"d" wrote in message
. ..
"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
d wrote in
:

However displaying posters/signs that contradict information that
TfL has provided is very different. That's not just witholding
information. It's lying. It leaves passengers wondering who to
believe: TfL who say that their tickets are being accepted on HEx
trains or HEx who say that travel cards are not being accepted.

They're not lying. They have those signs anyway. And I doubt they
can be held legally responsible for the content of those signs,
especially when HEx are doing TfL and the public a massive favour.

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.


Surely it is unlawful for a company to post signs which say "we do not
accept our competitor's tickets" when that is not actually the case and
when the competitor has negotiated an agreement that their tickets *will*
be affected. .

I think the only problems would arise should a HEx ticket inspector give a
TfL travelcard holder a penalty fine, or forced them to buy a HEx ticket.
Up until then, they're not breaking any laws.

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

Given that the signs are normally displayed and quite correctly say that
travelcards are not normally accepted, it's probably a sin of omission:
they have forgotten to cover them up during the temporary period that
travelcards are accepted.

I would like to think so, but am prepared to believe the contrary

No, as the signs are information signs only. The actual people on the
service (ie the guy with the ticket machine on the train) can not legally
challenge TfL travel card holders.

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

Roger C

In message
Chris Tolley wrote:

Graeme Wall wrote:

More like the Town Car then?

The horrible spectre of a fourteen quid three minute ride in a PPM is
looking...


Paddington - Heathow in three minutes on flywheels would be something to see.
Preferably from a distance.

--
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.

Based on one of those daft newspaper articles about the bloke who won the
first triple rollover jackpot on the lottery which was 16 million. Amongst
the things you could buy with that amount of money was the GEX franchise.

--
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
Chris Tolley wrote:

Martin Underwood wrote:

What a mess our rail system has become: some stations owned/operated by
TOCs, some owned by Network Rail; some services operated by TOCs, some
operated by companies that are not TOCs.

Ain't it the truth.

Maybe I'm biassed because I can remember a time when the railways were
operated as a single entity with joined-up thinking!

And summers were warmer, too... I don't think it was ever the single
entity, but at least all parts realised that they were supposed to be
working together, and the differences between the entities (let's call
them regions) didn't actually bother the customers.

Providing you weren't trying to use, say, the Salisbury - Exeter line after
it was transferred to a rival comp^^^^ region. The Good Old Days� were never
that good I'm afraid.

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

"Chris Tolley" wrote in message
...
d wrote:
"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
By failing to remove those signs, they are making people pay extra
for something that they don't need to and thus laying themselves
open to accusations (in this thread) of ripping off passengers.

No, as the signs are information signs only.

Why are you content that these signs misinform in these circumstances?

Because signs are often wrong. 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.

--
http://gallery120232.fotopic.net/p13309736.html
(08 647 at Birmingham New Street, May 1979)

"Roger" wrote in message
...

"d" wrote in message
. ..
"Martin Underwood" wrote in message
...
d wrote in
:

However displaying posters/signs that contradict information that
TfL has provided is very different. That's not just witholding
information. It's lying. It leaves passengers wondering who to
believe: TfL who say that their tickets are being accepted on HEx
trains or HEx who say that travel cards are not being accepted.

They're not lying. They have those signs anyway. And I doubt they
can be held legally responsible for the content of those signs,
especially when HEx are doing TfL and the public a massive favour.

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. The ticket inspector isn't going to look at that
sign for whether he should accept TfL cards or not, is he? He's told in the
morning "you can accept TfL tickets", and goes from there. I can appreciate
the sign is wrong, I just don't think it's that important. Especially as
TfL have instructed you that you CAN use their tickets on HEx.


Surely it is unlawful for a company to post signs which say "we do not
accept our competitor's tickets" when that is not actually the case and
when the competitor has negotiated an agreement that their tickets
*will* be affected. .

I think the only problems would arise should a HEx ticket inspector give
a TfL travelcard holder a penalty fine, or forced them to buy a HEx
ticket. Up until then, they're not breaking any laws.

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.

Given that the signs are normally displayed and quite correctly say that
travelcards are not normally accepted, it's probably a sin of omission:
they have forgotten to cover them up during the temporary period that
travelcards are accepted.

I would like to think so, but am prepared to believe the contrary

No, as the signs are information signs only. The actual people on the
service (ie the guy with the ticket machine on the train) can not legally
challenge TfL travel card holders.

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.

Roger C

In message , Graeme Wall
writes
In message
"d" wrote:

[snip]

The HEx is essentially a shuttle service. I don't think it's really
comparable to, say, Silverlink or First Great Western...



More like the Town Car then?

I'll be on that later today! I'll look out for the laptop charging
points, reading lights, branded headrests and magazines.......
--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

In message , Chris Tolley
writes
Ian Jelf wrote:
In message , Ian F.

Of course, dropping the "road" changes things considerably. "Essex
Road" becomes "Essex", which is an entirely different kettle of fish

I know why visitors from the US do it; as pointed out elsewhere, they
do it at home. But it really annoys me because of the confusion it
causes. When in Rome.......

And you think that telling American visitors to London to behave as if
they are in Rome will lessen the confusion ... g

Do you know, as I wrote that I *wondered* if anyone would pick up on it
and perhaps I should have employed a different phrase! :-))

--
Ian Jelf, MITG
Birmingham, UK

Registered Blue Badge Tourist Guide for London and the Heart of England
http://www.bluebadge.demon.co.uk

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.

--
Paul Terry

Jack Taylor wrote:
wrote:

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

It is a train operating company (a company that runs additional
trains on the national network). It is not a Train Operating Company
(a company that has bought the franchise to operate a specified set
of services within a geographical area, according to DfT minimum
service requirements), the successors to the BR Train Operating Units.

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.

--