Metrolink Penalty fare issued via discrimination.

[Troy Pickering]

On Monday 21st May I was travelling from my workplace in Baguely to home in Droylsden. I rarely use the Met as I work with my wife who on this day was working from home. So I may use it once or twice per month. I used the Get me There App to purchase my ticket. I selected my correct stop, Baguely and destination stop. I placed the ticket in my basket, hit the proceed to payment button and then foolishly put my phone in my pocket not realising I had to enter my CV2 number again for my card.

At Holt Town an Inspector boarded the train and asked to see tickets. I didn't hesitate to pull my phone out and show my ticket. Upon realising it was still in my basket I proceeded to purchase the ticket whilst he checked other peoples tickets. When he came back I showed him a VALID ticket, with my correct departure stop. He told me I had only just purchased it and I needed to get off at the next stop. I attempted to explain to him I had purchased the correct ticket and that I hadn't realised it was still in my basket. That it was simply an oversight and it wasn't intentional but he wasn't having any of it.

I departed the tram at Etihad Stadium as requested. As did another passenger. A young attractive female. The inspector didn't hesitate to issue me a ticket and immediately pulled out his ticket book. I will say at this point in time that I 6'1 tall, heavily tattooed with a large beard. I work full-time, I am an honest law abiding citizen and I am an immigrant.

The inspector didn't seem at all interested in my explanation or the fact that I had a valid ticket. At the point I did became quite annoyed and I readily admit to swearing and being angry, but never threatening. At this point I watched as one of the other inspectors was talking with the young female who was also asked to get off and was looking at her phone with her. I asked the Inspector who I was dealing with why she was not being issued a ticket as well to which he replied "She is" I was also told that they have to take EVERYONE at face value and that I had the right to appeal the ticket.

Once my ticket was issued I sat and waited for the next tram. I then noticed the young female passenger be escorted to the ticket machine where she was allowed to purchase a valid ticket for her joruney. I asked one of the inspectors why she didn't get a ticket to which he would not respond. I proceeded to walk over the three inspectors and asked the one who had been dealing with her why she had not been given a ticket to which his response was "Her situation was different to yours" I responded by stating that he had "No idea what my situation was he wasn't dealing with me and that the only difference I can see is that she was female" My suggestion was of course nervously laughed off.

By this stage I was absolutely infuriated. I walked back to the platform to wait for my tram. The Younger female passenger in question was stood next to me and boarded the same tram and same carriage. She then proceeded to take a call and explain to the person on the other end that her app on the phone wasn't working and so she couldn't buy a ticket and that the inspector let her off and let her get a ticket from the machine.

My argument is that fact that via twitter and both my appeal rejection letter Metrolink themselves have stated that their staff are trained to deal with ALL passengers equally and that ALL passengers are responsible for ensuring they have a valid ticket before travelling. I readily admit I made an honest mistake, however if these rules they claim to abide were enforced then either A) The female passenger should of also been issued a ticket OR B) I should of been let off too.

I at least attempted to purchase a ticket and had a ticket sitting in my basket. No attempt was made by her to ensure she had one. Her app wasn't working so she just didn't bother?

I feel that I was given the ticket because of not only my appearance, but my sex and also the fact that I speak a little differently to everyone else. I have tried to reason with Metrolink via twitter. I have also sent an appeal, which it literally only took them two days to respond to via mail that leads me to think the email I sent was not even read or investigated properly.

I still have 6 days left to pay the fine, but it is literally a full days wage to me as I am uni graduate so I am literally paid minimum wage for the work I do and I feel like the episode was handled poorly and at no point was my situation taken into account. I have bank records that show I purchase my tickets whenever I utilise the Met.

Any advice would be greatly appreciated.

 

[Stigy]

to which his response was "Her situation was different to yours" I responded by stating that he had "No idea what my situation was he wasn't dealing with me and that the only difference I can see is that she was female" My suggestion was of course nervously laughed off.

Hi Troy,

I would say that he DID know what your situation was, because you were issued a Penalty Fare and she wasn't. He may not have known the specifics of you situation, but he DID know you were liable for the penalty, and presumably she wasn't. You mentioned her 'app' wouldn't work or something? I'm not familiar with what you mean, but could this be why she wasn't liable in the same way as she wouldn't be liable for a Penalty Fare if there was no way in which she could have purchased a ticket? As far as discrimination goes, usually it works the other way if at all, in that the young females are the easier targets so get the Penalty, whereas the 6'1" tattooed males are feared...

 

[mikeg]

I agree with Stigy you don't know her situation. The ticket issuing facilities could have been down at her station of origin, for example. I'm not overly familiar with the metrolink but I imagine it's like trains whereby there is an excuse if there are no facilities. You're not forced to use the app by the way, it's there for convenience but as you chose to use it and did not have a valid ticket at the time of boarding you were eligible for a penalty fare. Having reread it they would probably show more discretion with their app failing (possibly their fault) than a ticket that remained in the basked (not their fault).

