Manchester Marathon Charging £30 for "Free" Deferral After London Place Awarded



I wanted to share my experience with Manchester Marathon regarding their handling of deferrals for runners who secured a place in the 2025 London Marathon, as I feel their approach has been unfair and misleading.
Both the Manchester and London Marathons are taking place on the same day this year, meaning many runners who had already entered Manchester later found themselves needing to defer after securing a London place. Manchester Marathon had originally advertised that participants who gained a London spot would be eligible for a full refund or free deferral upon providing proof of entry. However, when I contacted them to defer, I was told I had to pay an additional £30, despite already having paid my original entry fee.
This fee represents a 200% increase from the previous year’s deferral cost of £10 (then £20) and was never clearly disclosed at the time of entry. The information they referenced in my confirmation email was hidden behind a gated link, meaning I couldn’t access it. Their explanation? The link "used to work" but no longer does—how convenient!
Given that both the London and Manchester Marathons are registered under England Athletics, I believe this raises serious questions about fair consumer treatment and transparency:
- Why was a "free deferral" promised but later charged at £30?
- Why wasn’t the 200% price hike properly communicated before people entered?
- Why are runners penalised for something beyond their control, when England Athletics awards London places?
- Is this a breach of consumer protection laws regarding misleading advertising?
I have formally escalated this to England Athletics as I believe it contradicts their best practices for race organisers. Participants should not be misled into entering one set of terms, only to find those terms changed after payment.
Has anyone else had a similar experience? Would love to hear your thoughts on whether this is fair, or if I should be pushing for further action.
Comments
-
What did the Manchester terms say at the time you entered (i.e. before you got the confirmation email with the broken link)? Those are the terms they're bound to. Sounds more like they offered a concession afterwards (which they weren't obliged to), and I would say they're free to withdraw that.1
-
On the basis of your account, they appear to have breached their contract when it comes to the free deferral no longer being free. If you've got evidence of the original offer, then follow it through the channels you are pursuing. As for your other points:
The price hike not being properly communicated isn't a legal obligation. They don't have to tell you how much more it was than last year's fee, but they do need to be clear what the fee is.
I think there's a certain amount of responsibility for runners to take here. Anyone entering both events presumably knew the dates coincided, or booked without knowing the dates of either or both events, so I don't think the circumstances are beyond runners' control. There was always the risk of securing a place for one race and that ruling out the other. That doesn't change the fact that a previously-advertised free deferral should remain free, of course.
What happens if you ask for a full refund? Is Manchester oversubscribed every year? In other words, is getting a full refund then applying for 2026 a sensible plan?0 -
Thanks @user1977
At the time of my entry, the Manchester Marathon’s terms explicitly stated that a full refund or free deferral would be offered to anyone who later secured a place in the London Marathon. This wasn’t a goodwill concession added later—it was a clear condition that influenced my decision to enter.
The issue is that they later introduced a £30 fee without informing entrants before purchase. If they wanted to change their policy, that should have applied to new entrants only, not those who entered under the original terms. They are bound by what they advertise at the time of entry.
0 -
Thanks for your insights @Aylesbury_Duck I agree that the biggest issue here is that they changed the terms after people had entered. A free deferral was advertised, and now they are charging for it, which is a clear breach of contract.
Regarding the price hike, while they don’t legally have to compare it to previous years, they do have to clearly disclose the cost at the time of entry, which they failed to do. The information was hidden behind a broken link, meaning participants had no way of knowing about this additional charge until after they had committed to entry.
As for runners taking responsibility—yes, anyone entering both races should be aware of potential clashes, but that’s not the problem here. The issue is that Manchester Marathon made a very clear promise to entrants, and then failed to honour it. If they had never offered a free deferral, I wouldn’t be complaining.
On the refund: I did ask, and Manchester Marathon refused to provide one. Their stance is now “pay £30 or lose your place entirely”, which contradicts what was originally promised. Manchester is a popular race, but whether it’s oversubscribed or not shouldn’t be relevant—they advertised one set of terms, and they should be held to them.
0 -
jen.lap said:
<snip>
- Why are runners penalised for something beyond their control, when England Athletics awards London places?
0 -
That’s true—both London Marathon and Manchester Marathon are organized by separate companies. However, both events are England Athletics registered races, meaning they must adhere to EA’s best practice guidelines for race organizers.
EA may not control individual races, but they set the ethical and operational standards that affiliated events are expected to follow. If an event is engaging in misleading advertising, unfair pricing changes, or failing to honour stated terms, EA has a responsibility to step in and ensure standards are upheld.
This is why I have escalated the issue to England Athletics. The fact that Manchester Marathon changed the terms after purchase and failed to disclose the deferral fee upfront contradicts best practice guidelines for transparency and fair treatment of participants.
If EA holds itself to the customer service and fairness standards it promotes, then it should address Manchester Marathon’s handling of this situation. I think they are using the situation for their own commercial gains.
0 -
I don't suppose you have a screenshot or anything showing the free deferral offer from when you entered Manchester?
Could you find it on the Wayback machine?0
Confirm your email address to Create Threads and Reply

Categories
- All Categories
- 348.2K Banking & Borrowing
- 252.1K Reduce Debt & Boost Income
- 452.4K Spending & Discounts
- 240.8K Work, Benefits & Business
- 617K Mortgages, Homes & Bills
- 175.6K Life & Family
- 254K Travel & Transport
- 1.5M Hobbies & Leisure
- 16K Discuss & Feedback
- 15.1K Coronavirus Support Boards