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

[Cantab26]

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.

There is also some private legislation which permits the levying of penalty charges, although I don’t have the statutes to hand at the moment.

 

[island]

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.

The condition is that the price payable is £X if you tap in and out properly, and £60 if you don't. Legislation states that this term isn't assessable for fairness, as long as the conditions I mentioned in post 58 are met. And the Supreme Court ruling in OFT v Abbey National confirmed that this applies equally to costs arising when a consumer did not correctly follow the steps required in a contract.

It seems clear to me that the £60 standard fare is not capable of being classed as unfair at law.

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?

Supermarket analogies are rarely helpful.

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

There is also some private legislation which permits the levying of penalty charges, although I don’t have the statutes to hand at the moment.

Yes, though I also don't have to hand anything relating to Metrolink. They issue "standard fares" rather than "penalty fares".

 

[Egg Centric]

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

One other hint about this (others are coming from a legal perspective and I defer to them there - and also see my previous post as I don't think you should be doing this) - if you truly want to "threaten" some large organisation with media attention the last thing you should usually do is go to customer support about it - they'll either be pissed off or shrug their shoulders. You are best off contacting their press department directly and asking how it would look. My experience anyway

However as I said previously please try to engage with their customer support in a civil and pleasant manner first. You have a good chance of finding them amenable. Most people and organisations are not unreasonable. Metrolink *might* be but there's no evidence for this so far.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Without getting bogged down in the T&Cs, you must have a valid ticket in your possession to travel. Your tapped-in card is that ticket. No tap-in = no ticket.

The tfgm system is built in such a way that it will take advantage of a card presented as a ticket, but not tapped-in. Neat, brutally efficient, and, as has been said, avoids conflict.

 

[820KDV]

Stepping back a second, at the most basic level a single fare is due for each and every journey.

However, to encourage patronage transport operators choose to offer discounts. This could be a return ticket, a daily fare cap, a season ticket, a through ticket between routes, etc. But each of these offers, just like a simple single ticket, comes with terms and conditions. Want the offer, abide by the terms. Pretty simple really.

As for "what's the point of tapping after reaching the cap?", well no doubt the operator wants the data. When they have all journeys correctly recorded they can decide whether the cap is at the right level, whether they might offer, say, a special evening rate, run extra journeys, all sorts of things. And in the Buses area of this board there have been several times where posters have been adamant that bus companies are "on the fiddle" because they claim drivers don't record concessionary passes and capped fares correctly. Journey records are important data.

 

[AdamWW]

As for "what's the point of tapping after reaching the cap?", well no doubt the operator wants the data. When they have all journeys correctly recorded they can decide whether the cap is at the right level, whether they might offer, say, a special evening rate, run extra journeys, all sorts of things.

None of which, in my view, justifies penalising someone for failing to help provide them with statistics at the same level as someone who has failed to pay their fare.

But I suppose treating people differently when they've reached the cap would mean spending money on altering the system to do so and result in less revenue so I can see a lack of incentive.

The condition is that the price payable is £X if you tap in and out properly, and £60 if you don't. Legislation states that this term isn't assessable for fairness, as long as the conditions I mentioned in post 58 are met. And the Supreme Court ruling in OFT v Abbey National confirmed that this applies equally to costs arising when a consumer did not correctly follow the steps required in a contract.

It seems clear to me that the £60 standard fare is not capable of being classed as unfair at law.

OK - thanks for that.

 

[jon0844]

I must admit that I've not yet travelled on a bus that requires tapping out, so I do fear I'd forget.

I wonder if in some areas, they could adopt a system like Stockholm (as an example, they're not the only place!) where you tap in and get 75 minutes of travel. You tap in everywhere you go, but at the end of the day it works out what taps are chargeable and what was within the 75 minutes.

It's worth noting that I didn't think the fare was that cheap, so if you're only going a few stops on a bus then it's quite a premium (and plenty of Swedes are unhappy - although there are other ticketing options) but it's pretty foolproof. You only need to remember to tap on a barrier or bus/tram reader every time, which quickly becomes like muscle memory.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I must admit that I've not yet travelled on a bus that requires tapping out, so I do fear I'd forget.

With buses it's generally the case that if you don't tap out you're just charged to the end of the route rather than a penalty, because that's the most you could have done. It does save time at busy termini too. Forgetting to tap on is less likely as the driver would remind you, and people in the UK are used to the idea that you have to pay when you get on a bus.

 

[Cantab26]

Yes, though I also don't have to hand anything relating to Metrolink. They issue "standard fares" rather than "penalty fares".

It’s in one of the Greater Manchester Acts, but I can’t remember which off-hand. It’s a rather odd provision in that the trams are deemed to be buses which then enables penalties to be charged at higher than the ‘normal’ fare (Greater Manchester has statutory provision for levying penalty fares on buses).

As to ‘standard fares’ versus ‘penalty fares’, they certainly always used to be very diligent about only using the former term, although I note that the latter nomenclature has now crept in.

That being said, I don’t think the £60 charge in this case would stray into unlawful penalty territory regardless of the appellation, applying Dunlop and Beavis.

 

[some bloke]

The charge looks unlawful to me.

"72A. If a passenger has made sufficient journeys such that a relevant:
a) daily capped fare applies; or
b) weekly capped fare applies,
(each in accordance with Condition 68), no further charge(s) will be made to the passenger’s card issuer/bank account in excess of such daily or weekly capped fare (as applicable)."

Metrolink conditions of carriage

Conditions of carriage applying to Greater Manchester Metrolink

tfgm.com

 

[185143]

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.

