Probably not, but I do note this is your 4th time of asking. I think I understand your concern. I also note you have stated that you intend to withdraw from the discussion 3 times previously, but here you are again. Welcome back! The point I wish to make, I suppose, is that so far as I can see most of "informed" contributors here professionally represent the interests of Rail Operators, and the obvious concern of an independent must be that they may very well be inherently prejudiced because of their association. Their intensely negative disposition hitherto may reflect that. That would be the kind interpretation, I think. But that's "suspicious" old me just spit-balling. I am, however, sympathetic to Conniff's reasoned view that rail travel is a protected syndicate. Omertà anyone? A day or two prior to starting this thread, I took the time to read other threads in the Public Transport section of the forum and found - in my jaundiced view anyway - a heavy level of "negative disposition" by many of the same contributors present here - in all the cases I scanned. Most of the threads were "fare dodgers" looking for help. I didn't see an awful lot of the syrup of human kindness being spread about - even in one cases where extenuating circumstances were obvious and, I would have thought, eminently defensible. It was more the case of plead guilty gov. Fall on your knees and whimper for forgiveness. Pilate is a kind Prefect. Etc. The over-riding sense I came away with was that this asylum had been taken over by the inmates. But I can't say that it really came as a surprise. I am a long an absent member who used to visit the forum on a daily basis back in the days of the bank charges successes -- that being prior to the predictable "political" fix being put in place by the joint banks and OFT test case to finally stem the massive outflow of money being paid to claimants by banks , who were unable to defend themselves in court due to the fear of setting a serious precedent for the future. Oddly enough, firstclassx in post No. 23 of this thread reflected the very same fears about the possibility of a successful claim re consequential damages and assured me that the government would support the TOCs. There goes democracy down the drain, eh. Anyway, to repeat: I'm not going to clearly define my strategy, but note once more that I have been informed by the debate here. Thanks for that anyway. Probably best to bring this thread to a close, I think.

Just to clarify. I have never considered SOGA the relevant legislation for this claim. But it was mentioned repeatedly by others that I thought, playfully, I would illustrate it. It's a strong consumer law. But it does not apply to my case.

Not muddled at all Conniff, but thanks for the heads up anyway. It would be too laborious too have to read the entire thread again to get the context, so I'm not going to suggest it. But there is method behind the apparent madness.

Sailor Sam and Old-CodJA, I appreciate both of your more reasoned arguments and insights. But some of the advice given during the course of the discussion has been poor and it shouldn't come as a surprise that it is received equally poorly. Under SOGA 1979, goods sold to a customer must, under the Act, be of satisfactory quality and be fit for purpose. If they are not, the customer is entitled to demand that the goods be replaced, repaired, require the retailer to reduce the price of the goods, or rescind the contract and receive a full cash refund. The choice of which of these is chosen is not the retailers to make, but the customers. And the Act allows up to 6 months, and in some cases up to 6 years, for the customer to make a lawful claim. It would, of course, be daft of me to lay out my full intentions on an open public forum, but please note I have been informed by the discussion and gained insights from this thread and for that I am grateful. SOS

"Alternative arrangements in the future" I think I see what you mean: I buy a rail ticket but instead catch a passing horse and cart as the more reliable option... And then sue the horse for breach of contract when it's feet dropped off, and be offered a voucher for future equine travel? So long as I also make alternative arrangements for the future. Like buy a rail ticket, pay the horse and cart for my carriage, but wave them both on by unused, but cunningly nab a passing Chinese Rickshaw operator, stop a travel insurance salesman who just happens to be also passing the very busy (but unstaffed) station, buy travel insurance from him, and when everything goes tits up, sue him instead ---- then visit a consumer forum to be told by the resident insurance salespeople present that my law suit doesn't have a hope in hell, I'll never get my money back, it'll cost me thousands just for pushing my hair out of my eyes, - and therefore I should just "cut my losses"? Does that sum up your advice? You still haven't read the legislation have you.

Thank you Sailor Sam. The legislation in question is not SOGA. "Goods" did not form part of the contract. What you call arrogance, I call a feisty defence in the light of the wholesale negativity, doomsaying and ingrained pessimism I have witnessed here. I continue to maintain that TOCs cannot stamp all over the law of the land. Most commentators here - whether by intent or inclination - seem to think that they can and, moreover, have the right to do so. To be honest, I had hoped for more in what was once a campaigning forum.

Thanks Honeybee13, I appreciate you doing that.

Really? How remiss of me.

