"Clive"  wrote in message 
news:uPOdnTlrcbfqYMnVnZ2dnUVZ8uWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> This should be a simple one to answer for most of you legal experts, so 
> here goes:-
>
> Where I live is served by only one bus route and I am totally reliant on 
> the last bus (23:50) for getting home. This bus is normally very reliable 
> but on ocasions it has failed to run and I have had to take a Taxi home. 
> The bus fare is £1.50 but the Taxi fare is £4.50 for the same journey. I 
> am always at the stop a good five to ten mins before the bus is due.
>
> All the busses are tracked by GPS and have CCTV so it is an easy matter to 
> prove that the bus either did not run or was running early.
>
> Am I able to claim my Taxi fare back (or even the difference between the 
> bus fare and Taxi fare)?
>
> Thanks,
>
> Clive

No, because they are not obliged to run that bus, or indeed any
service at 
all. The only way you could claim your money back is for breach of
statutory 
duty (which they don't have) or breach of contract  (and you don't
have a 
general contract with them, only separate ones for each journey you
actually 
make).

In news:388a54dv7npvo6m6a00v98hpffnbqb1ncm@4ax.com,
Alasdair  typed, for some strange, unexplained 
reason:
: "Clive"  wrote in message
: news:uPOdnTlrcbfqYMnVnZ2dnUVZ8uWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
: > This should be a simple one to answer for most of you legal
: > experts, so here goes:-

[snip]

: > Am I able to claim my Taxi fare back (or even the difference
: > between the bus fare and Taxi fare)?
:
: No, because they are not obliged to run that bus, or indeed any
: service at all.

Unless, perhaps, it's a council contracted service.

Ivor

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 16:40:18 +0100, "Ivor Jones"
<ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote:

>: No, because they are not obliged to run that bus, or indeed any
>: service at all.
>
>Unless, perhaps, it's a council contracted service.
>
>Ivor

From the Southampton Echo Newspaper.

Bus companies face hefty fines

By Southampton Echo Reporter


TWO bus companies could face fines totalling hundreds of thousands of
pounds after almost one in seven of their services in Hampshire were
late or unreliable.
A survey found 11.3 per cent of Solent Blue Line buses, 18.3 per cent
of its rebranded Marchwood Motorways buses and 13.4 per cent of First
buses turned up early, arrived too late or failed to show up.
The companies were hauled before a public inquiry and could face
respective fines of up to £90,000 and £229,000.
Managers blamed high volumes of traffic, roadworks, illegally parked
cars, sick drivers, and even slow passengers as "reasonable excuses"
for some of the punctuality problems.
Checks carried out by the Vehicle and Operator Services Agency between
July and November last year found 100 out of 713 Solent Blue Line
journeys failed to meet required targets, while 121 of First's 903
journeys were below standard.
Solent Blue Line bosses said council roadworks along Millbrook Road
and around Redbridge, and heavy freight lorries, had caused unforeseen
"critical delays".
Poorly parked cars, pedestrians "unpredictably" using a crossing at
Portswood Road and St Deny's Road, were said to be responsible for
further delays.
Solent Blue Line operations director Andrew Wickham explained that the
£3million acquisition in October 2006 of debt-laden Marchwood
Motorways by Solent Blue Line's parent company Go Ahead had led to
problems.
Outgoing owner and boss Peter Osborne retired leaving a management
team that "wasn't up to the task", Mr Wickham said, and it took time
for replacements to turn things around.
Managing director of First, Richard Soper, said: "South-ampton's roads
are running at near-full capacity. It only takes the smallest thing to
go wrong and the whole system breaks down."
Solent Blue Line runs 71 buses while its Marchwood operation runs 17
buses alongside 26 coaches, while First Bus has 373 buses, 127 of
which operate in Southampton.
The inquiry was welcomed by Southampton Pensioners' Forum, which
represents the majority of the services' users.
Spokesman John Nixon said: "There have been problems with buses in
Southampton for some time now so I welcome this inquiry.
"Pensioners rely on buses to get around and something has to be done
to make sure services are up to scratch."
9:27am Saturday 24th May 2008


--
Alasdair.