At the very least, I'd say you've got clear argument for refund of one Standard Fare as an absolute minimum.

If they were issuing the Standard Fare manually, the second inspector wouldn't have then got involved and done you again immediately after their colleague would they.

 

[CyrusWuff]

The charge looks unlawful to me.

"72A. If a passenger has made sufficient journeys such that a relevant:
a) daily capped fare applies; or
b) weekly capped fare applies,
(each in accordance with Condition 68), no further charge(s) will be made to the passenger’s card issuer/bank account in excess of such daily or weekly capped fare (as applicable)."

Metrolink conditions of carriage

Conditions of carriage applying to Greater Manchester Metrolink

tfgm.com

However, Condition 67 states:

If the passenger does not touch in and touch out correctly at a smart reader (including using the same method of Contactless Payment at the start and at the end of each journey), or exceeds the permitted time limit for completing the journey (as referred in Condition 76 below), the passenger may be charged the (i) incomplete journey fare, (ii) a contactless Standard Fare (Penalty Fare) and/or (iii) a Standard Fare (Penalty Fare), and/or face prosecution.

A similar situation applies in London, except it's virtually impossible to enter and leave the London Underground network without tapping in and out and the maximum fare within Zones 1-9 is around £10 rather than £60.

 

[greatkingrat]

Condition 72 refers to condition 68, not 67.

 

[Cantab26]

Condition 72 refers to condition 68, not 67.

Are you sure about that?

 

[island]

The charge looks unlawful to me.

"72A. If a passenger has made sufficient journeys such that a relevant:
a) daily capped fare applies; or
b) weekly capped fare applies,
(each in accordance with Condition 68), no further charge(s) will be made to the passenger’s card issuer/bank account in excess of such daily or weekly capped fare (as applicable)."

Metrolink conditions of carriage

Conditions of carriage applying to Greater Manchester Metrolink

tfgm.com

That is, at best, a selective reading, and at worst, wilfully obtuse.

Section 72A qualifies section 72 by varying the daily charges where a cap has been reached.

Section 67 stands separately from this.

Even if you were to argue that the two sections ought to be read together:

1. the legal principle of generalia specialibus non derogant would apply meaning that the more specific scenario in condition 67 overrides the general case in condition 72A; and
2. a reading of condition 72A that once someone has reached any cap they are no longer able to be charged any fare produces an absurdity, because they could have reached the cap for fewer than the maximum number of zones and then travel to a different zone.

So no, the charge isn't unlawful.

 

[furlong]

I also struggle to see how the charge isn't enforceable, but a simple request for the charges to be waived based on naive ignorance seems worth a try.

 

[tonycockram]

I was charged one of those. Went online and filled in a form and the charge was refunded. Took five days.

https://tfgm.com/tickets-and-passes/refunds-and-penalty-fares/penalty-fares-on-tram/contactless-penalty-fare?utm_source=redirect&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=standard_fare_appeal

 

[John R]

I was charged one of those. Went online and filled in a form and the charge was refunded. Took five days.

https://tfgm.com/tickets-and-passes/refunds-and-penalty-fares/penalty-fares-on-tram/contactless-penalty-fare?utm_source=redirect&utm_medium=referral&utm_campaign=standard_fare_appeal

Was it the same situation, or a different scenario?

 

[Bletchleyite]

If the OP was charged two standard fares on the same journey this doesn't make much sense so an appeal to have one of the two refunded might make sense. I can't see how that would be intended.

 

[AdamWW]

That is, at best, a selective reading, and at worst, wilfully obtuse.

Section 72A qualifies section 72 by varying the daily charges where a cap has been reached.

Section 67 stands separately from this.

Even if you were to argue that the two sections ought to be read together:

1. the legal principle of generalia specialibus non derogant would apply meaning that the more specific scenario in condition 67 overrides the general case in condition 72A; and
2. a reading of condition 72A that once someone has reached any cap they are no longer able to be charged any fare produces an absurdity, because they could have reached the cap for fewer than the maximum number of zones and then travel to a different zone.

So no, the charge isn't unlawful.

It's fascinating how opaque consumer contracts can be to those of us without legal training and the command of appropriate latin phrases.

Because (just presented with those two clauses, and I appreciate that this probably isn't how the contract should be read) I would have assumed that a clause saying once the cap is reached there will be no further charges wouldn't be overridden by another clause saying that if not tapping in and out correctly there may be a charge.

And, that aside, if asked which was a general and which was a specific statement I would have had them the other way round, considering reaching a cap to be a more specific activity than tapping in and out which is generic to all contactless travel.

If the OP was charged two standard fares on the same journey this doesn't make much sense so an appeal to have one of the two refunded might make sense. I can't see how that would be intended.

It does not sound reasonable so I presume if this happened they would indeed refund one of them but I can't see anything in the terms and conditions that would prohibit them from making multiple charges for a failed inspection.

 

[dannypye9999]

If the OP was charged two standard fares on the same journey this doesn't make much sense so an appeal to have one of the two refunded might make sense. I can't see how that would be intended.

As i remember i was zapped by one member then walked down the tram to the other side where another inspector zapped me.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 21 Nov 2024 ==

I was charged one of those. Went online and filled in a form and the charge was refunded. Took five days.

https://tfgm.com/tickets-and-passes...um=referral&utm_campaign=standard_fare_appeal

Is this situation the same as mine. Could you upload a screenshot of your journey history and charges for that day.

 

[island]

If the OP was charged two standard fares on the same journey this doesn't make much sense so an appeal to have one of the two refunded might make sense. I can't see how that would be intended.

Yes I would agree with that.