16 yr Old Non-Payment Rail Fare Letter

[HowShouldIRespond]

Hi, we have received a letter from Northern Rail asking for an explanation for the following reason - my son turned 16 in March and travelled by train in May from Roby to Liverpool and had purchased a childs savaway by mistake (he had not used the train for about 6 months and just asked for a savaway at Roby and unwittingly accepted an under 16 ticket.

 

At Liverpool upon showing his ticket the guard asked his age and my son told him the truth. The guard seemed to accept this and was going to issue him with an adults savaway but then decided to keep his ticket and take his name and address. The journey itself would have cost £2.10 as an adult and the childs savaway cost £2.40 so he had actually paid more than the journey would have cost.

 

My son is in the middle of his GCSE's and is now panicking because of the wording in the letter - "non-payment of rail fare" "serious incident" failure to give satisfactory explanation will result in legal proceedings" "fines" "criminal record" etc. Should I phone them up and try and explain this or write back as they have asked, should we apologise profusely and accept a fine or is there any value in arguing the case? I don't want this to drag on any further as it is already affecting his studies. Thanks

Edited June 19, 2012 by citizenB
spacing for easier reading

[Old-CodJA]

National Rail Conditions of Carriage and National Railway Byelaws make clear that, it is the responsibility of every traveler to ensure that the correct fare is paid and that a valid ticket is held for the journey made.

In order to obtain a ‘Child rate’ rail ticket a request has to be made. The default setting on all railway booking office ticket machines is ‘Adult Single’. This also applies to self-service and mobile ticket issuing machines, where at least two separate press button choices have to be made in order to obtain any type of discounted ticket. This has been designed to ensure that it is not possible to obtain a ‘Child Rate’ ticket fromany of these machines accidentally.

Child rate tickets are valid for use by persons aged between 5 and 15 years only. The full adult fare is due on attaining 16 years of age. Claiming a discount to which a traveler is not entitled may be considered to be an attempt to avoid payment of a correct fare contrary to Section 5 of The Regulation of Railways Act (1889).

Normally, Rail Companies will deal with these matters by way of administrative penalty, though if there are serious aggravating features they can proceed to Youth Court hearings, but this is extremely rare.

I think a written apology by your son (he is over 16 and is the person reported) and an undertaking made by him not to purchase a child-rate ticket in future should hopefully do the trick.

Edited June 19, 2012 by citizenB
increased font size for easier reading

[HowShouldIRespond]

Ok thanks for the response, just to clarify he bought the ticket from a ticket officer at Roby rather than a machine. I had actually dropped him off at the station as the train was pulling in and I think he just panicked and accepted the ticket that was offered so he could make the train. There were also no aggravating features. I was not sure if phoning them up would sort it out any quicker as he has been stressed out with it all weekend.

Thanks

[citizenB]

You could telephone and follow up the call with a confirmation letter.

[HowShouldIRespond]

Just an update for anyone else in the same position, I was able to pay the difference of £1.40 over the phone and this has now been sorted. Northern Rail seemed to be ok with a phone call to sort this out.

Thanks

[citizenB]

Well done, I am pleased this is now sorted out and your Son can concentrate on his exams.

[andydd]

£1.40..Jeez..!

[Bazooka Boo]

£1.40..Jeez..!

Pathetic isn't it, another jobs worth that needs to take a day off.

[Old-CodJA]

Good, commonsense applied and I'm sure he'll get an adult ticket in future so re-education complete and happy all round.

[andydd]

On a related note was chatting to my brother who had an annual season ticket for C2C line (about £3500 value), the other day he was on the train and a ticket inspector approached, my brother realised he didnt have his photocard with him so explained the sitaution, now I have been in this sitaution and whilst I realise that supporting documentation must be wshown you would expect the inspector to show some common sense and if needed checjk the number on the ticket with HQ and get a name (this is possible as Its been done for me).

 

BUT apparently the inspector was very unpleaseant and was ranting and raving about calling BTP, etc..now even others on the crarraige joined in to compalin about the inspectors attitude including a lwyer who happened to be sitting opposite.

 

What did surpsise me though is that my brother fired off an email to c2c and copied in the md/ceo, he then received a phone call from the md/ceo's pa saying that the inspector behavior was not acceptable and he would be 're-trained' my brother was given an apology and some rail vouchers.

 

My brother did point out that whilst the strict byelwas did require photo id to be produced with the ticket, he clearly was not trying to evade any fare and as a saeson ticket holder he had spent many thousands with them and as a customer did not expect to be traeted in such a manner, the outcome was most welcome, maybe others should complain more ?

 

Andy

[Bazooka Boo]

Agreed, sometimes I feel like a miserable old so & so, complaining about shoddy treatment and service, but there is a lot to be said for making others aware that you won't be treated like a five year old.

