Legality of "Standard Fare"

[TubeMapCentral]

Mod - split from this thread

There is no such thing as a 'standard fare'.

No one ever turns up on a bus and says "can I have a standard fare please" and gets the response "certainly sir, that will be £100 please". It is therefore a legal fiction.

Pay under protest and sue them in the small claims court on the basis that the 'standard fare' is a terminological nonsense, suggest that the word 'standard' means typical and in that context you want a refund of ca. £97.

 

[TurbostarFan]

There is no such thing as a 'standard fare'.

No one ever turns up on a bus and says "can I have a standard fare please" and gets the response "certainly sir, that will be £100 please". It is therefore a legal fiction.

Pay under protest and sue them in the small claims court on the basis that the 'standard fare' is a terminological nonsense, suggest that the word 'standard' means typical and in that context you want a refund of ca. £97.

Don't pay under protest, just don't bother paying and let them doing the chasing. The odds are that they won't win. Perhaps offering to pay the £3.00 would be a good idea as it demonstrates a willingness to seek remedy?

 

[island]

There is no such thing as a 'standard fare'.

No one ever turns up on a bus and says "can I have a standard fare please" and gets the response "certainly sir, that will be £100 please". It is therefore a legal fiction.

Pay under protest and sue them in the small claims court on the basis that the 'standard fare' is a terminological nonsense, suggest that the word 'standard' means typical and in that context you want a refund of ca. £97.

Following this advice would be throwing good money after bad.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Don't pay under protest, just don't bother paying and let them doing the chasing. The odds are that they won't win. Perhaps offering to pay the £3.00 would be a good idea as it demonstrates a willingness to seek remedy?

Unfortunately the Metrolink Byelaws make the Railway Byelaws seem tame by comparison. Breaching the Metrolink Conditions of Carriage is made a criminal offence under their Byelaws, and the standard fare is enumerated under the Conditions as applying if you don't buy a ticket before boarding.

£50 is a lot more than the fare, but this is intentionally so and I don't think ignoring it or offering only the original fare due is going to do the OP any favours.

 

[TubeMapCentral]

Don't pay under protest, just don't bother paying and let them doing the chasing. The odds are that they won't win. Perhaps offering to pay the £3.00 would be a good idea as it demonstrates a willingness to seek remedy?

Refusal to pay anything on the grounds of a legal technicality is risky. Payment-under-protest/small claims court puts an absolute cap on losses (£100 originally paid plus £50 fees). The case would potentially be precedent setting if not attempted before, so you can bet that TfGM would throw every barrister in Manchester at it, costing them a lot more than the original 'standard fare'.

Note: small claims court fees seem to have gone up a lot since the last time I did something like this.

 

[island]

Refusal to pay anything on the grounds of a legal technicality is risky. Payment-under-protest/small claims court puts an absolute cap on losses (£100 originally paid plus £50 fees). The case would potentially be precedent setting if not attempted before, so you can bet that TfGM would throw every barrister in Manchester at it, costing them a lot more than the original 'standard fare'.

Note: small claims court fees seem to have gone up a lot since the last time I did something like this.

Wrong and wronger.

County court cases do not set precedents, and barristers do not (other than in the most exceptional circumstances) address them.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Refusal to pay anything on the grounds of a legal technicality is risky. Payment-under-protest/small claims court puts an absolute cap on losses (£100 originally paid plus £50 fees). The case would potentially be precedent setting if not attempted before, so you can bet that TfGM would throw every barrister in Manchester at it, costing them a lot more than the original 'standard fare'.

Note: small claims court fees seem to have gone up a lot since the last time I did something like this.

There is no such thing as a "small claims court" in England and Wales. Such a thing exists perhaps in parts of the US, but not here. There is the Small Claims Track of the County Court, but this is something quite different. The fees for this vary by the amount claimed, and are lower if the claim is submitted electronically through the Money Claims Online portal.

No County Court case would ever be precedent setting in a binding sense. At best, it would be informative for future cases. You would have to take the matter to the High Court at the least, for it to create binding precedent.

