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

thescouselander

Yes

real1314 wrote: »

OP

You booked a ticket that required you to have the credit card with you. You lost the card required.
So, so far none of this is anyone else's fault.

What could the contractor have done?

You (and others) say they could have had a back-up system for this type of eventuality. That's very true, but could they devise and implement such a system at nil cost?
I'd suspect not. So your complaint is that they do not have a back up system to cover eventualitites outwith the contract terms, that would require all passengers to pay higher fares to cover the few people that fail to meet the contract terms.
Overall, it's probably cheaper for passengers to have the people who fail to meet the contract terms pay for their error rather than have everyone else pay for it. That's capitalism for you.

VT could have issued a ticket manually based on the OP's ID and booking reference. Or is that too
complicated?

I imagine there is already a backup system of sorts to cover the eventuality of a ticket machine failure so it shouldn't cost any more.

real1314

thescouselander wrote: »

VT could have issued a ticket manually based on the OP's ID and booking reference. Or is that too
complicated?

I imagine there is already a backup system of sorts to cover the eventuality of a ticket machine failure so it shouldn't cost any more.

A company HAS to act if it is in breach of contract (e.g machine failure) this doesn't meant hey have to act if the other party is in breach. It's very simple, you enter a contract and accept the terms. There were other options for tickets etc, other methods of travel.
What really wind the OP up I guess is that deep down they know it's their own fault for losing their card that they'd bought the tickets on.

Who knows, maybe the machines do not automatically link to a sale and it might be possible to get a ticket off the machine and then ask for a replacement too - maybe the ticket office would not be able to check?

Silent_Mule

Yes

chuckley wrote: »

u dont have Alzheimer's or amnesia... ur a CEO that lost their card and forked out nearly £400 for a replacement.

You'r ecompletely missing the point!

Silent_Mule

Yes

omelette451 wrote: »

The train company acted in accordance with its own policies on this matter, an issue which cannot reasonably be denied.

True - but the question is not about whether they acted in accordance with their policies or not. It's about whether their policies are restrictive or fair and whether I could reasonable expect to have been permitted to travel given the volume of proof of ID that I had with me. You cannot create any policy you like as a company and then penalise people for not following it.
There aew two laws that cover this: Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977 and Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999.

omelette451 wrote: »

The argument here is really about whether it should have bent its rules slightly given the situation. From my own experience and observation (admittedly at other stations rather than Euston, but still relevant) staff are able to issue tickets manually and will often do so on production of suitable identification. However, a great many people who work in the public eye say that they are willing to 'go the extra mile' or bend a rule only for those people who are nice, friendly, and polite rather than angry or stressed (if you need proof see other boards on this site, most notably the supermarket discount ones), and from the original post I must say I got the impression that this is unlikely to have been the case that day at Euston station, which could explain the reluctance to do so. It's only a hunch, but from my experience the type of person who includes several paragraphs detailing his regular transcontinental business trips and name-drops his position (seriously, what's a person's job got to do with it? or indeed any resulting complaint?) in a rant about a train company is the type most likely to be patronising and demeaning to staff at a station. And I'm sure 'pointing out flaws in company policy' didn't help make the staff more willing to help.

OK there are a few points that you raise here, some of which I have answered ad nauseum (as you would know if you ha rea the full thread) but let's step through them:

1. I was not rude or pushy or demeaning. For what it's worth I started life as a shop assistant so am extremely well versed in how unpleasant General Public can be to workers that have to be in contact with them on a regular basis. Ergo, I go to great lengths to enusre that I am polite at all times (to them).
2. I never once mentioned my job title to the people at Euston. The only way they could kow that is if they've read this post and put it together with the incident. I repeat at no time did I once say what my job was (so please stop harping on about it).
3. I did enquire as to whether VT were in breach of contract. That was after 30 minutes of trying to find another solution with using the vauous forms of ID that were at hand (passport; driving licence {the photo id one in case anyone is wondering, which has my piture & address on it}; the credit card statement that had my name, address, and the card number of the card that was actually used to make the booking; and the printed ticket which has the booking reference printed on it.

These guys were not prepared to go even the extra inch, right from the get-go.

omelette451 wrote: »

I'm always wary of making generalisations,

then don't

omelette451 wrote: »

but I think here people will be inclined to agree with me. I'm sorry you had a bad experience, and I'm sorry you lost your credit card, but I can't help feeling sorry too for the poor staff who had to deal with you that day. And I don't think you have a reason to be given a refund, though yes, I agree you should have been given a single ticket if that is what you wanted (N.B. for robt's benefit a 'first anytime single' definitely is half the cost of a return).

