Anti-customer behaviour by Avanti

[infobleep]

I once asked a lawyer about whether UK law was based on common sense. He said: "no, because common sense isn't all that common".

I love that quote.

 

[Starmill]

Surely common sense doesn't come into it. Either it's legal or it isn't.

Precisely. Unfortunately the phrase is very overused and has lost most of its original meaning as a result (a lot like "snowflake"). For example Jacob Rees-Mogg famously described as "common sense" the action of leaving a burning building against the advice of the fire service.

 

[urbophile]

There are too many people on here implicitly defending the indefensible; namely the disintegration of the railway network and pitting companies against each other and especially against the travelling public. It's like the insulting message frequently given on train announcements: "thank you for choosing to travel with Ripoff Rail.' If I choose to travel by train I choose to travel by the most convenient train irrespective of the name of the company. I don't choose a particular company (on most routes there is no choice anyway). We need to get back to a unified network where a train ticket is a train ticket, and the passenger's contract is with the national network not some capitalist get-rich-quick enterprise.

 

[MaidaVale]

Whereas I feel Avanti can often be a little off with how they handle situations like this, a fair share of acceptance is given on occasion. For instance yesterday, ticket acceptance was honored on Avanti as all LNWR services were cancelled at short notice between Birmingham and Northampton due to an overhead line issue.

 

[infobleep]

Whereas I feel Avanti can often be a little off with how they handle situations like this, a fair share of acceptance is given on occasion. For instance yesterday, ticket acceptance was honored on Avanti as all LNWR services were cancelled at short notice between Birmingham and Northampton due to an overhead line issue.

Do fewer people travel on a Tuesday and is that why acceptance was given? Were trains less than ⅔ full for example.

 

[MaidaVale]

Do fewer people travel on a Tuesday and is that why acceptance was given? Were trains less than ⅔ full for example.

It was peak hours on a monday morning, trains were absolutely rammed

 

[35B]

It’s all rather ambiguous (“will” versus “must”) and I suppose could reasonably be read as a general statement that TOCs will generally assist where they can. It’s by no means clear this even gives rise to an enforceable contractual obligation, and indeed the NRCoT seems to make expressly clear that the contract in question is with the operators upon whose services the tickets are valid. I think we will have to agree to disagree.

Where drafting contracts, I find that "will" or "shall" have the same force as "must" - they introduce obligations. If, on the other hand, the wording were "should" or "may", then there would be ambiguity.