As others will attest to, I am certainly not one to shirk away from enforcing rights and the like. But I really don't think the OP has a leg to stand on here.

 

[island]

And if you find that ForTheLoveOf and I agree on something on this forum, it is very persuasive indeed

 

[TubeMapCentral]

Don't remember stating the phrase 'binding precedent' above, and the word 'could' also seems to have been used in my context. A 'persuasive precedent' in this situation could be very persuasive indeed.

I see this to be very similar to 'cowboy carparks'. If they claimed that breaking their rules would lead to a 'standard car park charge' of £100 I would love to see that stand up in court.

TfGM could have conditions of carriage that say that they will throw you off a cliff if you don't pay the fare, but that doesn't necessarily give them the right to do that. I think that the inapropriate use of the word 'standard' is well-worth testing. Courts are strong on precise wording and ambiguities, with the law finding in favour of the consumer in such circumstances.

Why didn't TfGM (or first locally) simply call this a 'penalty fare'? The fact that they do not suggests to me there is some legal hand-waving going on in their conditions.

 

[island]

I hate to break it to you, but the “cowboy car parks” you refer to have had their case, it’s been all the way to the Supreme Court, and the car parks won. Their charges do indeed stand up in court. Google “ParkingEye vs Beavis” for all the information you need.

I respectfully suggest you stop further exposing your lack of knowledge on the topic and causing confusion to readers.

 

[TubeMapCentral]

Moderator note: split from https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/need-help-£100-standard-fare-on-tfgm.176228/

The car parks don't call it a "Standard Parking Fee", I remember that some of them tried to call it a 'Fine' which was technically incorrect, they had no authority to levy fines.

Lets keep this simple

The 'Standard fare of £100' does not exist
Something that does not exist cannot be charged

If you think there is no legal merit in that proposition, then I am going to query your knowledge.

And having successfully taken Thomson Holidays and a local firm of architects through the Small Claims Track in he past, I am not entirely without knowledge.

 

[island]

There is no legal merit in your proposition, and you can query my knowledge all you like.

The standard fare of £100 absolutely exists; it’s defined in the Metrolink conditions of carriage. The Greater Manchester Metrolink system bye-laws require passengers to comply with those conditions. They can and do charge it every day of the week, and people who don’t pay can be and are prosecuted every week.

I believe the car parking terminology is Parking Charge.

 

[TubeMapCentral]

No, you are not getting it. A big chunk of law is about precise interpretation of wording. In this case, the use of the word 'Standard' is incorrect, it implies 'typical' or 'normal' or 'everyday'. This is clearly not the case for a £100 fare.

Now, if they had called it a 'Standard Penalty Fare' that would have been completely different.

Organisations can create any terms and conditions they lke, but if they are ambiguous or inappropriately worded, then they are open to a court reinterpretation.

 

[robbeech]

Why do they continue to do it after many will have appealed and lost and many will have gone to court and lost then?

If this were in any way accurate it would have been dealt with by now surely.

 

[Darandio]

Perhaps those who are offering advice to either ignore it or pay under protest before trying to sue should put their money where their mouth is and set a precedent before offering such silly advice? As ever, it's easy to type it all from behind a keyboard when you have nothing at stake.

I'm sure many of us will be here waiting with interest for the outcome.

 

[gray1404]

There is a massive difference between receiving a £100 standard fare, ignoring it and then being taken to court for a criminal matter of travelling without a valid ticket etc and paying a £50/£100 standard fare in protest (thus preventing any further action being taken against you) then claiming that the charge of such a standard fare is not valid and taking the matter to the county court as a civil matter. The may be why so many people taken to court by Metrolink are found guilty because it is not the standard fare that is being questioned, it is their ticketless travel. For the record, I am not saying one should or should not make such a claim in the country court but I would be interested to see what the outcome was.

 

[TurbostarFan]

Perhaps those who are offering advice to either ignore it or pay under protest before trying to sue should put their money where their mouth is and set a precedent before offering such silly advice? As ever, it's easy to type it all from behind a keyboard when you have nothing at stake.

