in their name but they're not the same company.

Its a good question. I'm not a legal expert either but I belive it would be up to the court to decide. The fact that VT have already offered a refund in settlement of this issue could help support their case.

dazbyd

... just a little update

... we took a telephone call from NEEC this morning advising that a customer had lost her credit card that she paid for her train tickets with over the internet and if she provided & showed identification in the form of a passort would our ticket office accept this and issue the tickets ... we advised, if she provided the identification and confirmed the details of the journey we would ... customer arrived about an hour later ... provided and confirmed the above ... left happily with tickets :T :T

... just goes to show you ... common sense and good customer service goes a long long way ... well done Southern & NEEC !!

robt_2

No

dazbyd wrote: »

... just a little update

... we took a telephone call from NEEC this morning advising that a customer had lost her credit card that she paid for her train tickets with over the internet and if she provided & showed identification in the form of a passort would our ticket office accept this and issue the tickets ... we advised, if she provided the identification and confirmed the details of the journey we would ... customer arrived about an hour later ... provided and confirmed the above ... left happily with tickets :T :T

... just goes to show you ... common sense and good customer service goes a long long way ... well done Southern & NEEC !!

Once again, the OP was not collecting tickets, although I agree that the circumstances are similar.

dazbyd

robt wrote: »

Once again, the OP was not collecting tickets, although I agree that the circumstances are similar.

... apologies for my lack of understanding ... but what do you think she was attemting to do then ??