On 15 Jun, 20:11, Alasdair  wrote:
>
> From the Southampton Echo Newspaper.
>
.
> A survey found 11.3 per cent of Solent Blue Line buses, 18.3 per cent
> of its rebranded Marchwood Motorways buses and 13.4 per cent of First
> buses turned up early, arrived too late or failed to show up.

> Managers blamed high volumes of traffic, roadworks, illegally parked
> cars, sick drivers, and even slow passengers as "reasonable excuses"
> for some of the punctuality problems.

But none of these can account for early running! I can understand that
busses are sometimes late. There is no excuse for them sweeping past
several minutes early.

J.

"Jon"  wrote in message 
news:5c9de840-df3d-4086-a256-9a09ddb777b8@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> On 15 Jun, 20:11, Alasdair  wrote:
>>
>> From the Southampton Echo Newspaper.
>>
> .
>> A survey found 11.3 per cent of Solent Blue Line buses, 18.3 per cent
>> of its rebranded Marchwood Motorways buses and 13.4 per cent of First
>> buses turned up early, arrived too late or failed to show up.
>
>> Managers blamed high volumes of traffic, roadworks, illegally parked
>> cars, sick drivers, and even slow passengers as "reasonable excuses"
>> for some of the punctuality problems.
>
> But none of these can account for early running! I can understand that
> busses are sometimes late. There is no excuse for them sweeping past
> several minutes early.
>
> J.
You are quite right.  There are a thousand excuses for being late, none for 
being early.

BTW - I am a Solent Blueline driver... and I would go along with "roadworks 
causing late running, together with perverse phasing of traffic lights, and 
congestion" - the latter often due to car drivers who seem to be unable to 
consider either what goes on two feet in front of their bonnet or, indeed, 
anywhere around them - they seem to adopt the attitude that if they can't 
make any progress, they are going to make sure the bus isn't going to 
either. Even if it IS trying to go somewhere else.

Optimistic timetabling does not help, either - but realistic timetabling 
might frighten potential passengers away!

Of course, particular buses do not run *at all*  for a variety of reasons - 
breakdown; lack of driver; and incident causing delay;  or general heavy 
traffic causing delay; meaning a bus may have to miss a section of journey 
out in order to be put in the correct place at the correct time. (No point 
in running a particular service if the bus behind you has already covered 
the route).

Early buses from the yard may be subject to delay when faults are found on 
the vehicle during the drivers safety inspection at the start of the day - 
these have to be rectified or an alternative vehicle found (which may not 
always be possible, the start of the day is when the Peak Vehicle 
Requirement is needed....)

HTH ..... and it never fails to amaze me however, just how much many 
non-bus-people know about running a 100% reliable bus operation...

Alasdair wrote:
> "Clive"  wrote in message 
> news:uPOdnTlrcbfqYMnVnZ2dnUVZ8uWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> This should be a simple one to answer for most of you legal experts, so 
>> here goes:-
>>
>> Where I live is served by only one bus route and I am totally reliant on 
>> the last bus (23:50) for getting home. This bus is normally very reliable 
>> but on ocasions it has failed to run and I have had to take a Taxi home. 
>> The bus fare is £1.50 but the Taxi fare is £4.50 for the same journey. I 
>> am always at the stop a good five to ten mins before the bus is due.
>>
>> All the busses are tracked by GPS and have CCTV so it is an easy matter to 
>> prove that the bus either did not run or was running early.
>>
>> Am I able to claim my Taxi fare back (or even the difference between the 
>> bus fare and Taxi fare)?
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Clive
> 
> No, because they are not obliged to run that bus, or indeed any
> service at 
> all. The only way you could claim your money back is for breach of
> statutory 
> duty (which they don't have) or breach of contract  (and you don't
> have a 
> general contract with them, only separate ones for each journey you
> actually 
> make).

