Randomly charged £60 penalty fare on metrolink - no notification given??? Help.

[Par]

The gripe I have is that it’s either tap in / out or paper ticket which means more expensive journeys.

Mrs Par has a job that involves travelling exclusively within Zone 4, so buys a weekly Travelcard via the app.

When travelling to the city for the day, then this previously only required the additional purchase of a Zones 1-3 One Day Travelcard via the app. Now, following the withdrawal of those and because a ticket machine in Zone 4 won’t sell that ticket, it is necessary to buy a Zone 1-4 Day ticket.

 

[CyrusWuff]

You would think with the modern technology they could display in/out like you suggest.

Cubic validators in the London area (originally installed in the early 2000s for Oyster) display whether they class a tap as Entry or Exit, so it's not exactly modern tech!

 

[800001]

Cubic validators in the London area (originally installed in the early 2000s for Oyster) display whether they class a tap as Entry or Exit, so it's not exactly modern tech!

It would be modern for Manchester!

 

[Bletchleyite]

Isn't there a foreign operator which have similar daily tickets on a phone, but you need to wait something like 5 minutes after purchasing before it becomes valid?

That has its own flaws. I purchased an e-ticket yesterday while walking from Platform 5 to 1 at MKC and boarded a train roughly one minute after its purchase (had I not been likely to make that tight connection I'd not have bought it at all and would have gone home by bus or e-scooter). I wouldn't like to have had to miss the train or receive a penalty because of an inconvenient and counterintuitive "feature" added to control fare dodging.

I have done this sort of thing many times.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 18 Nov 2024 ==

Cubic validators in the London area (originally installed in the early 2000s for Oyster) display whether they class a tap as Entry or Exit, so it's not exactly modern tech!

That's because they are usually set up to only be one of the two. They don't know if a credit/debit card has been tapped before and where because that isn't uploaded in real time. I don't think the ones set up to be both (standalone readers not on gatelines) do show that unless you are using Oyster.

Manchester could do it by having separate validators for each role, I suppose, but then that's added cost and confusion.

 

[cool110]

I do agree it'd be nice if it said that clearly though, having said that I doubt the way it works it's possible.

You would think with the modern technology they could display in/out like you suggest.

It can be done because that's exactly how it works in the Netherlands.

 

[island]

That's because they are usually set up to only be one of the two. They don't know if a credit/debit card has been tapped before and where because that isn't uploaded in real time. I don't think the ones set up to be both (standalone readers not on gatelines) do show that unless you are using Oyster.

You are correct. Standalone validators say "card accepted" or words to that effect when a contactless card is used.

 

[ValleyLines142]

There are several stickers on the tram doors that say don't forget to tap out.

However, the system does have its flaws. If several people alight a tram and all gather around one reader (on the vast majority of the network they are rather disproportionately placed on the platforms), then with everyone squabbling to tap out then sometimes it does get confusing and I've actually been a situation where I thought I'd tapped out but it turned out to be someone else's and also the bleeping noise didn't sound to make matters worse. So much so that my bank card was blocked and I had to keep buying paper tickets from the machines until I was able to get it sorted.

 

[Bletchleyite]

It can be done because that's exactly how it works in the Netherlands.

The Dutch system may be newer in design and have all terminals permanently online. They would have to to achieve that.

 

[Tetchytyke]

What would be a much easier, and simpler, solution would be for the Bee Network app to show your contactless history in (mostly) real time.

Before the hacker outage the TfL Oyster app had this functionality, so you could immediately check if you had indeed tapped in or not.

I’ve been in the situation on Metrolink where I couldn’t remember if I’d touched in or not and it’s not good for the nerves having to wait till the morning to see if I’d made an expensive boo-boo or not.

 

[WesternLancer]

Obviously another of the 'benefits' of contactless. In this case a benefit to the operator of course....

 

[Egg Centric]

I'd strongly suggest OP appeals, under the following reasoning:

1. If this were "the big railway" there'd be no point whatsoever due to their "computer says no" attitude
2. However, if this was 99% of companies who care (or want to appear to care) about their customers I'm pretty sure customer service would sort out the OP on a "just this once" basis
3. We don't really know if Metrolink is like (1) or (2). We're assuming that as light rail it's like the big railway. But compare to TfL - TfL will refund "unjust" max fares, which is analagous, even if the user is in the "wrong" so long as they don't make a habit of it.

Any such appeal should be grovelling and asking nicely, not combative, as this is surely discretionary.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

What would be a much easier, and simpler, solution would be for the Bee Network app to show your contactless history in (mostly) real time.

Before the hacker outage the TfL Oyster app had this functionality, so you could immediately check if you had indeed tapped in or not.

I’ve been in the situation on Metrolink where I couldn’t remember if I’d touched in or not and it’s not good for the nerves having to wait till the morning to see if I’d made an expensive boo-boo or not.

Yes exactly how I feel. It would have saved me a fortune.