That's correct, I can. And do. No disrespect to you btw. That's their problem though, isn't it. The argument you're deploying here is that a contracted service is reliant upon other - or sub-contracted - agents. However, my contract is not with the other agent/s but the principal. Ergo, their failure is FCC's de facto failure. FCC may, in turn, wish to sue Railtrack or whoever it is that was responsible. That's their choice. It's nothing to do with me. I'm more sanguine about my chances actually. My reading of the Act leads me to conclude that there is a case to answer. Alternatively, I simply bend over, smile for England, and accept a useless voucher being thrust up my fundament. I don't think so.

Sailor Sam, have you considered how many stations are now unmanned either wholly or partly? Just a passing thought.

Oh please. Is the strategy of trying to generate fear and all pervading negativity part of your job specs? I suspect that all of the TOCs also informally club together to fund selected persons to inhabit this and other forums to waylay simple, honest folk, to deter them from doing anything contrary to the interests of said TOCs. From a business perspective, it would be the smart thing to do. If it looks like a duck, smell like a duck and quacks like a duck, then probably it is a duck....

Yes, I had rather concluded that the experts were working for TOCs. It shows. As I have stated above, I have not revealed my cards for obvious reasons. It pays to be prudent in public forums. Also it is not SOGA I have said I am going to use. It is not the appropriate Act, in fact. However, I have stated earlier which Act is appropriate and why.

Good point. I'll have to reconsider this. Do Donkey Operators have unlawful TOCs? do you think?

You think it was a choice, I didn't. I haven't explored all my arguments here for obvious reasons. I'm sure you understand.

As I said above, I don't have to define it. That's for the Judge to decide.

duplicate - please delete

I appreciate all your thoughts. I'm going to consult with a Commercial Contract lawyer and see what is advised. I'm a stubborn bugger. What I do know is that traders/corporations can write anything in a contract (TOC), but if it is contrary to English law it won't stand. --- RPI, concerning your point that the train operator doesn't have to convey me "in any time scale or by any particular means", I respectfully disagree. They are bound to carry out their obligations within a "reasonable" time and in a reasonable manner. For example, they can't offer to transport me 50 miles in a pram on a Winter's day 25 years after I've bought the ticket. It is for the Judge to decide what is "reasonable" and that will judgement will largely depend on the arguments presented. The train operator is, after all, a train operator - not a donkey ride on Blackpool beach. I don't think anyone here has actually read the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982. It is quite clear and also a quite strong consumer law that follows on from the Sale of Goods Act 1979. The latter is a very virile law - but many people don't use it for various reasons. This has led to a very large degree, that traders/corporations now act in an unlawful and disgraceful manner as a matter of course - and regularly seek to deny the legal rights of their customers. If you let them.

The taxi costs covered three different journeys - the last one being KC to 02 (45 mins in busy London). The rest was expended getting to KC in the first place (3 hours). Public transport was severely congested due to the overhead lines issue. This was the big pre-Christmas event that hit the news at the time. I'm happy yo argue the need. I'm also content to proceed via the courts and already know that there is a maximum amount of several hundred pounds that I could possibly incur if the verdict goes against me. But I feel very strongly that the train operator are being smug by avoiding their responsibility to refund the cost of the ticket in cash. Again, I repeat that their TOC are subservient to the law itself. What I am hoping for is that there is a legal brain present who can provide insight and advice on how best to proceed.

Thanks everyone for your viewpoints. First Cap Connect have stated there was a "major overhead line issue" and that "Network Rail were unable to repair the damage quickly". The whole point of the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982 is, surely, to account for breaches in a contract - i.e., the TOC are subservient to this legislation? And this Act very clearly states that consequential losses can be claimed where a breach of contract has occurred. The Act also states that a contract for a service that is not rendered to a satisfactory level is actionable. Additionally, the train operator have accepted responsibility, hence the travel voucher. But the voucher is of no more use to me than a free haircut to a bald man. I simply don't use the trains. The 02 event I'm speaking about was a one-off. Am I supposed to grow hair in order to take advantage of their offer? In other words their proposed settlement offer in no way satisfies me. I am quite willing to go to court over this because put simply, I paid for a service that wasn't delivered and because of that costs were incurred. I can't see why rail operators should be treated differently to any other service provider - say the Post Office, or a Gas fitter etc., who have not provided the service they were paid for and therefore cost the contracting party to put things right. Or are you all saying that rail operators are above the law of the land? Thoughts please?

