Stranded Child

[RPI_Educator]

This true tale redresses the balance regarding penalty fares. I am not going to reveal the TOC concerned as their customer services manager have given the child a full apology, assured us that all their RPIs will be reminded that they are to use discression to Children and a small amount of compensation.

The story starts with a 16 year old who has an Oyster which does not touch out properly at a london surburban station, and the system takes all the remaining credit on the card. The child then travels back to Central London as there is no top up place any where the station and then goes as they have always been taught to the RPI in uniform who is standing at the barriers and asks for help.

Said RPI then issues a PF BUT also behaves like a playground Bully and orders said child to hand over the last remaining £3.00 they have leaving them stranded at a rail station with no money to get home This is totally against the penalty fare regulations.

The child rings me who instructs the RPI to go and see the Tube Station supervisor who issues a yellow form which entitles child to get home I had to pay LT back for this

 

Not surprisingly the customer services at the TOC who are more thoughtfull of the reputational risk have ensured that said RPI has been educated by his managemnt in some common sense (even if it was not in the rules common sense would have dictated that acting in such a manner was not very sensible)

 

I have enormous pleasure in knowing that the RPI probably had to write a report to his managment indicating why he behaved like this, and also at his realisation that after he had been instructed to take the child to the LT supervisor as he had removed the last of their money that he hoped the matter would go away. I made sure it did not !

 

The really surprising thing was that I had fully expected IRCAS to share the same lack of common sense and insist that I paid the PF but they kindly declined to persure the remaining money.

 

I am therefore happy that I was able to arrange to have reeducated someone who has been given tremendous legal powers and has abused them .

The TOC heve clearly stated that this goes against their company policies

 

Kind Regards PRI_Educator

[Stigy]

While I see where you are coming from, in the eyes of the railway, a 16-year old is classed as an adult as far as travelling by train goes, and as such, a £20 Penalty Fare is quite legal to issue. I think that a certain amount of discretion should be exercised in these circumstances, and maybe wouldn't personally have taken the last £3.00 of the 'child'. The Penalty Fare seems reasonable though, so long as the 'child' was advised about how to appeal it etc.

 

Are you sure the RPI actually "orders" the 'child' to hand over their last remaining £3? Have you heard the RPI's version of events? Have you got witnesses that have come forward? Obviously you have, otherwise you wouldn't be here now, would you?

[RPI]

I will actually agree with the OP on this, the TOC I work for is very clear on the fact that only "nil paid" PF's are to be issued to under 18's, even though a 16 year old is not entitled to a child ticket they are still legally a minor until they are 18.

[Stigy]

I will actually agree with the OP on this, the TOC I work for is very clear on the fact that only "nil paid" PF's are to be issued to under 18's, even though a 16 year old is not entitled to a child ticket they are still legally a minor until they are 18.

Most TOC's duty of care also ends when the little darlings reach 16...

[SRPO]

Legally, under 14 is a minor, 14-17 is a young person.

[Old-CodJA]

I will actually agree with the OP on this, the TOC I work for is very clear on the fact that only "nil paid" PF's are to be issued to under 18's, even though a 16 year old is not entitled to a child ticket they are still legally a minor until they are 18.

 

Yes, this is a good principle, but it does not preclude any chance of prosecution if the PF remains unpaid and not succesfully appealed

 

It is possible to pursue these through the Youth Court although many TOCs prefer not to do so unless it is a case of a very persistent offender or, the offence is aggravated and the Police were involved.

 

We should not give publicity to any idea that under 18s have a free reign to do as they like because that certainly isn't the case

 

Where any traveller is genuinely stranded through no fault of their own and the TOC is culpable in some way then the 'duty of care' is the same for all.

 

For children and young people under 16 there is obviously a greater concern and everyone deserves to be treated with respect

 

.

[RPI_Educator]

While I see where you are coming from, in the eyes of the railway, a 16-year old is classed as an adult as far as travelling by train goes, and as such, a £20 Penalty Fare is quite legal to issue. I think that a certain amount of discretion should be exercised in these circumstances, and maybe wouldn't personally have taken the last £3.00 of the 'child'. The Penalty Fare seems reasonable though, so long as the 'child' was advised about how to appeal it etc.

 

Are you sure the RPI actually "orders" the 'child' to hand over their last remaining £3? Have you heard the RPI's version of events? Have you got witnesses that have come forward? Obviously you have, otherwise you wouldn't be here now, would you?

 

I have no dispute about the PF at all and had it been issued correctly then I would simply have paid it if the appeal had failed without further thought. There is no disputing it was legaly issued. the offence was stricl liability etc

 

What I vigorously objected to ( and this was seconded by both Revenus managemnt and customer serices managment from his TOC !)was the leaving of a vunerable young person stranded.

Never mind the fact that he further punished us by making us pay £4.00 to LUL the next day for his return.

 

I asked IRCAS twice in writing to send me a copy of The RPI report so I could see what he had to say but they ignored the request both times The TOC were equally vague about precisly what happened and waht action they were going to take citing the Data Protection Act

As no one wants to tell me otherwise I naturally assume my kids version of events is true

 

The child had a ZIP card so our address was not in question

 

I assume that you do not have children.

 

To Old Codja I am happy that your view as someone who deals with cheats and Liars all the time still thinks that Respect is deserved by honest people who are caught out. As stated I certainly would not avoid paying a PF if IRCAS had dismissed an appeal

 

 

Kind Regards

[RPI]

Yes, this is a good principle, but it does not preclude any chance of prosecution if the PF remains unpaid and not succesfully appealed

I'm not disagreeing with the issuing of the Penalty fare, but we were always told that with under 18's the PF must be made out as a nil paid and the customer given the 21 days to pay, with under 18's we are required to put a parent/guardians name onto the notice, does this make the parent liable?