 

[danm14]

Isn't there a foreign operator which have similar daily tickets on a phone, but you need to wait something like 5 minutes after purchasing before it becomes valid? Maybe that is an area TfGM could use as it would counteract those who see inspectors boarding and go "oh fudge" and buys a ticket when on the tram before the inspector reaches them.

In Northern Ireland, the Translink mLink mobile ticketing app prominently displays the time of activation on all tickets.

In the Republic of Ireland, the TFI Go mobile ticketing app shows an overlay of "x seconds since activation" over the ticket for the first few minutes after activation.

Either of these would seem like a good way to detect "buy when challenged" without affecting genuine last-minute purchases.

 

[dannypye9999]

So can someone explain this if its correct. It shows me having paid for an off peak travelcard on my account yet they charged me twice penalty fare?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 20 Nov 2024 ==

So can someone explain this if its correct. It shows me having paid for an off peak travelcard on my account yet they charged me twice penalty fare? Ridiculous to tell people on their account they have a travelcard then charge them twice penalty. Penalty for what??

 

[Tetchytyke]

So can someone explain this if its correct. It shows me having paid for an off peak travelcard on my account yet they charged me twice penalty fare?

As has been explained, you have to continue to touch in and out for all journeys, even when you have hit the cap for the day. Standard fares, charged where you fail to do this, are charged in addition to the cap.

 

[cool110]

So can someone explain this if its correct. It shows me having paid for an off peak travelcard on my account yet they charged me twice penalty fare?

Yes, incomplete journeys and penalties are in addition to any travelcard cap you may reach.

 

[dannypye9999]

Isn't the purpose of the "penalty fare" to award to people a fine who try to avoid paying their fare? So to fine someone for avoiding a payment when no payment is due.., especially when it says on their account they have paid for a travelcard doesn't make any sense and is theft. The touch ins/outs don't mean anything to them just un-necessary wear and tear on their own readers. Also why twice? I was zapped twice on the same tram by two different inspectors, so this should be £60 anyway. More reasons to get the court and press involved.

 

[duffield]

Isn't the purpose of the "penalty fare" to award to people a fine who try to avoid paying their fare? So to fine someone for avoiding a payment when no payment is due.., especially when it says on their account they have paid for a travelcard doesn't make any sense and is theft. The touch ins/outs don't mean anything to them just un-necessary wear and tear on their own readers. Also why twice? I was zapped twice on the same tram by two different inspectors, so this should be £60 anyway. More reasons to get the court and press involved.

Absolutely, despite it being clearly stated in the Ts&Cs personally I think it's an outrage to charge any sort of penalty fare when someone has already reached the daily cap so there is zero revenue loss and clearly no intent to avoid payment. I suppose I'd grudgingly concede some sort of rounding up to (say) £10 for the day as a gentle reminder to keep tapping in and out but even that seems unnecessary. Anyhow, I always buy a paper day travelcard ticket to avoid the possibility of this stupidity.

 

[Haywain]

If you don’t like the terms and conditions for using contactless the best thing is not to use it. You have been penalised for being in breach of them and there is an appeal process but it’s pretty clear what you should have done.

 

[AdamWW]

If you don’t like the terms and conditions for using contactless the best thing is not to use it. You have been penalised for being in breach of them and there is an appeal process but it’s pretty clear what you should have done.

I'd be curious whether a contract that imposes a £60 penalty for evading a £0 fare might fall foul of consumer law - unfair terms and all that

The FCA gives as an example of a potentially unfair term:
"charge the consumer a large sum of money or an amount that goes beyond what would be considered a reasonable pre-estimate of loss incurred by the firm, if a consumer doesn’t fulfil their obligations under the contract or cancels the contract"

Or is transport exempt from such legislation?

 

[dannypye9999]

If you don’t like the terms and conditions for using contactless the best thing is not to use it. You have been penalised for being in breach of them and there is an appeal process but it’s pretty clear what you should have done.

Nothing in the t&c's i can see that suggests a passenger must continue to touch in when the cap is reached.

Absolutely, despite it being clearly stated in the Ts&Cs personally I think it's an outrage to charge any sort of penalty fare when someone has already reached the daily cap so there is zero revenue loss and clearly no intent to avoid payment. I suppose I'd grudgingly concede some sort of rounding up to (say) £10 for the day as a gentle reminder to keep tapping in and out but even that seems unnecessary. Anyhow, I always buy a paper day travelcard ticket to avoid the possibility of this stupidity.

I wouldn't be surprised if they found a way to fine you for holding a valid paper ticket too. Example: if you just found it in your wallet or purse after you'd already been taken off the tram onto the platform because you couldn't find it first time.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Nothing in the t&c's i can see that suggests a passenger must continue to touch in when the cap is reached.

Nothing says you don't, but it does say you have to touch in and out at the start and end of a journey.

