Seeking reimbursement for taxi not showing up!

Slowhand

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Impartiality of witnesses doesn't preclude them from giving evidence.

It will absolutely not be for the OP to ensure they had the right address. You are bringing in issues which are not relevant at all.

Maybe OP should have contacted the company. That will go to mitigation of losses but not liability.

Really? Who else can ensure the correct address...not me, not you and not the taxi company.

Equaliser123

goater78 wrote: »

It is the OPs responsibility that all the terms proposed to the contract are understood by the other party.

If it doesn't matter that the witnesses are impartial I am sure the taxi firm can round up a few.....

Absolutely not. It is for the business to ensure understanding. Not the consumer.

Anyway, as you say, it won't go to Court...

Equaliser123

Slowhand wrote: »

Really? Who else can ensure the correct address...not me, not you and not the taxi company.

Think you may have missed the bit where I said: I expect, if there was an issue, that any District Judge is likely to believe that someone gave their address correctly...

System

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Absolutely not. It is for the business to ensure understanding. Not the consumer.

Anyway, as you say, it won't go to Court...

So just to clarify if I want to get a free taxi for a 200 miles away journey all I have to do is phone a taxi company give them a fake address and then sue them as they didn't arrive?

The ... Implies you believe this case will go to court. I suspect you may be in for a bit of a disappointment

ILW

Equaliser123 wrote: »

Clearly not as you don't book a bus.

But they publish a timetable, surely this would be the same as a booking.

unholyangel

ILW wrote: »

But they publish a timetable, surely this would be the same as a booking.

No it wouldnt because for a start, the bus driver could refuse to sell you a ticket or let you on the bus. They (driver/bus company) havent agreed a contract with you.

And OP checked the company had the right address if you read back posts #6 & #7.

As for up to the OP to make sure they have the right address.....personally I'd expect that to be covered by the "reasonable care" that a company should take when performing their business. With controllers, its 2nd nature to repeat everything back. Not so much with dispatchers, since the computer learns all the time - meaning if they've called before.....any address they've ordered a taxi from will be on the system already. Controllers are actually better at dispatching than dispatchers are. Simply because there are things you cannot learn by watching a screen.

And as for not giving the driver the option to drive them - I considered that previously myself, especially since my own local council have it in their rules that if they (taxi company) cause you to be late for a train, they have to take you on to your destination - it may actually have been more beneficial to the driver/company for the OP to drive their partner. OP could argue that it was mitigation because if the driver chose to do it, they'd have been down the petrol money AND lost earnings.

ILW

unholyangel wrote: »

No it wouldnt because for a start, the bus driver could refuse to sell you a ticket or let you on the bus. They (driver/bus company) havent agreed a contract with you.

And OP checked the company had the right address if you read back posts #6 & #7.

As for up to the OP to make sure they have the right address.....personally I'd expect that to be covered by the "reasonable care" that a company should take when performing their business. With controllers, its 2nd nature to repeat everything back. Not so much with dispatchers, since the computer learns all the time - meaning if they've called before.....any address they've ordered a taxi from will be on the system already. Controllers are actually better at dispatching than dispatchers are. Simply because there are things you cannot learn by watching a screen.

And as for not giving the driver the option to drive them - I considered that previously myself, especially since my own local council have it in their rules that if they (taxi company) cause you to be late for a train, they have to take you on to your destination - it may actually have been more beneficial to the driver/company for the OP to drive their partner. OP could argue that it was mitigation because if the driver chose to do it, they'd have been down the petrol money AND lost earnings.

If it is in the terms of the taxi firms operating license, that is another matter.

arcon5

Out of curiosity what area are you in unholy for them to have that term?

ILW

arcon5 wrote: »

Out of curiosity what area are you in unholy for them to have that term?

Is it open ended?
What about if you missed a flight costing thousands of pounds?
Sounds a bit far fetched to me.

arcon5

ILW wrote: »

Is it open ended?
What about if you missed a flight costing thousands of pounds?
Sounds a bit far fetched to me.

I don't know.... that's why i'm asking. I know in my council area this isn't a term on the drivers or vehicles licensing conditions.... couldn't comment on what the operators license agreement covers though, but can't see this being a term. Although the agreements do tend to differ between councils.

If it is a term though, it does seem very open ended... what if for example the passenger booked a taxi at 7:30 for a train at 7:40 and got held up because a lorry was reversing in to a loading bay and blocking the road for example.

I can't see councils wanting to get involved in matters like this though.