I Got Banged In The Arse By SW Trains For £32

[2hats]

That is complete gibberish tbh.

That sounds like a fair description of much of the fare pricing structure and regulations of the privatised remnants of the UK railway network to me.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Obviously if everyone travelling from B to C knew they could buy a cheaper A to C ticket, no one would buy the more expensive B to C tickets. Cheaper A to C tickets would no longer be viable.

Err... what? Still makes literally no sense.

 

[twentythreedom]

Yes, bungle, you're cock, we get it.

I'd like to piss on your lunch and take a dump in your hat tbh

 

[Lo Siento.]

Then buy a normal ticket.

Or, you know, the train company could be reasonable in its application of the rules.

 

[JTG]

It is rocket engineering it is not a science.

This is Rocket engineering:

 

[TodayIsCaturday]

Please justify why it should be cheaper to travel from A to C than A to B? Please explain the logic in this for a simple person.

Perhaps no one wants to travel to B at a certain time, so the train is empty from A to B. Plenty of people want to travel from B to C however. The only way to fill up the A to B bit is to sell cheap A to C tickets.

 

[mauvais]

http://www.passengerfocus.org.uk/fa...en-if-i-am-on-a-train-without-a-valid-ticket#

Breach of the byelaws or NRCoC is a civil matter, not criminal. Thus, it is not illegal.

 

[Bungle73]

Or, you know, the train company could be reasonable in its application of the rules.

Except that the OP didn't buy his ticket from train company, he bought it from Megatrain, who can only offer the deals they do by applying certain restrictions.

 

[MrSki]

Perhaps no one wants to travel to B at a certain time, so the train is empty from A to B. Plenty of people want to travel from B to C however. The only way to fill up the A to B bit is to sell cheap A to C tickets.

So travelling further should cost you less? What sort of shit is that?

 

[Bungle73]

Breach of the byelaws or NRCoC is a civil matter, not criminal. Thus, it is not illegal.

Um, you can't be prosecuted, nor go be sent to prison, nor fined for civil matter. The Regulation of Railways Act 1889, s.5 (3) makes it an offence

 

[TodayIsCaturday]

So travelling further should cost you less? What sort of shit is that?

Wasn't my one-sentence explanation clear?

Maybe the rationale for these cheap tickets is beyond the ken of most people and they should just abolish them.

 

[MrSki]

Except that the OP didn't buy his ticket from train company, he bought it from Megatrain, who can only offer the deals they do by applying certain restrictions.

Which are surely done with the agreement of the train company? Who act on behalf of MT on their trains? In law MT are acting as an agent of the train company.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Except that the OP didn't buy his ticket from train company, he bought it from Megatrain, who can only offer the deals they do by applying certain restrictions.

Do you seriously not think there is anything even the slightest bit jobsworthyish about charging someone for a whole new ticket because they have "underused" their ticket? Like, you don't think the train guard could've shown a tiny bit of sympathy and just let it go?

 

[MrSki]

Wasn't my one-sentence explanation clear?

Maybe the rationale for these cheap tickets is beyond the ken of most people and they should just abolish them.

At fucking last!!! They are a piss take on the travelling public. They defy all logic.

 

[mauvais]

Again, I ask, what are the monetary damages here? He breaches the contract, no doubt about it, but you'll have to explain to me what monetary figure is lost by the TOC, and why this breach should free them of their obligations to complete his journey.

 

[Bungle73]

Do you seriously not think there is anything even the slightest bit jobsworthyish about charging someone for a whole new ticket because they have "underused" their ticket? Like, you don't think the train guard could've shown a tiny bit of sympathy and just let it go?

Sympathy? Why? The T&Cs of MT T&Cs are very, very simple. One of those is that you must travel between the stations you booked. He thought he could get away with it and is now sore because he got caught out.

 

[MrSki]

Do you seriously not think there is anything even the slightest bit jobsworthyish about charging someone for a whole new ticket because they have "underused" their ticket? Like, you don't think the train guard could've shown a tiny bit of sympathy and just let it go?

If you bought a ticket to a gig that entitled you to two free drinks but you only drank one then you should be taken outside and shot for not fulfilling your contract.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You, sir, are a prat.

Huh, she's not even a "sir", you prannet.