[citizenB]

Well..they operate to rather ancient laws and byelaws as the experts here RPI and Old_codja will testify too, unfortuamtely they all too often these days seem ill tempered and just plain rude and whilst prob being 'right' in law, hassling my brother (a loyal customer who has spent many tens of thousands) just seems plain wrong and unfair.....I was surprised that the TOC admitted as much, lets hope the inspector enjoys his 're-training' and is given a course in politeness

 

Andy

[firstclassx]

In reply to the above post:

 

The laws have stood the test of time. People generally do know what their responsibilities are.

 

If your friend cannot comply with the law, or the contract he enters into, then he cannot complain if he receives a penalty. People think because they spend £000s, that somehow that means they don't have to follow the rules they agree to abide by when they purchase a ticket!

 

He committed a criminal offence, (Byelaw 18), so was lucky he was allowed on his way without penalty.

 

The Inspector is doing his job correctly, if a train full of people started having a go at him then I'm not surprised it got his back up. If your friend had bothered to bring all of his ticket with him, then no issue would have occurred!

[havinastella]

In reply to the above post:

 

The laws have stood the test of time. People generally do know what their responsibilities are.

 

If your friend cannot comply with the law, or the contract he enters into, then he cannot complain if he receives a penalty. People think because they spend £000s, that somehow that means they don't have to follow the rules they agree to abide by when they purchase a ticket!

 

He committed a criminal offence, (Byelaw 18), so was lucky he was allowed on his way without penalty.

 

The Inspector is doing his job correctly, if a train full of people started having a go at him then I'm not surprised it got his back up. If your friend had bothered to bring all of his ticket with him, then no issue would have occurred!

 

But move into the real world!

 

You are just spouting bollocks, lets live behind old laws that only rail retards can stand behind! Hitler died in the last decade!

[firstclassx]

But move into the real world!

 

You are just spouting [naughty word], lets live behind old laws that only rail retards can stand behind! Hitler died in the last decade!

 

Evidently you have not got much knowledge in this very niche area of law.

 

1)The Railway Byelaws were last revised in 2005, (the Transport Act 2000 initially created the Byelaws)

 

2) Regulation of Railways Act 1889 was last revised in 2008 (by the Crossrail Act 2008, which actually made the range of punishments harsher)

 

3) Penalty Fare Rules exist from 2002, although The Railways (Penalty Fares) (Amendment) Regulations 2005 again updated this legislation.

 

4) National Rail Conditions of Carriage was last updated on 20 May 2012!

 

===They have stood the test of time and are constantly updated and revised to fit modern situations and society. A lot of other well used legislation is older such as the Theft Act 1968, Perjury Act 1911, Statutory Declarations Act 1835 etc.

 

Never the less, you are obviously blind to the threads were many people are prosecuted under these laws (for seemingly trivial offences) successfully. Come 10am on Monday morning I will be preparing for another 50 offenders to face justice.

 

With the many thousands of people making these so called "honest" mistakes whilst on the railway, there is nothing "trivial" about it.

 

With your use of the term "rail retards", I assume you are referring to the many passengers who seemingly can't remember to bring their tickets with them?

Edited June 24, 2012 by firstclassx

[Chickensandparsnips]

But move into the real world!

 

You are just spouting bollocks, lets live behind old laws that only rail retards can stand behind! Hitler died in the last decade!

 

I think you'll find Hitler died in the last CENTURY.... Not decade - who's the rail retard now then!?

 

Firstclassx is right, the laws and regs have clearly passed the test of time, and are still seemingly adequate even now for the range of offences on the railway.

[andydd]

In reply to the above post:

 

The laws have stood the test of time. People generally do know what their responsibilities are.

 

If your friend cannot comply with the law, or the contract he enters into, then he cannot complain if he receives a penalty. People think because they spend £000s, that somehow that means they don't have to follow the rules they agree to abide by when they purchase a ticket!

 

He committed a criminal offence, (Byelaw 18), so was lucky he was allowed on his way without penalty.

 

The Inspector is doing his job correctly, if a train full of people started having a go at him then I'm not surprised it got his back up. If your friend had bothered to bring all of his ticket with him, then no issue would have occurred!

 

True..BUT in the real world, people get up asnd scoff down their cornflakes, dress the kids, rush to the station and perhaps on the odd occssion do forget their photocard, they are not evading their fare, they have paid a small fortune to travel by train, does this mean they should be treated rudely, badly and embarrased and humiliated in front of other passengers for a simple mistake that probably everyone has made at some time ?..(and I point out a mistake that can be verified at the time)

 

Clearly the MD of C2C thinks the inspector did not act correctly, hence the apology, compensation and the re-training for the inspector, or do you know more than the MD ?

 

It wasnt a case of being 'bothered' to bring the photocard, mistakes in life happen..or do you do everything 100% cotrrect, 100% of the time ? I very much doubt it.

 

Andy

[andydd]

Evidently you have not got much knowledge in this very niche area of law.

 

1)The Railway Byelaws were last revised in 2005, (the Transport Act 2000 initially created the Byelaws)

 

2) Regulation of Railways Act 1889 was last revised in 2008 (by the Crossrail Act 2008, which actually made the range of punishments harsher)

 

3) Penalty Fare Rules exist from 2002, although The Railways (Penalty Fares) (Amendment) Regulations 2005 again updated this legislation.