I'm sure many of us will be here waiting with interest for the outcome.

I think you raise a fair point, I was simply suggesting an alternative to what would in my opinion be a frivolous and pointless lawsuit. To clarify I would ALWAYS recommend paying your fare, this includes when you are challenged after the event. However by "the fare" I don't mean the "standard fare", I mean the actual fare for the journey made.

 

[gray1404]

As the thread has been split and it is not mentioned in the title, this relates to a standard fare on the Manchester Metrolink.

 

[tony_mac]

Why didn't TfGM (or first locally) simply call this a 'penalty fare'? The fact that they do not suggests to me there is some legal hand-waving going on in their conditions.

For some history of "standard fares", see this from 1980 - https://trl.co.uk/sites/default/files/SR629.pdf

"A number of attempts have been made by PTEs to introduce appropriate legislation to permit continental-type penalty fares.
Parliament has turned down past initiatives, essentially on the grounds that such arrangements would go against the spirit of British justice, but the industry believes that public attitudes are in favour of these arrangements.
A number of operators have now, however, been permitted by the Traffic Commissioners to operate 'standard' or 'excess' fares. In Cardiff a high standard fare has operated since 1976, and experience has shown the arrangement to be acceptable to passengers."

(Bus companies were state-run at the time; i.e. while central government did not allow 'penalty fares', local governments did).

 

[sprunt]

No one ever turns up on a bus and says "can I have a standard fare please" and gets the response "certainly sir, that will be £100 please". It is therefore a legal fiction.

That's not what a legal fiction is.

 

[TurbostarFan]

That's not what a legal fiction is.

What is a legal fiction then?

 

[sprunt]

A legal fiction is a fact assumed or created by courts which is then used in order to help reach a decision or to apply a legal rule.

 

[TurbostarFan]

I believe they can charge it but only if you consent to pay the standard fare. If you do not then they can prosecute you. If you plead guilty or if you plead not guilty and at trial the prosecution can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that you committed the criminal offence charged, the court will convict and sentence you. If you plead not guilty and they cannot prove that at trial or they offer no evidence, then you will be acquitted.

 

[185]

Just because the railway refer to ordinary tickets as Standard Fares does not mean their rules apply to everything else.

The origin of Metrolink's "Standard Fare" iirc comes from the Manchester bus industry. GM Buses and before, and subsequently it's successors Stagecoach GM and First Manchester refer to a standard fare for invalid tickets (£20?). This worked it's way via GMPTE into Metrolink when it was new.

It certainly is a form of fine or penalty fare in my opinion, regardless of name. Call it a potato, but in essence it penalises those who deliberately or accidentally have no valid ticket. Enforceable by law - following an act of parliament which gave power to the Metrolink bylaws.

 

[PeterC]

British Railways (and I do mean British Railways) used to do this on the Waterloo and City. The fare was set at a silly amount but a "discounted" fare was available if you paid in advance (ie bought a ticket at the ticket office or machine).

 

[DarloRich]

Many of the ideas suggested above by MPotter & TubeMapCentral border on the freeman on the land type silliness. Always seek proper legal advice before implementing any of these ideas.

 

[sprunt]

The origin of Metrolink's "Standard Fare" iirc comes from the Manchester bus industry. GM Buses and before, and subsequently it's successors Stagecoach GM and First Manchester refer to a standard fare for invalid tickets (£20?). This worked it's way via GMPTE into Metrolink when it was new.

I remember when I was at school the notices on the bus said that the Standard Fare was five times the cost of the fare evaded.

 

[185]

Many of the ideas suggested above by MPotter & TubeMapCentral border on the freeman on the land type silliness. Always seek proper legal advice before implementing any of these ideas.

Agree totally with this, considering the job lot of unpaids which get sent to Bury Magistrates each month, the likelyhood of using any of the above reasons to overturn a fare evasion case is probably near zero. The warning signs are on each end of Market Street station, and that will be cited as the fair warning given - the text on the yellow sign (60cm X 60cm) states "Before you board" ... "You must buy a ticket or you may be liable for a £100 standard fare".