On Thu, 08 Jun 2006 19:23:43 +0100, Paul Corfield
wrote:

On Wed, 7 Jun 2006 23:39:29 +0100, "María"
wrote:

Extract from letter to FCC re the above:

"I am writing to you because I believe FCC owes me some compensation for
delays to your services on 21 and 27 April.
I put in two claim forms on 27 April at my home station of St Albans. I also
e-mailed you about the delay on the same date.
On 17 May I received a letter from you stating that you are "unable to
compensate" me under the FCC Delay Repay Scheme. This may be strictly
speaking correct, but surely you can compensate me under some other scheme?
A scheme set up by yourselves for your customers who are still Thameslink
ticket holders, for example?
"

You cannot expect FCC to recognise your inappropriate interpolation of
the TUPE legislation from employee rights to those relating to a ticket
refund scheme. The two issues have no relationship.

The only grounds you would have is whether the FCC franchise agreement
obliges FCC to honour any arrangement that applied under the GoVia
franchise in respect of ticket refunds for poor performance. I would
not expect a new franchisee to agree to be bound by the previous
operator's commercial parameters as the new franchise is almost
certainly put together on a different basis with different performance
levels. I also strongly doubt that the contract between you and FCC in
respect of your ticket would afford you any rights to compensation -
either on the GoVia or FCC terms.

On the contrary, I would expect that the franchise requires FCC is
required to honour all season tickets issued by Thameslink and the
related conditions. Otherwise it woulde have been fraudulent for
Thameslink to sell any seasons lasting beyond the end of the
franchise.

Good luck in your complaint but I'd be amazed if you get anywhere.

FCc response in the local press seems to suggest that these rejections
were an aberration and so the complaint may succeed.

--
Peter Lawrence