Page 2 of 2
| Missed last bus 20/03/2011 at 19:29 #14132 | |
Peter Bennet
5362 posts 
|
GeoffM said:ralphjwchadkirk said:The legal document appears to be the National Conditions of Carriage which represents the industry's minimum contractual terms. TOCs are free to make their own conditions which must not be less than the minimum.GeoffM said:Let me explain the difference here. The powers-that-be set down a minimum standard that TOCs must adhere to in order to fulfil their legal (if that's the right word) obligations. But most, if not all, TOCs go above and beyond that minimum standard and thus provide a morally better than minimum standard. Whether that's soft drinks during delays or soft furnishings on their trains, that's their choice. In my case they choose not to assist delayed passengers regardless of consequeential lostt - again, that's their choice. Not a morally good choice, but they fulfil their legal obligations so they're happy.They're in the legal right, but not the moral right. If enough customers complained then perhaps they might consider differently. Peter I identify as half man half biscuit - crumbs! Log in to reply |
| Missed last bus 21/03/2011 at 08:27 #14141 | |
Neil
23 posts |
From the Telegraph today http://tinyurl.com/4j7qsuq http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/road-and-rail-transport/8393927/Train-firms-hire-300-delay-attribution-officers-to-avoid-paying-compensation.html "Train companies are employing hundreds of staff whose only job is to find excuses not to pay delay compensation to commuters." Regards, Neil Log in to reply |
| Missed last bus 21/03/2011 at 13:40 #14145 | |
postal
5190 posts |
Neil said:From the Telegraph todayFinger in the air figure of £20k pa to employ someone (wages, national insurance, accommodation etc). As the TOCS are legally required to pay compensation under defined circumstances, then these "hundreds of staff" must be saving at least £20k each per year by reviewing claims and refuting those which are not legally enforceable (otherwise they would be costing more than they are saving and their jobs would go). Of course, it is then a TOC management decision whether a goodwill payment should be made, but if a passenger wishes to make a claim to which they are not legally entitled, I think it is quite legitimate for a TOC to review and if necessary decline that claim. Whether the claim has any moral rather than legal standing is another matter altogether. In considering the article, it should also be remembered that it is not reasonable to expect a newspaper which draws a significant part of its constituency from the commuting classes (who travel at less cost per mile than the rest of us in any event) to take a balanced view. “In life, there is always someone out there, who won’t like you, for whatever reason, don’t let the insecurities in their lives affect yours.” – Rashida Rowe Log in to reply |
| Missed last bus 21/03/2011 at 16:14 #14154 | |
|
mfcooper
707 posts |
Delay Attributors are there to figure out the cause of a delay to make sure the delay fines are sent to/from the right place. NR pay the TOC/FOC if it is their fault, and the TOC/FOC pay NR if it is theirs. The attributor's job has no dealings with passengers.
Log in to reply |