 

[dannypye9999]

I'd be curious whether a contract that imposes a £60 penalty for evading a £0 fare might fall foul of consumer law - unfair terms and all that

The FCA gives as an example of a potentially unfair term:
"charge the consumer a large sum of money or an amount that goes beyond what would be considered a reasonable pre-estimate of loss incurred by the firm, if a consumer doesn’t fulfil their obligations under the contract or cancels the contract"

Or is transport exempt from such legislation?

Wonder if I threaten them with court action and media attention by using this information in an appeal would I be successful?

 

[duffield]

Wonder if I threaten them with court action and media attention by using this information in an appeal would I be successful?

You could see if the Consumer's Association (Which?) would take up this issue. They have special legal status in these matters.

Relevant quote from the wikipedia article:

Unfair contract terms​

Which? has statutory powers under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999, where they can seek an injunction to restrain the use of an unfair contract term by a trader against consumers.

Link:

Which? - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

As per my previous post, I'd find it difficult *not* to class as unfair imposing a £60 penalty on someone who has paid the maximum possible daily fare, giving no financial loss to Metrolink and demonstrating clearly no attempt to avoid payment. Just because it's clearly stated in the Ts&Cs *does not* automatically make such a term "fair". (But I'm not a lawyer, so of course there may be some legal loophole for Metrolink to get away with this. They may be exempt as some sort of quasi-government body or something for example).

 

[cool110]

(But I'm not a lawyer, so of course there may be some legal loophole for Metrolink to get away with this. They may be exempt as some sort of quasi-government body or something for example).

Just like the big railway they have their bylaws, and since a non-validated payment card/device is not a ticket they could just go directly to prosecution instead.

 

[duffield]

Just like the big railway they have their bylaws, and since a non-validated payment card/device is not a ticket they could just go directly to prosecution instead.

I think a court would take a very dim view of a prosecution where you could show zero financial loss to Metrolink and no intention to evade payment. I find it impossible to believe that any such prosecution would pass the "public interest" test either. But that's just my non-lawyer's opinion.

 

[Egg Centric]

Wonder if I threaten them with court action and media attention by using this information in an appeal would I be successful?

Honestly I think you should try the "ask nicely" approach first. This forum is used to dealing with the TOCs where quite often antagonistic is the only way to get anywhere, but outside of that world most organisations (with notable exceptions like e.g. the Home Office or NCP) are in reality fairly reasonable and you catch more flies with honey than vinegar, as they say.

My view is coming from "open minded ignorance" of what Metrolink are like to deal with - if anyone knows better then take their advice!

 

[island]

I'd be curious whether a contract that imposes a £60 penalty for evading a £0 fare might fall foul of consumer law - unfair terms and all that

The FCA gives as an example of a potentially unfair term:
"charge the consumer a large sum of money or an amount that goes beyond what would be considered a reasonable pre-estimate of loss incurred by the firm, if a consumer doesn’t fulfil their obligations under the contract or cancels the contract"

Or is transport exempt from such legislation?

Metrolink is not subject to the Financial Conduct Authority.

The relevant legislation is Section 64 of the Consumer Rights Act which states that terms of a contract dealing with the price payable under the contract are exempt from assessment for fairness as long as they are transparent and prominent.

I don't use Metrolink regularly so I don't know how prominent the term is, but based on their website and signage I can find online, they seem transparent to me.

 

[duffield]

Metrolink is not subject to the Financial Conduct Authority.

The relevant legislation is Section 64 of the Consumer Rights Act which states that terms of a contract dealing with the price payable under the contract are exempt from assessment for fairness as long as they are transparent and prominent.

I don't use Metrolink regularly so I don't know how prominent the term is, but based on their website and signage I can find online, they seem transparent to me.

But you could argue about whether the penalty fares are really part of the "price payable", if you've already reached the cap and paid the maximum daily fare, and effectively discharged your financial obligation at that point. I'm not saying this argument would necessarily succeed but I think it's worth testing in court. Suppose a shop had a condition where, *after you'd fully paid for your goods*, you had to remember to tap your payment card again on leaving or pay an extra £60. Would that be OK if it was in the Ts&Cs?
Also I'd argue that what you're disputing is not the "price" (which may be exempt) but the issue of whether any "price" at all is due.

 

[TheSmiths82]

I am not sure if you will get any where with TGFM as you have clearly not followed the rules. The stations clearly state you must touch in and out at every journey. I have always got a refund if I have forgotten to check out, but I have never not check in for a journey before. If you know you're going to be getting on more than one tram it is always far easier just to get a paper ticket, then you can forget about it for the rest of the day.

Where things get a little confusing is a journey is not the same as each tram, so you can change trams without having to check in as you have already checked in not long before. But the second you check out, you must check in again for the next tram.

Let say I wanted to go from East Didsbury to Altrincham, I would check in at East Didsbury, change trams at Trafford Bar and then check out at Altrincham. I wouldn't need to check out at Trafford Bar as I haven't completed my journey.