 

4) National Rail Conditions of Carriage was last updated on 20 May 2012!

 

===They have stood the test of time and are constantly updated and revised to fit modern situations and society. A lot of other well used legislation is older such as the Theft Act 1968, Perjury Act 1911, Statutory Declarations Act 1835 etc.

 

Never the less, you are obviously blind to the threads were many people are prosecuted under these laws (for seemingly trivial offences) successfully. Come 10am on Monday morning I will be preparing for another 50 offenders to face justice.

 

With the many thousands of people making these so called "honest" mistakes whilst on the railway, there is nothing "trivial" about it.

 

With your use of the term "rail retards", I assume you are referring to the many passengers who seemingly can't remember to bring their tickets with them?

 

You appear to be saying that it is perfectable acceptable to prosecute and fine people who were not in anyway intending to evade their fare, they made a simple mistake (as everyone does from time to time..'to err is human'), if that is the case then clearly the current laws and byelaws are not working correctly.

 

Andy

[Bazooka Boo]

So this is what is meant by trolling.....

I think you'll find Hitler died in the last CENTURY.... Not decade - who's the rail retard now then!?

 

Come 10am on Monday morning I will be preparing for another 50 offenders to face justice.

 

What a vile petty world we live in, sad really.

[andydd]

Maybe Mr firtsclassx is the inspector my brother was talking about and needs 're-training', Im glad that the two experts on this forum, RPI and Old-Codja are both reasonable people and appear to be far removed from firstclassx.

 

Andy

[Old-CodJA]

I don't claim to have any greater expertise or influence than anyone else, but have had 35 years in this railways business, and I was around at the very beginning of BR self-prosecutions, long before privatisation and the days well before any of the TOCs promoted RPIs & others to perform the role of 'company prosecutors'.

 

The legislations are robust and like all good laws, have stood the test of time. The important thing is that ALL prosecutors MUST give regard to the all of the defined tests in relation to justice & public interest, reliability of evidence of offence, reliability of evidence of identity and whether or not a conviction is a realistic outcome etc.

 

Even where the evidential test has been satisfied, the prosecution of any alleged offence MUST be in the public interest AND in the interests of justice.

 

The prosecution must be seen to be appropriate, fair and properly brought. There is no definitive guidance as to when it may not be in the public interest, or in the interest of justice to prosecute, because each individual case will turn on its' individual factors.

 

This particular thread started with a discussion regarding an under 18 year old and Home Office guidance to CPS and other prosecutors is very clear on this. The prosecution of first time Youth offenders, charged with non-serious allegations is discouraged wherever possible in order to keep young persons out of the Courts system unless serious matters are evident. Alternative disposals for first time youth offending matters are encouraged.

 

I accept that petty offending does seem to be on the increase in some areas, but also believe that where genuine remorse & re-education is evident and minor transgeressions by first time offenders can be dealt with firmly & efficiently, that alternative disposals might be considered.

 

I am sure that every TOC recognises that it certainly is not appropriate to prosecute in all cases. Serious offending deserves a serious response, but commonsense dictates that it is not appropriate to issue a Summons for every minor breach of rule.

Edited June 25, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[andydd]

An excellent post by Old-Codja which offer sensible guidelines, unlike firstclassx's 'everyone is guilty and must be punished' aproach.

 

Andy

[woody1066]

I thought that the law states that nobody under the age of 18 cannot be held to a contract and therefore as purchasing a ticket is a form of contract then it could be an interesting case if it went before a court

[Old-CodJA]

I thought that the law states that nobody under the age of 18 cannot be held to a contract and therefore as purchasing a ticket is a form of contract then it could be an interesting case if it went before a court

 

Payment of the correct rail fare is a statutory obligation defined by an Act of parliament. It is not a civil matter.

[Grotesque]

On a related note was chatting to my brother who had an annual season ticket for C2C line (about £3500 value), the other day he was on the train and a ticket inspector approached, my brother realised he didnt have his photocard with him so explained the sitaution, now I have been in this sitaution and whilst I realise that supporting documentation must be wshown you would expect the inspector to show some common sense and if needed checjk the number on the ticket with HQ and get a name (this is possible as Its been done for me).

 

BUT apparently the inspector was very unpleaseant and was ranting and raving about calling BTP, etc..now even others on the crarraige joined in to compalin about the inspectors attitude including a lwyer who happened to be sitting opposite.

 

What did surpsise me though is that my brother fired off an email to c2c and copied in the md/ceo, he then received a phone call from the md/ceo's pa saying that the inspector behavior was not acceptable and he would be 're-trained' my brother was given an apology and some rail vouchers.

 

My brother did point out that whilst the strict byelwas did require photo id to be produced with the ticket, he clearly was not trying to evade any fare and as a saeson ticket holder he had spent many thousands with them and as a customer did not expect to be traeted in such a manner, the outcome was most welcome, maybe others should complain more ?

 

Andy

 

You seem to have a curious run of luck on the railway.... maybe get a Boris bike instead? LOL