 

[ViolentPanda]

you're being a right twat on this thread, and complete apologist for nonsense T&Cs that only exist to enable this sort of bullshit methods of extracting extra revenue to people who've already paid for the journey.

What difference does it make to the train company if a person decides to take a slightly shorter journey than they'd originally planned, using the same train, but just getting on one stop later into the journey?

The ticket should be valid, this should be an illegal t&c under consumer law, as that particular t&c would seem to be unreasonable.

He's a right twat on most threads.

 

[mauvais]

Um, you can't be prosecuted, nor go be sent to prison, nor fined for civil matter. The Regulation of Railways Act 1889, s.5 (3) makes it an offence

For what is essentially fraud/theft, not merely having the wrong ticket. Good luck with that in this case. All other punitive measures are civil - unpaid fare notices, penalty fares, etc.

 

[Bungle73]

He's a right twat on most threads.

You again. Only a complete cretin would hold a grudge for as long as you have, and all over nothing at all.

 

[TodayIsCaturday]

Again, I ask, what are the monetary damages here? He breaches the contract, no doubt about it, but you'll have to explain to me what monetary figure is lost by the TOC, and why this breach should free them of their obligations to complete his journey.

The difference between the price of his ticket and the price of a ticket that permits alighting at the correct station.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Madam.

Seriously though, do you never stop and read things back? You'd realise what a puffed up petty bureaucrat you sound.

He posts on forums where ticket inspectors post. On a thread about fare-dodging, he even threatened to tell his "friends" about the evil Urbanite law-breakers. That's how much of a mug cunt he is!

 

[MrSki]

The difference between the price of his ticket and the price of a ticket that permits alighting at the correct station.

Again please justify why is should cost more to travel a shorter distance. Explain the logic to your listening public.

 

[mauvais]

The difference between the price of his ticket and the price of a ticket that permits alighting at the correct station.

That's not damages.

 

[Lo Siento.]

Sympathy? Why? The T&Cs of MT T&Cs are very, very simple. One of those is that you must travel between the stations you booked. He thought he could get away with it and is now sore because he got caught out.

I dunno, basic human sympathy for other people trying to save a bit of money because train travel is expensive and times are hard, who have made the not unreasonable assumption that no one could object to them leaving their seat free for other patrons between Weymouth and Dorchester (at no expense to anyone)?

 

[MrSki]

He posts on forums where ticket inspectors post. On a thread about fare-dodging, he even threatened to tell his "friends" about the evil Urbanite law-breakers. That's how much of a mug cunt he is!

Ticket inspector? I thought it was "Senior Guard" like they give a fuck about anything on the train except extracting fares.

 

[mauvais]

IF anyone wants a faintly related laugh, have a look at this parking case.

http://nebula.wsimg.com/53e672581a8...8F2392A09CF228A46&disposition=0&alloworigin=1 (PDF warning)

This is a snippet:

Deputy District Judge Melville-Shreeve: Now let’s move on to the penalty charge point. Some of the Courts have found that, that varying amounts of money are penalties rather than a contractually agreed sum. It seems to me you have, in this case you have a particularly hard problem because the deal that you’re offering people is free parking. There is no, there is no suggestion of any charge for any parking.

So if your, your car park was perfectly managed it would be simply full of people who never paid a penny, either to ParkingEye or to the land owner, or to anybody else, it would be a car park without payment, a car park without profit, a car park without money.

So, there’s no question, for example, of this lady, when she gets into her fifth hour, of blocking off a place that a paying customer was dying to get into, because there are no paying customers, so even if she stayed there for 40 years the consequences to ParkingEye would be of no financial significance, because she’s never going to have to pay.

So how do you say this £85 could possibly be justified as a payment? I, I’ve read your principals’ evidence about this, but they don’t seem to address the problem of the fact that the car park ordinarily wouldn’t attract any payment.

 

[ViolentPanda]

You again. Only a complete cretin would hold a grudge for as long as you have, and all over nothing at all.

It's not a grudge, it's a dislike of cunts. I don't like cunts, and you're a cunt - a bitter, wizened, scrotum-featured, miserable two-bob cunt, with less right to be alive than a gonorrhea bacterium.

 

[ViolentPanda]

Ticket inspector? I thought it was "Senior Guard" like they give a fuck about anything on the train except extracting fares.

The OP used the term "ticket inspector"..