"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...
In message , d
writes

Just like you can have a price in a shop window that doesn't represent the
price of the goods inside - it's not great for customers, but it's not
illegal.

It is an offence under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to indicate a
price for goods or services which is lower than the one that actually
applies.

Only if you put that price on the actual item for sale (as in not a sign in
the window). Having that on a sign is merely an invitation to purchase, not
the terms of the actual deal that would take place. Otherwise people
displaying ex-vat prices but selling to both vat-registered and
non-vat-registered alike would be in a whole heap of trouble. I would have
thought it was illegal too, but apparently it isn't.

--
Paul Terry

wrote:

And does the average passenger know or care whether a train is
"franchised" or "additional"? Of course not. It's a train. There's
probably a company somwhere that operates it. That's all that matters
to us. The rest is just silly red tape behind the scenes somewhere.
The fact that this comapny signed form A while that company signed
from B shouldn't be important to us.

Well blame British Rail for the daft terminology. Many people said at the
time that renaming Train Operating Units (of BR) into Train Operating
Companies would cause confusion. The problem now is there is a specific
legal distinction between a toc and a TOC.

d wrote:

Can't see how they are not telling pokies on the days in quest ion.
The infoirmation on the sign is wrong - end of story.

But it's not important.

Of course it's important. It's important to any passenger who reads the
sign, believes what it says, and ends up either getting a slow bus into
London or buying a HEX ticket despite already having a valid Travelcard.

The ticket inspector isn't going to look at
that sign for whether he should accept TfL cards or not, is he?

Who mentioned ticket inspectors? They've got nothing to do with it. The
sign is there for the passengers, not the ticket inspectors. And it's
giving wrong information to the passengers. Are you saying that's a good
thing?


I think they may be in breach of the laws governing advertising and
sales. The Trades Description Act may have a bearing.

Nope. Unfortunately it doesn't. If the ticket inspector said that,
then yes, but a sign - nope.

Are you sure? Can you quote the relevant section of the Trades
Descriptions Act? I'd love to know where it mentions that ticket
inspectors are the only legal source of information about ticket
validity. Especially since you shouldn't normally see a ticket inspector
until AFTER you've bought a ticket.


Which all goes to confirm that the HEX have misled the public. The
signs may be for information but they have to be accurate.

They should be accurate, but they don't legally have to be. There is
no law demanding 100% accurate signage.


The s15(4) Theft Act 1968 defines the Criminal Deception as, "any
deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by words or conduct as to
fact or as to law, including a deception as to the present intentions of
the person using the deception or any other person." IANAL but I think
this might qualify.

--

wrote in message
...
d wrote:

Can't see how they are not telling pokies on the days in quest ion.
The infoirmation on the sign is wrong - end of story.

But it's not important.

Of course it's important. It's important to any passenger who reads the
sign, believes what it says, and ends up either getting a slow bus into
London or buying a HEX ticket despite already having a valid Travelcard.

But TfL would have told the customers that their cards are valid. That's
the important part.

The ticket inspector isn't going to look at
that sign for whether he should accept TfL cards or not, is he?

Who mentioned ticket inspectors? They've got nothing to do with it. The
sign is there for the passengers, not the ticket inspectors. And it's
giving wrong information to the passengers. Are you saying that's a good
thing?

Ticket inspectors have everything to do with it, as they are the people who
would charge TfL card-carriers if they didn't know the rules.


I think they may be in breach of the laws governing advertising and
sales. The Trades Description Act may have a bearing.

Nope. Unfortunately it doesn't. If the ticket inspector said that,
then yes, but a sign - nope.

Are you sure? Can you quote the relevant section of the Trades
Descriptions Act? I'd love to know where it mentions that ticket
inspectors are the only legal source of information about ticket
validity. Especially since you shouldn't normally see a ticket inspector
until AFTER you've bought a ticket.

The ticket inspectors are the people who would tell you whether your ticket
is valid or not. They are the agents of the company, they are the people
executing company policy, not the sign.


Which all goes to confirm that the HEX have misled the public. The
signs may be for information but they have to be accurate.

They should be accurate, but they don't legally have to be. There is
no law demanding 100% accurate signage.


The s15(4) Theft Act 1968 defines the Criminal Deception as, "any
deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by words or conduct as to
fact or as to law, including a deception as to the present intentions of
the person using the deception or any other person." IANAL but I think
this might qualify.

IANAL but I don't think it qualifies at all. Fair enough if the ticket
inspector said "No, sorry, your TfL travel card is not valid, I'm going to
ask you to buy a HEx ticket or leave". As, after all, the sign isn't
forcing anyone to do anything. The ticket inspectors do that.


--

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 22:47:35 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
wrote:

Graeme Wall wrote:

There isn't a TOC which runs the HEX service. HEX is operated by HEX
for the BAA.


So you're saying that HEX is a company that operates trains, but it's
not a train operating company...?


It's a train operating company but not a Train Operating Company, the
capitalisation is important.

And this "is not splitting hairs"?

I boggle.

--
James Farrar
. @gmail.com

d wrote:
wrote in message
...
d wrote:

Can't see how they are not telling pokies on the days in quest ion.
The infoirmation on the sign is wrong - end of story.

But it's not important.

Of course it's important. It's important to any passenger who reads
the sign, believes what it says, and ends up either getting a slow
bus into London or buying a HEX ticket despite already having a
valid Travelcard.

