"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

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.


--

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."

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:45:38 -0000, wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

[...]
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.

No, sorry, your argument fails there. The typical passenger arriving
at the HEx ticket office isn't going have a ticket - that's why
they're at the ticket office.

The rest of your argument now also fails.

[...]
--
Ross, in Lincoln, most likely being cynical or sarcastic, as ever.
Reply-to will bounce. Replace the junk-trap with my name to e-mail me.

Demonstration of poor photography at http://ross.photobook.org.uk
AD: http://www.merciacharters.co.uk for European charters gripped by me

Ross wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:45:38 -0000, wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

[...]
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.

No, sorry, your argument fails there. The typical passenger arriving
at the HEx ticket office isn't going have a ticket - that's why
they're at the ticket office.

Even at Paddington?

I'd have thought a 'typical' passenger would arrive by rail (either
'mainline' or LU), and therefore be likely to have a travelcard.

I don't have any figures though, but even if it's not 'typical', I'm
sure many people would have been in this situation and may then have
seen signs saying 'travelcards not valid', and then bought full priced
tickets on top.

I used travel to Paddington on a Z1-6 travel card, which I used daily
to get from Angel to Barnehurst. When using Heathrow (often) I would
use this card to get to Paddington and then buy a HEX. I am sure I am
not unique in this sense.

When going to Heathrow and I am paying for tickets myself (i.e. not on
business) I take the tube to Heathrow, as I planned to last weekend. I
did spot that the Picadilly line was down on my way there, and that
Z1-6 travel cards were valid on the HEX. I was annoyed, since I went to
Paddington on my Oyster pre-pay (which I had intended to go to Heathrow
with) and then bought a Z1-6 paper ticket at Paddington, so I wasted a
single on my Oyster. I thought I should have been able to use my Oyster
on the HEX given the circumstances. I don't really care about the
technicalities why this may have not been possible - from a passenger
point of view I am railroaded into using Oyster and then later
penalised for using it.

On 20 Jan 2006 00:53:19 -0800, Yorkie wrote in
. com, seen in
uk.railway:
Ross wrote:
On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 11:45:38 -0000, wrote in
, seen in uk.railway:

[...]
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.

No, sorry, your argument fails there. The typical passenger arriving
at the HEx ticket office isn't going have a ticket - that's why
they're at the ticket office.

Even at Paddington?

I'd have thought a 'typical' passenger would arrive by rail (either
'mainline' or LU), and therefore be likely to have a travelcard.

You're making the same mistake, I think.

If they're arriving at the *ticket office*, they're intending to buy a
ticket in the first place, which makes the argument being advanced
completely fallacious.

If they're arriving at the ticket barrier (if there is one) or on the
platform, then it's a different matter entirely.

[....]
--
Ross, in Lincoln, most likely being cynical or sarcastic, as ever.
Reply-to will bounce. Replace the junk-trap with my name to e-mail me.

Demonstration of poor photography at http://ross.photobook.org.uk
AD: http://www.merciacharters.co.uk for European charters occasionally gripped by me