As a gesture of goodwill, the company might refund your taxi fare if you 
  politely request them to do so, enclosing receipts. The enforceable 
contract between yourself & the bus company only starts when you buy a 
valid ticket for that particular journey.

If you ask, there's often an unadvertised "out of office hours" number 
available so you can phone up in future & find out why the bus isn't at 
its scheduled place. The person answering this can normally authorise 
payment of taxi fares or arrange transport if there is a good reason. 
(Such as a broken down/ unstaffed bus)

However, if it's a commercial service, the only sanction against the 
company is via the traffic commissioners for not running the service as 
registered & you'll need proof of repeated problems, such as other 
witnesses. For council sponsored services, complain to the council in 
the first place.

-- 
Tciao for Now!

John.

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:31:48 +0100, "Ian D Henden" 
wrote:


>You are quite right.  There are a thousand excuses for being late, none for 
>being early.
Strange you have posted this tonight Ian I have a feeling I am going
to be having an argument with a bus driver in the morning . A bus is
due to depart our stop at 09:31 a friend went to catch this bus a week
or two ago and the driver would not let him use his concessionary pass
said he would have to pay as it wasn't 09:30 . 
I called the bus company on hearing about this and an inspector told
me the driver should have waited his time, the busses belong to the
scheme that displays bus times at the stops and the ticket machines
are controled by a satnav system which is programmed not to accept
passes before 09:30 during the week so the inspector told me .
I feel harsh words may be spoken in the morning and a phone call my
have to be made :)) .

mymail@hotmail.co.uk wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:31:48 +0100, "Ian D Henden" 
> wrote:
> 
> 
>> You are quite right.  There are a thousand excuses for being late, none for 
>> being early.
> Strange you have posted this tonight Ian I have a feeling I am going
> to be having an argument with a bus driver in the morning . A bus is
> due to depart our stop at 09:31 a friend went to catch this bus a week
> or two ago and the driver would not let him use his concessionary pass
> said he would have to pay as it wasn't 09:30 . 
> I called the bus company on hearing about this and an inspector told
> me the driver should have waited his time, the busses belong to the
> scheme that displays bus times at the stops and the ticket machines
> are controled by a satnav system which is programmed not to accept
> passes before 09:30 during the week so the inspector told me .
> I feel harsh words may be spoken in the morning and a phone call my
> have to be made :)) . 

Stagecoach Manchester machines allow free passes from 09.28.

When I was in my early teens Selnec buses only used to allow child fares 
up until 10pm. I used to get a bus home frequently that was timed away 
from the stop at 21.58. By the time the conductor got round to me it was 
always well gone 22.00 and I was always challenged.

And I always pointed out what time he was due to pass where I got on. 
And I always got the obligatory dirty look as he issued the child ticket.

Hee hee.

Brian.

On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 15:03:24 +0100, Alasdair 
wrote:

>No, because they are not obliged to run that bus, or indeed any
>service at 
>all. The only way you could claim your money back is for breach of
>statutory 
>duty (which they don't have) or breach of contract  (and you don't
>have a 
>general contract with them, only separate ones for each journey you
>actually 
>make).

...however I *have* claimed a taxi fare back from our local Council
when a tendered last bus didn't operate, as the Council were able to
claw back quite a lot more than the taxi fare in subsidy from the bus
company for not operating it, so they were quite grateful for me
reporting it.

Neil

-- 
Neil Williams
Put my first name before the at to reply.

wrote in message 
news:q95b5415juup3i1unn1jejcg19cneuse3g@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:31:48 +0100, "Ian D Henden" 
> wrote:
>
>
>>You are quite right.  There are a thousand excuses for being late, none 
>>for
>>being early.
> Strange you have posted this tonight Ian I have a feeling I am going
> to be having an argument with a bus driver in the morning . A bus is
> due to depart our stop at 09:31 a friend went to catch this bus a week
> or two ago and the driver would not let him use his concessionary pass
> said he would have to pay as it wasn't 09:30 .
> I called the bus company on hearing about this and an inspector told
> me the driver should have waited his time, the busses belong to the
> scheme that displays bus times at the stops and the ticket machines
> are controled by a satnav system which is programmed not to accept
> passes before 09:30 during the week so the inspector told me .
> I feel harsh words may be spoken in the morning and a phone call my
> have to be made :)) .