But TfL would have told the customers that their cards are valid.
That's the important part.


And when they've seen the HEX signs, do you really expect the passengers
to carry their heavy suitcases all the way back to the TfL ticket office
just to confirm this? You're living in a fantasy land...

Who mentioned ticket inspectors? They've got nothing to do with it.
The sign is there for the passengers, not the ticket inspectors. And
it's giving wrong information to the passengers. Are you saying
that's a good thing?

Ticket inspectors have everything to do with it, as they are the
people who would charge TfL card-carriers if they didn't know the
rules.

But passengers don't see the ticket inspectors until AFTER buying the
tickets.

A typical sequence of events might go something like this:

1. A passenger arrives at HEX ticket office.

2. The passenger sees the sign saying travelcards aren't valid.

3. Despite having a travelcard, the passenger buys a HEX ticket anyway.

4. Now the passenger leaves the ticket office and starts heading towards
the platforms.

5. The passenger sees a ticket inspector either at the platform entrance
or on the train.

6. The passenger shows the HEX ticket to the inspector. The passenger
doesn't show the travelcard because that "isn't valid".

7. The inspector never sees the travelcard so never tells the passenger
that it is valid after all.

You see, ticket inspectors have nothing to do with it. I don't know why
you keep dragging them in except maybe as a straw man.

I think they may be in breach of the laws governing advertising and
sales. The Trades Description Act may have a bearing.

Nope. Unfortunately it doesn't. If the ticket inspector said that,
then yes, but a sign - nope.

Are you sure? Can you quote the relevant section of the Trades
Descriptions Act? I'd love to know where it mentions that ticket
inspectors are the only legal source of information about ticket
validity. Especially since you shouldn't normally see a ticket
inspector until AFTER you've bought a ticket.

The ticket inspectors are the people who would tell you whether your
ticket is valid or not. They are the agents of the company, they are
the people executing company policy, not the sign.


You haven't answered my question. Can you quote the relevant section of
the Trades Descriptions Act?

Besides, as you've just admitted: The ticket inspectors tell you whether
your ticket is valid or not. They don't sell you your ticket in the
first place. By the time you see a ticket inspector, it's too late.

They should be accurate, but they don't legally have to be. There
is no law demanding 100% accurate signage.

The s15(4) Theft Act 1968 defines the Criminal Deception as,

Oops. Typo. I should have said "S 15(4) of the Theft Act 1968".
Sorry.

"any
deception (whether deliberate or reckless) by words or conduct as to
fact or as to law, including a deception as to the present
intentions of the person using the deception or any other person."
IANAL but I think this might qualify.

IANAL but I don't think it qualifies at all. Fair enough if the
ticket inspector said "No, sorry, your TfL travel card is not valid,
I'm going to ask you to buy a HEx ticket or leave". As, after all,
the sign isn't forcing anyone to do anything. The ticket inspectors
do that.


Where does that law mention "forcing anyone to do anything"? Hint: It
doesn't. It mentions "any deception...by words or conduct". Got that?
ANY deception, and there's no small print saying "It doesn't count if
you write the words on a sign."

In message , d
writes

"Paul Terry" wrote in message
...

It is an offence under the Consumer Protection Act 1987 to indicate a
price for goods or services which is lower than the one that actually
applies.

Only if you put that price on the actual item for sale (as in not a sign in
the window).

If the item in the window is one that can be removed and sold to
customers, it falls under the terms of the Act, as clarified in the
Price Marking Order 1999 (the result of an EC directive).

Having that on a sign is merely an invitation to purchase, not
the terms of the actual deal that would take place.

If the item in the window is not for sale, then it is classed as an
advertisement, and there is no requirement to display a price.

Otherwise people displaying ex-vat prices but selling to both
vat-registered and non-vat-registered alike would be in a whole heap of
trouble.

Such retailers must either "display VAT inclusive prices with equal
prominence" or "display prominent statements that the quoted prices
exclude VAT and state the appropriate rate".

However, this is getting somewhat off the point - I doubt that HEX's
signs could be described as misleading under the terms of the CPA or
related pricing orders.

--
Paul Terry

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...


It's a train operating company but not a Train Operating Company, the
capitalisation is important.

How much capital do you have to have?


For Gatwick Express I believe it was 15 million quid originally.

It was a word-play on 'capitalisation', but thanks for the information
anyway. ;-)

Ian

In message
James Farrar wrote:

On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 22:47:35 +0000, Graeme Wall
wrote:

In message
wrote:

Graeme Wall wrote:

There isn't a TOC which runs the HEX service. HEX is operated by HEX
for the BAA.


So you're saying that HEX is a company that operates trains, but it's
not a train operating company...?


It's a train operating company but not a Train Operating Company, the
capitalisation is important.

And this "is not splitting hairs"?

No, it is a legal distinction.


I boggle.


Please don't make a noise doing it, this is the quiet coach

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html

In message
"Ian F." wrote:

"Graeme Wall" wrote in message
...


It's a train operating company but not a Train Operating Company, the
capitalisation is important.

How much capital do you have to have?


For Gatwick Express I believe it was 15 million quid originally.

It was a word-play on 'capitalisation', but thanks for the information
anyway. ;-)


I know, I just remembered that useless bit of information so went along with
the gag.

--
Graeme Wall
This address is not read, substitute trains for rail.
Transport Miscellany at http://www.greywall.demon.co.uk/rail/index.html