Taxi company cancelled wedding taxi

Wyndham

In the past it would just have ended up as a funny story to tell about the wedding at a later date. I can see it's not funny at the time, but generally something goes wrong on a wedding day because of all the things you are trying to make happen on the day. At my wedding the car with our parents in had to stop because the horn kept sounding. Did I think about suing, no, it never even entered my mind.

I'd put it down to experience and let it go. Any action you take will only add to your overall stress levels when you should be enjoying being newlyweds.

Emmia

Wyndham said:

In the past it would just have ended up as a funny story to tell about the wedding at a later date. I can see it's not funny at the time, but generally something goes wrong on a wedding day because of all the things you are trying to make happen on the day. At my wedding the car with our parents in had to stop because the horn kept sounding. Did I think about suing, no, it never even entered my mind.

I'd put it down to experience and let it go. Any action you take will only add to your overall stress levels when you should be enjoying being newlyweds.

I agree, and in some ways whatever compensation is offered / paid will never be enough. It won't erase the disruption on the day itself.

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

Alderbank said:

This sounds like a clear case where 'loss of enjoyment' would be absolutely a relevant head of claim.

I'm not so sure, the contract itself wasn't for enjoyment plus did the taxi company know it was a wedding. 

Another one for @A_Geordie  

Either way I think it's very poor but not sure what exactly what OP would be entitled to beyond any extra they paid someone else to perform the service or possibly a price reduction on the service itself, if they still used the same taxi firm in the end, due to a lack of care and skill (which isn't going to be much in the grand scheme of wedding costs). 

km1500

In my opinion the terms and conditions are absolutely relevant

The OP had a contract with the taxi company but for all we know the terms and conditions could say 'all bookings - we will do our best to honour your booking but can't guarantee we can'

In fact I suspect that is the terms of conditions of most taxi companies - in which case there was no breaking of the contract - loss of enjoyment or otherwise

Hoenir

People doing their daily jobs make mistakes. Never known anybody being perfect at their own. If all mistakes are to be monetised in this world of blame culture. Perhaps employees should reimbuse their employers out of their own pockets. Never happen though.........

sheramber

Wyndham said:

In the past it would just have ended up as a funny story to tell about the wedding at a later date. I can see it's not funny at the time, but generally something goes wrong on a wedding day because of all the things you are trying to make happen on the day. At my wedding the car with our parents in had to stop because the horn kept sounding. Did I think about suing, no, it never even entered my mind.

I'd put it down to experience and let it go. Any action you take will only add to your overall stress levels when you should be enjoying being newlyweds.

But we now have a society who consider it is always somebody’s fault and I should get compensation money. 

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head

sheramber said:

But we now have a society who consider it is always somebody’s fault and I should get compensation money. 

Hoenir said:

People doing their daily jobs make mistakes. Never known anybody being perfect at their own. If all mistakes are to be monetised in this world of blame culture. Perhaps employees should reimbuse their employers out of their own pockets. Never happen though.........

The problem with this is that it only considers one side of the contract, if the customer can cancel up until the moment their bum touches the seat in the cab then the cab company can too also as that is balanced.

However if the customer is tied in at a certain point and the taxi company isn't then that isn't balanced. 

Ultimately if you asked a friend to help you do something and they simply didn't show up because they text the wrong person to say they were busy I'm sure you'd be miffed about their lackadaisical attitude. 

km1500 said:

In my opinion the terms and conditions are absolutely relevant

The OP had a contract with the taxi company but for all we know the terms and conditions could say 'all bookings - we will do our best to honour your booking but can't guarantee we can'

In fact I suspect that is the terms of conditions of most taxi companies - in which case there was no breaking of the contract - loss of enjoyment or otherwise

In terms of not guaranteeing the service I doubt this would be viewed as fair, they could form a contract when the cab arrives but again as above that gives the consumer no obligation either.

If a company wishes to tie the consumer in then they need to accept they too are tied in. 

The terms are relevant but not due to whether they guarantee a service but rather when the parties are committed, plus possibly any circumstances which may alter the service that are required to be specifically laid out in the terms, so that the consumer can anticipate future changes at the time of entering the contract. 

The Grey List notes the following 4 types of terms which can be tested for fairness, which could all apply in one way or another if a contract had existed:

A term which has the object or effect of authorising the trader to dissolve the contract on a discretionary basis where the same facility is not granted to the consumer, or permitting the trader to retain the sums paid for services not yet supplied by the trader where it is the trader who dissolves the contract.

A term which has the object or effect of enabling the trader to terminate a contract of indeterminate duration without reasonable notice except where there are serious grounds for doing so.

A term which has the object or effect of enabling the trader to alter the terms of the contract unilaterally without a valid reason which is specified in the contract.

A term which has the object or effect of enabling the trader to alter unilaterally without a valid reason any characteristics of the goods, digital content or services to be provided.

Okell

km1500 said:

In my opinion the terms and conditions are absolutely relevant...

I don't think they can be.

In addition to the point already made by the lunatic, the Consumer Rights Act requires a service provider to exercise reasonable care and skill in the provision of the service in question.

In this case:

Covid_Vaccinator said:

Eventually, an admin member called my wife to advice that the admin who put in the booking had not updated her phone number for the 1st journey - instead, another person’s phone number was logged with the 1st (and most crucial) journey. Her number was correctly added to journey 2 and 3.

 

We were told that the taxi company had sent a reminder text message about the journey - the recipient called the taxi company and (correctly) stated they had not booked a taxi...

So in this case the taxi company linked the wrong phone number to the first journey and when they were told by that person that they had never ordered a taxi, the taxi company didn't bother to investigate it further, even though they had the correct numbers for for the second and third journeys.  That isn't reasonable care and skill.

This wasn't something outside the taxi company's control, it was a failure caused by their own negligence and their T&Cs can't exclude liability.

Okell

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Alderbank said:

This sounds like a clear case where 'loss of enjoyment' would be absolutely a relevant head of claim.

I'm not so sure, the contract itself wasn't for enjoyment plus did the taxi company know it was a wedding. 

Another one for @A_Geordie ...

I suppose if I'd been the OP or his wife I'd have made damn' sure that the taxi company knew that it was a wedding.

And in that case I'd have thought "loss of enjoyment" would factor as a foreseeable outcome if the taxi company were in breach?

Emmia

Okell said:

the_lunatic_is_in_my_head said:

Alderbank said:

This sounds like a clear case where 'loss of enjoyment' would be absolutely a relevant head of claim.

I'm not so sure, the contract itself wasn't for enjoyment plus did the taxi company know it was a wedding. 

Another one for @A_Geordie ...

I suppose if I'd been the OP or his wife I'd have made damn' sure that the taxi company knew that it was a wedding.

And in that case I'd have thought "loss of enjoyment" would factor as a foreseeable outcome if the taxi company were in breach?

But did the OP and his wife to be emphasise this at the time? Did they get a written booking confirmation with all three journeys listed with phone number(s)