Pedantically, and haemophrenically,  the driver would be correct - 
especially if the regime is such that, if you leave a couple of minutes late 
because you were loading, you get booked for that!

(ATTPTB, "You should be in the cab 5 minutes before departure time". That's 
5 minutes off your break.....)

In practice, we issue OAP tickets on passes just before 9 (Southampton 
tickets start at 9) for a 9am departure.  (But might jokingly tell them 
"they can't have it yet.... the bus is due to leave dead on nine... tell you 
what, I'll drive slowly to the next stop and you can run behind the bus, and 
get on at the next stop, it'll be after nine by then..".  Trouble is , some 
of them actually think we  really would do that!!!)

But, in ALL cases of dispute between driver and passenger about a fare, the 
driver ought to double check first; show the passenger the evidence of fare 
required; if still not resolved, the passenger should pay the fare 
requested, keep the ticket, and take it up with the company.  Compensation 
is usually handsome if the passenger was right.  (which is why the driver 
should really make sure!).

On Mon, 16 Jun 2008 09:23:57 +0100, "Ian D Henden" 
wrote:


>Pedantically, and haemophrenically,  the driver would be correct - 
>especially if the regime is such that, if you leave a couple of minutes late 
>because you were loading, you get booked for that!
Well as it happened the bust was two minutes late so I got on without
argument and was  minutes late by the time it reached the bus station 
giving me four minutes to get from one end of the bus station to the
other to catch my onward connection.
>(ATTPTB, "You should be in the cab 5 minutes before departure time". That's 
>5 minutes off your break.....)
Nope I am sorry but it is time to put the clock back 48 years to when
a driver was solely a driver and a conductor was a conductor not a
driver doing both jobs. Had this been the case today my bus would have
been in the bus station more or less on time if the driver hadn't had
to fuss around with old dears not knowing where to put their passes
and bloody stupid mothers pissing around with buggies and their kids
before getting their cash out and paying the driver . 

>But, in ALL cases of dispute between driver and passenger about a fare, the 
>driver ought to double check first; show the passenger the evidence of fare 
>required; if still not resolved, the passenger should pay the fare 
>requested, keep the ticket, and take it up with the company. 

It should not be a drivers job at all which was why I was " forced" to
leave a job that I honestly loved a job that I had always wanted since
I first knew what a bus was .One man operation was slowly and surly
being put onto route after route and I was having none of it I had
more than enough of dealing with passengers has a conductor a job I
took in order to gain my PSV drivers licence .

"Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message 
news:6bkrf6F3cd66qU1@mid.individual.net...
> In news:388a54dv7npvo6m6a00v98hpffnbqb1ncm@4ax.com,
> Alasdair  typed, for some strange, unexplained
> reason:
> : "Clive"  wrote in message
> : news:uPOdnTlrcbfqYMnVnZ2dnUVZ8uWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
> : > This should be a simple one to answer for most of you legal
> : > experts, so here goes:-
>
> [snip]
>
> : > Am I able to claim my Taxi fare back (or even the difference
> : > between the bus fare and Taxi fare)?
> :
> : No, because they are not obliged to run that bus, or indeed any
> : service at all.
>
> Unless, perhaps, it's a council contracted service.
>
> Ivor
>

Out of curiosity, if a bus company publishes a timetable, which is 
effectively an advertisement of a service provided, can they be dealt with 
under laws dealing with "incorrect or misleading advertsements", if they 
fail to provide the advertised service ?