I personally think that there are several failures by VT here:

1. I was advised by VT telephony staff, when I called the day before, to go to the station the next day to sort out the situation but not advised by them that a failure to get the situation resolved would result in a far greater cost of ticket.
2. I was not offered any option on ticket price on the day.
3. The amount of Identification that I brought with me should have been sufficient to prove that I was me and entitled to travel on the ticket that I had purchased.

omelette451 wrote: »

Incidentally, the members of staff were right to be offended by your swearing, even if it was not aimed directly at them, and they were completely right to ask you not to do it again.

I agree... but they didn't just ask me not to do it again... instead of saying something like "sir, we heard what you said to your colleague and would appreciate it if you didn't say it again" they actually said "if you say that again I will have you arrested, removed from the station, and banned from all future travel on Virgin Trains". There is such as thing as proportionate respone, and my point is that theirs was disproportionate.

omelette451 wrote: »

Also, I'm not sure I understand why you had to be in first class to have four people working round a table: they do have tables in standard class.

Because my colleagues were all traveling in First Class. Thus, I needed to be with them. The general point about which class to travel in is different. My point is that on the day I needed to be because my colleagues were.

Silent_Mule

Yes

OK, here is an update to one part of the post I made a few days ago about the three potential options:

Silent_Mule wrote: »

[snip]
3. There is a suggestion (not mentioned in public on this board thus far but posted at this site), that because loss of a credit card is an insurable risk there is an obligation on the card holder to pay again and then claim the second paid fare from the insurer. In my case, it would almost certanly be the credit card company themselves who act as the insurer and I will also persue this avenue as if it turns out to be correct then I will attempt to get the money from the credit card company.quote]
According to the credit card company, based on the information I have pased on to them about this case they are happy to treat the original ticket as "service not provided" and take the money back from VT for the original ticket. However, they cannot help with the second payment as it wasn't made using their credit card (how could it have been as I was without the card - the original was in New York and the replacement hadn't yet been delivered). I have also spoken to three lawyer friends - none of which specialise in this area but all of whom have had experience with contract law. They all believe that there is a good case to answer under the terms of:

1. Unfair Contract Terms Act 1977, which requires that the terms of a contract are reasonable and that "it is for those claiming that a contract term or notice satisfies the requirement of reasonableness to show that it does" [Section 11, para 5], i.e. placing the obligation on VT t prove that their contractual terms are, in fact reasonable.
2. Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999. According to Schedule 2, 1, a term may be regarded as unfair if:
   • (d) [it permits] the seller or supplier to retain sums paid by the consumer where the latter decides not to conclude or perform the contract, without providing for the consumer to receive compensation of an equivalent amount from the seller or supplier where the latter is the party cancelling the contract; [i.e. if the seller decides not ot provide the service they have to compensate the purchaser]
   • (e) [it requires] it requires any consumer who fails to fulfil his obligation to pay a disproportionately high sum in compensation [so, the question may be whether £360 is a disproportionately high price to pay for not having my cedit card with me, esp. given that I could, beyond all reasoable doubt, prove who I was]
   • (f) [the terms authorise] the seller or supplier to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer, or permitting the seller or supplier to retain the sums paid for services not yet supplied by him where it is the seller or supplier himself who dissolves the contract [second point would be arguable on who disolved the contract? My view would be that VT did. The first point is straightforward - their contract does not afford me the ame rights as it does them.]

I shall wait for a couple of weeks to get a response to my written complaint - note they are now twoo weeks over their published timetable for responses and I have not even had an acknowledgement - then I shall be instructung lawyers. As before, I will update here. I would appreciate any constructive comments.:rolleyes:

thescouselander

Yes

I think your best strategy would be to try and prove the contract term in question is unreasonable and then put in a claim for the consiquential loss due to them not fulfiling the contract (ie having to buy another set of tickets).

I dont think your having to buy the second set of tickets would be seen as a penalty as such as it was not paid in compensation nor was the money paid directly as a result of the original agreement.

Having said that I am not a legal expert (although I have had a lot of training in these matters).

xellieqx

I swear all the time on the train. Oh christ!

Silent_Mule

Yes

xellieqx wrote: »

I swear all the time on the train. Oh christ!

Although the issue if swearing is at a tangent to the central issue, it is an interesting one. Obviously swearing at staff or fellow passengers should not be condoned but technically it seems that one would be breaking the law if, say, one were to read to, say, a blind colleague or friend, the text of many classic novels.
It also raises the subjective question of what constitutes a swear word. Language evolves all the time and words take on new meanings.
Cripes!

bunking_off

Did you ever ring the 0845 000 8000 number I suggested some weeks ago? Noticed that I didn't see any subsequent posts of "they sorted it out" or "they were equally useless".

Silent_Mule

Yes

bunking_off wrote: »

Did you ever ring the 0845 000 8000 number I suggested some weeks ago? Noticed that I didn't see any subsequent posts of "they sorted it out" or "they were equally useless".

Actually, I missed that - sorry. I will do that first thing tomorrow / Monday (if they're closed tomorrow) and report back.