Hi, Anyone with insight on the small claims court procedure and taking a train operator to court of breach of contract would be appreciated. I bought two single tickets to London to attend an 02 concert I had booked months earlier. We set off on our journey in plenty of time to arrive at the 02, have a meal and attend the concert. After one stop, the service was suspended due to overhead wire problems. We waited and waited and eventually were told a bus was being put on to take us further down the line where trains were still running. By now time was becoming tight and I decided that waiting for the buses (during school bus times) would likely place us jeopardy to reach the 02 in time for the concert, and took a taxi to the downline station. We waited there for 30 mins with a sign indicvating that a train was due to arrive in 2 or 3 minutes. No trains arrived and the electronic signage simply rolled-over the 2 or 3 minute arrival time in every instance. I was eventually told by another passenger that this is programmed into the system (rolling over the arrival time of trains). After half an hour, an announcement came on the tannoy that all services were suspended. Now frantic, I chose to take a taxi to London King's Cross. It seemed to take for ever. We arrived at KC at 19:00 (having arrived at the original departure station at 15:30). I then jumped in another taxi for the 02 and arrived at 19:45 - after 4.25 hours of continuous journey (bar the waiting time at the various stations). We made the Concert in time. Just. The next day I wrote to Ist Capital Connect to claim a refund of my train fares (approx £50) and the taxi fares (I kept the receipts) of over £200. I also stated in that first letter that I didn't want a travel voucher but cash for the tickets. 1st Cap Connect wrote apologizing and enclosed two complimentary 1st Class tickets, not cash, and refused to pay the taxi fares as they had not agreed to them. I replied saying that I hadn't traveleed on the railways for years prior to this journey and in view of my what happened didn't intend to repeat the experience - and could I please have a cash refund for the tickets. I also noted that under the Supply of Goods and Services Act 1982, and I entitled to claim exemplary costs to put right any breach of contract I suffer. The letters have gone backwards and forwards and the latest is that they have re-offered to return the complimentary rail tickets, but not to pay in cash or cover the cost of the taxis. My only choice now is to commence small claims court action. I will do this, but would appreciate any insights and advice anyone here can provide that assist my court case. Many thanks. SoS

Good luck. Have to admit that I gave up banging my head against a wall with BT and have now finally voted with my feet. Not just telephone usage but line rental... the whole nine yards. I will never return to BT until it returns to a company that has some moral/ethical dimension returned to it. At least that Dutch wonker, Verwayeen, has been booted out of the CEO's office and is headed back to the US to indulge in his venture capitalist greediness.

Conspiratorial fool that I am, Bookworm, I don't immediately discount these sort of rumours/speculation. The world usually works out of sight and earshot where agreements are made on a nod and a wink understanding. I've seen it done more than once. It also has the aroma of a well thought out and acceptable "compromise" to sell to the public at large. Having said that I do realize that this one is speculative as it stands. Time will tell which of us is correct. Shoestring

Interesting, if proved true. For a long time now I have argued that the outcome of the case would result in a fee of approx. £12.00 per item and that this would be a smoke-filled room fix. This amount is a great deal more than it costs the banks to bounce a payment. And since it was the bank bounce cost factor that sat at the core of the case (as I understand it anyway), this would be a de facto victory for the banking sector. After-all, if it cost them 10p to bounce a payment (which is said to be the case in some quarters), and they can on-charge 15 quid, that amounts to a grand profiteering margin ratio of 150:1 (or a mark up of 13,500% my wife says ). Also factor in to the equation that this ugly greed factor is designed to be visited upon the poorest and less wealthy members of society, as they are the ones who are likely to overdraw far more frequently as they daily try to make ends meet. Conversely, it is not visited upon the wealthiest sectors of society at all. Never. Nada.

I would add the cynics viewpoint here (again, I guess), that in view of what is happening to the global banking system (Bear Stearns, Carlyle Capital Credit, Northern Rock and many others still to hit the wall), one should not be too hopeful. The government and G7 will not permit the system to fail -- and bad news is going to be heavily curbed. I would offer the perspective that this case, if it goes against the banks, would be viewed as bad news, bringing further pressure on an already fragile market. Yours in cynicism Shoestring

Write to the Complaint Review Team at BT, Durham. Explain your position, note you paid the last bill fully, ask them to explain why they are now charging you an extra amount without invoicing it and without explaining how these additional charges arose. Ask why these additional charges are not included in your next quarterly bill? Send the letter by recorded delivery, keep the receipt and keep a copy of the letter. If you eventually feel you must pay the amount demanded to get your back and functioning, tell them (in writing) that you are paying under duress. This allows you to legally fight for a full refund at a later date. Shoestring