Some further thoughts: The problem of you not purchasing your ticket properly beforehand was your own fault (sorry if this is not what you wanted to hear, I know we all make mistakes) and also tickets in baskets which are later activated only when an inspector approaches are all to common a scam among fare evaders so I understand them being suspicious. That said, they could have reported you for prosecution under metrolink byelaws if they had suspected you were pulling a scam, so it sounds as if it was treated as an honest mistake.

 

[najaB]

The inspector didn't seem at all interested in my explanation or the fact that I had a valid ticket.

You didn't have a valid ticket. They have to be purchased (and auto-activated) prior to boarding.

 

[Bletchleyite]

You didn't have a valid ticket. They have to be purchased (and auto-activated) prior to boarding.

Correct, and the totally reasonable grounds for this is that otherwise people would just buy a ticket when an inspector got on board.

This is the case not just in the UK, it's also the case in Switzerland. On SBB, even if you have activated it they will check if it was after the time you boarded (per the timetable). If it was, even by one minute, you're getting a penalty fare.

This is not discrimination, it is the rules; you will need to take this one on the chin and pay up before it escalates to a much higher cost.

 

[Stigy]

Some further thoughts: The problem of you not purchasing your ticket properly beforehand was your own fault (sorry if this is not what you wanted to hear, I know we all make mistakes) and also tickets in baskets which are later activated only when an inspector approaches are all to common a scam among fare evaders so I understand them being suspicious. That said, they could have reported you for prosecution under metrolink byelaws if they had suspected you were pulling a scam, so it sounds as if it was treated as an honest mistake.

Indeed, this shows an amount of discretion rather than penalising somebody unnecessarily. Penalty Fares are intended as a deterrent against fare evasion and are more of a warning. Fare evaders 'should' be reported for summons as you said. I said should, because admittedly some companies utilise Penalty Fares in the wrong way, as do some staff.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I agree with Stigy you don't know her situation. The ticket issuing facilities could have been down at her station of origin, for example. I'm not overly familiar with the metrolink but I imagine it's like trains whereby there is an excuse if there are no facilities.

No, it works differently. You are absolutely required to purchase a ticket before boarding. Unless this has changed, the rule is that if none of the TVMs at the station are working, you have to telephone Customer Services to obtain a reference number; unlike the railway this gives you a completely free journey.

It is intriguing as to why she wasn't issued a PF, but you don't know the situation. What is certain is that your PF is valid and you do need to pay it before it is escalated and costs you much, much more.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The fact that there may or may not have been discrimination of some form is irrelevant to the fact that you boarded without a valid ticket where facilities evidently existed to have bought one beforehand. There is no excuse for this and failing to pay the amount due will only increase the seriousness of what happens. Yes, it's painful, but swearing, exclaiming that others are being treated differently and so forth will not prevent Metrolink from successfully prosecuting you. Bite the bullet and pay it.

 

[pemma]

I agree with Stigy you don't know her situation. The ticket issuing facilities could have been down at her station of origin, for example. I'm not overly familiar with the metrolink but I imagine it's like trains whereby there is an excuse if there are no facilities.

Metrolink say if the machines aren't operational and you need a ticket you had to phone them to get a code to travel. If the lady passenger did that then she shouldn't have been removed from the tram, unless it was the stop she was travelling to. If she didn't get the code but did board at a stop where facilities were unavailable or she said the machine wouldn't process her card or had the wrong ticket then maybe that's why the inspector took a different approach.

 

[pemma]

with the young female

How young? If you're under 18 the law treats you differently.

 

[cuccir]

How does the ticket inspector know that you don't do this every day? The existence of occasionally purchased tickets might even be understood as evidence of that. It would be quite a ruse - to always have one in the basket but only pay when inspectors board. Someone could save a lot of money doing that!

What you're asking for is your argument about intending to buy a ticket to be accepted. In effect, you're asking them to listen to your story and have it accepted according to them making a judgement about your character based on a short conversation. But then, that's exactly what you're getting angry at when that process is applied to someone else!

Any system that involves discretion is open to prejudice, both conscious and unconscious. Maybe that was in play here; but as others have pointed out you don't know the other woman's situation, even based off her phone call. The only alternative is to never show discretion, and under such a system you'd fall foul of the rules here.

Pay up - it's not going away otherwise. Someone else getting off with something (if that is the case) doesn't affect your case.

 

[Haywain]

I agree with others that you should pay the penalty fare and put it down to experience. Complaining that it was unfair because someone else did not get the same treatment will get you nowhere as you do not have the full facts. However, I wanted to highlight this part of your post:

At the point I did became quite annoyed and I readily admit to swearing and being angry, but never threatening.