Bevan

On Tue, 17 Jun 2008 18:38:57 +0100, "Bevan Price"
<meVIAfreeukFULLSTOPcom> wrote:


>Out of curiosity, if a bus company publishes a timetable, which is 
>effectively an advertisement of a service provided, can they be dealt with 
>under laws dealing with "incorrect or misleading advertsements", if they 
>fail to provide the advertised service ?

But it isn't an advertisement of a service provided it is a timetable
of an advertised service there is a distinct difference.
Bus from A to B is the advertisement of a service provided.
Bus will depart at X and arrive at B is the timetable . 
I think you will find the legal beagles will agree with me but I could
be wrong of course but in the past when I have contacted trading
standards about something along these lines they have always taken the
offending parties " in my eyes" side of the argument .

Bevan Price wrote:
<Snip>
> Out of curiosity, if a bus company publishes a timetable, which is 
> effectively an advertisement of a service provided, can they be dealt with 
> under laws dealing with "incorrect or misleading advertsements", if they 
> fail to provide the advertised service ?
> 
Nope, on account of the small print saying "We'll do our best to run 
these services and get you to where you want to go, but if we can't or 
don't do it, tough" or some other legalese phrasing thereof.

Of course, if it's a recurring problem, then the Traffic Commissioner 
will hear of it & take appropriate action, up to & including removal of 
the offending company's operating licence.

First Essex say:-

"First Essex Buses Limited makes every effort to ensure that its
services operate in accordance with the times advertised. Any
alterations considered necessary are usually only introduced after
the appropriate period of notice has been given to the authorities
and customers. *Unfortunately, exceptional circumstances
sometimes mean that certain services must be temporarily or
permanently withdrawn or altered without notice*.
Sometimes, due to circumstances beyond the Company’s control,
it is not possible for services to run to the advertised timetable.
*Some services use very congested roads, and journeys will
sometimes take longer than expected, and occasionally need to
be diverted. Due to this, the purchase of a ticket cannot be
assumed to be an undertaking that buses will depart or arrive at
the times or places stated, that connections will be maintained, or
that seats will be available*."

Excerpt from:-

http://www.firstgroup.com/ukbus/southeast/essex/generalinfo/conditions_of_carriage.pdf

The bold bits are what to look for, but aren't bold in the original. I 
only picked this as it's the first one I found looking on Google, *not* 
because I've got anything against First. *All* other companies, 
including the one I work for, have similar wording in their conditions 
of carriage.

As you are assumed under the current UK legal system to have read & 
agreed to these conditions before you try to catch a bus, then you have 
no comeback if the bus doesn't run to time, or even at all.

-- 
Tciao for Now!

John.

"Bevan Price" <meVIAfreeukFULLSTOPcom> wrote in message 
news:1213724342.28773.0@proxy00.news.clara.net...
>
> "Ivor Jones" <ivor@thisaddressis.invalid> wrote in message 
> news:6bkrf6F3cd66qU1@mid.individual.net...
>> In news:388a54dv7npvo6m6a00v98hpffnbqb1ncm@4ax.com,
>> Alasdair  typed, for some strange, unexplained
>> reason:
>> : "Clive"  wrote in message
>> : news:uPOdnTlrcbfqYMnVnZ2dnUVZ8uWdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> : > This should be a simple one to answer for most of you legal
>> : > experts, so here goes:-
>>
>> [snip]
>>
>> : > Am I able to claim my Taxi fare back (or even the difference
>> : > between the bus fare and Taxi fare)?
>> :
>> : No, because they are not obliged to run that bus, or indeed any
>> : service at all.
>>
>> Unless, perhaps, it's a council contracted service.
>>
>> Ivor
>>
>
> Out of curiosity, if a bus company publishes a timetable, which is 
> effectively an advertisement of a service provided, can they be dealt with 
> under laws dealing with "incorrect or misleading advertsements", if they 
> fail to provide the advertised service ?
>
No.

One of the first things a timetable says is along the lines "We do not 
guarantee to operste any service".
In other words, a timetable is a Statement of Intent.   A Wishlist.

What the bus company would like to achieve.