Given that you say you are "6'1 tall, heavily tattooed with a large beard", it is not reasonable to say that you were not threatening. This may not have been your intention but threats are often perceived from behaviour rather than words and it is only the person on the receiving end who can say whether you were or were not threatening.

 

[Stigy]

I agree with others that you should pay the penalty fare and put it down to experience. Complaining that it was unfair because someone else did not get the same treatment will get you nowhere as you do not have the full facts. However, I wanted to highlight this part of your post:

Given that you say you are "6'1 tall, heavily tattooed with a large beard", it is not reasonable to say that you were not threatening. This may not have been your intention but threats are often perceived from behaviour rather than words and it is only the person n the receiving end who can say whether you were or were not threatening.

I agree, in fact the fact that he admits being angry and swearing full stop, is intimidating and threatening, as I'm assuming it wasn't said under his breath.

 

[transmanche]

This is the case not just in the UK, it's also the case in Switzerland. On SBB, even if you have activated it they will check if it was after the time you boarded (per the timetable). If it was, even by one minute, you're getting a penalty fare.

Indeed, and apparently applies even if the ticket machine at your departure station is out of order. In this story from 2013, a BBC reporter falls foul of the Swiss rules.

One frosty morning I arrived at my local station to find that the ticket machine was broken. No matter, I thought, I have got a smartphone, and I hurriedly set about buying my ticket that way. This was not as easy as I had hoped, fiddling between credit card and phone with freezing cold fingers, but, by the time I got on the intercity to Geneva I had an e-ticket and I proudly showed it to the conductor.

Unfortunately, she was less than impressed and told me in no uncertain terms that my ticket was not valid. Why, only became clear several weeks later when a letter arrived from Swiss railways euphemistically named "revenue protection service". The good people there tell me the formal payment for my ticket from my credit card company arrived four minutes after my train left the station. That means, they say, that I bought my ticket on the train - and that is not allowed.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Indeed, and apparently applies even if the ticket machine at your departure station is out of order. In this story from 2013, a BBC reporter falls foul of the Swiss rules.

Yes, it's actually so strict on DOO regional trains (and has been for a long time) that a faulty ticket machine means the station is closed unless you have a smartphone or a pre purchased ticket.

On ICs (which always have guards) there is a bit of discretion but only to be used in such situations (no opportunity to purchase). So she'd actually been better not buying anything, ironically.

 

[Starmill]

The majority of customers on Metrolink who do not have a ticket when asked for one, in my experience, are either allowed to purchase one to complete their journey, or are allowed to complete their journey without paying.

This is especially likely if the person is apologetic and cooperative (and doesn't use bad language or get angry). It's also more likely when revenue checks are carried out onboard the tram than at the stops.

The statistics do back my anecdotal evidence up too. Only around 2000 standard fares per month are issued. For a service with 38 million passengers per year this is remarkably low. We are talking fractions of a percentage point here. Most of the time I think people will be treated in the way this woman was so long as they are willing to pay. It's far less work for their staff if someone is willing to pay to just make them buy a ticket than to complete the paperwork. They often work in teams of just two in isolated areas too, so it isn't even always practical for them to insist that name and address are given.

The fact that you have actually been given one is very surprising, and deeply unfortunate for you. I would advise buying a paper ticket from the machine in future. The prices are not higher.

 

[185]

Travelling 45 mins and only then hitting the purchase button on hearing "tickets please" is not a valid reason especially when the penalty is only an "expensive ticket " of just fifty quid. Kind of the same argument as a shoplifter only paying "coz the security guard stopped em". imo of course.

In the original post there is mention that 'the female's app had failed'. That does happen, and a passenger may be able to produce proof that they purchased prior to boarding or potentially phone banking and an inspector has used sensible discretion.

There is a bit of a clamp down taking place on those misusing the app - those sitting there and only hitting 'purchase' when the inspectors jump on will ruin it for the rest as the PTE will probably pull the app. It's a really useful, convenient app for the majority who use it correctly every day.

 

[CC 72100]

There is a bit of a clamp down taking place on those misusing the app - those sitting there and only hitting 'purchase' when the inspectors jump on will ruin it for the rest as the PTE will probably pull the app. It's a really useful, convenient app for the majority who use it correctly every day.

About time too - you could tell when someone at the front of the tram had clocked revenue inspectors at the next station (always the same station used in 90% of the time I had my ticket checked - how original!) because you'd see a flurry of people getting their phones out. At present the phone app can almost serve as a "pay when challenged" get out of jail free card given that inspectors didn't seem worried whether the ticket had been just purchased despite the person having obviously not just boarded as the station they chose was so lightly used it was almost always empty!

To the OP: You'll never know why the other individual seemed to get away with it. And it probably doesn't make any difference to your case either I'm afraid.