Great western invite to pay

[Bletchleyite]

Hasn't been true for a good few years now

It is. 18 is the purchase or proxy purchase age. It's like alcohol, where the *drinking* age is 5. Though I imagine we aren't far off the point where giving a child tobacco would be prosecutable as child abuse.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Oh, no. No chance I'd risk it! As I said above my advice is to either pay up the full amount requested (best idea as sure to make the matter go away) or offer to pay the full ticket price. Ignoring it isn't an option.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Yorkie raises an interesting point (via PM for some reason) - since Burley Road has no ticketing facilities the OP's son couldn't be found guilty of a Byelaw offence. However, if he presented at the ticket barrier without means to pay then that could be taken as intent.

Presenting a Railcard discounted ticket without the Railcard (where even with it it would not have been valid) is probably a guaranteed RoRA prosecution, I would think.

I think paying the full amount is the best plan. Or phone and make a counter offer, but in the likely event of that being rejected be willing to pay the full amount straight away.

As FG tend to charge £80 costs, is this "discounted" for being a child fare?

 

[reb0118]

In addition, I note a zero rated excess was issued for a return journey. It that normal as I'd only known zero excesses to be issued as singles for the journey currently being undertaken?

You are correct, "zero fares" issued to allow passengers to complete their journey in the event of a ticketing irregularity are generally only issued as a single however if the guard/RPI &c. thinks it justified he can issue a return - esp. in the case of vulnerable passengers who may not have the funds to purchase a further ticket later on.

 

[MikeWh]

Presenting a Railcard discounted ticket without the Railcard (where even with it it would not have been valid) is probably a guaranteed RoRA prosecution, I would think.

Why wouldn't it have been valid? If the child is under 16 when the railcard is bought they they can continue getting discounted child fares until the railcard expires or they reach 17 if it is a 3-year railcard.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Why wouldn't it have been valid? If the child is under 16 when the railcard is bought they they can continue getting discounted child fares until the railcard expires or they reach 17 if it is a 3-year railcard.

Because the required adult was absent.

 

[ainsworth74]

B]Yorkie[/B] raises an interesting point (via PM for some reason) - since Burley Road has no ticketing facilities the OP's son couldn't be found guilty of a Byelaw offence. However, if he presented at the ticket barrier without means to pay then that could be taken as intent.

Burley Park has a TVM on the Leeds bound platform.

 

[PermitToTravel]

It is. 18 is the purchase or proxy purchase age. It's like alcohol, where the *drinking* age is 5. Though I imagine we aren't far off the point where giving a child tobacco would be prosecutable as child abuse.

Ah - well that was a pointless rule change wasn't it?!

 

[MikeWh]

Because the required adult was absent.

Ah, I see. So it was invalid because there was no railcard, would still be invalid if the child had the railcard alone, but crucially, if the railcard was also accomanied by the adult it would have been fine.

I just think your suggestion that it would have been invalid with the railcard, without specifying that you meant without the adult, was a bit confusing.

 

[najaB]

Burley Park has a TVM on the Leeds bound platform.

Ah, so it does. But it's card only isn't it?

 

[Stigy]

If he was 16 at the time then in a Court of Law he would be classed as an adult and could be prosecuted as one so that is one place you don't want to go!
The fact he was travelling on (what would have been) a valid child ticket does not change the fact that he is seen as an adult in the eyes of the Courts.

You could try and be clever and offer the cost of the ticket (and nothing more) but they would be well within their rights to cancel this (very low) offer and prosecute your son , they could also prosecute you for aiding and abetting but that is highly unlikely.

If it was me I would pay it as soon as possible because I think the prosecution department have actually got it wrong and should have gone after your son because he was an adult when the offence took place and was therefore not in possession of a valid/ any ticket.

The terms of the F&F railcard are quite clear that all people have to travel together at all times.
Aside-
The fact they have made this (very low) offer (to an adult) suggests to me at least that your son remained calm, compliant and answered all questions fully and accurately at the time, something you should be very proud of.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


The OPs son was 16 at the time of the offence so could very easily be prosecuted as an adult, something they want to be careful to avoid!

Let's not get confused witg criminal responsibikity here. A child is criminally responsible from the age of 10 and can be prosecuted because of this. However, to prosecute a person under 18 years of age still requires a youth court (just the Magistrates Court basically, but hearings for youths held differently). You used to be able to use the standard procedure as long as the defendant was 18 by the time the matter we t to court. Not so any more.

For starters, questions would be raised as to the benefit of summoning an under 18 to court, because contrary to popular belief, all prosecutions need to be in the public interest and prosecuting a minor for such an offence for I'm assuming his first time being caught, could be deemed as heavy handed.

As for aiding and abetting. This isn't an offence that applies to low-level misdemeanors such as this I'm afraid.

 

[ainsworth74]

Ah, so it does. But it's card only isn't it?

Testing my knowledge here but I think it is card only yes as it's a cheapo Northern machine.

 

[najaB]

Testing my knowledge here but I think it is card only yes as it's a cheapo Northern machine.

So I guess its relevance depends on if the OP's son had a payment card with him - let's pretend for a moment that his father hadn't purchased tickets with the family railcard since they didn't arrive as a group. If he did have a payment card he should have used the ticket machine (failing to do so violates Byelaw 18.1) and if he didn't have one he should have purchased with cash on arrival at Manchester (lack of cash could show intent under the RoRA).

So he's over a barrel either way.

 

[gray1404]

So I guess its relevance depends on if the OP's son had a payment card with him - let's pretend for a moment that his father hadn't purchased tickets with the family railcard since they didn't arrive as a group. If he did have a payment card he should have used the ticket machine (failing to do so violates Byelaw 18.1) and if he didn't have one he should have purchased with cash on arrival at Manchester (lack of cash could show intent under the RoRA).

So he's over a barrel either way.

What if a customer has a payment card, several for that matter, but doesn't wish to pay using that method.

 

[Kateg]

For starters, questions would be raised as to the benefit of summoning an under 18 to court, because contrary to popular belief, all prosecutions need to be in the public interest and prosecuting a minor for such an offence for I'm assuming his first time being caught, could be deemed as heavy handed.

As for aiding and abetting. This isn't an offence that applies to low-level misdemeanors such as this I'm afraid.

I dont think it's common for them to take under 18s to prosecution - they have sent the letter to me not him which implies they consider him differently to adults and it mentions no further course of action - just talks about how much fare dodging costs the industry and ends with upon receipt of payment in settlement the company will consider the matter to be closed and will take no further action in this instance.
I think he was probably calm and compliant - he's in the wrong and he will have known it and just wanted to get to the game.

What low level misdemeanour have I committed then as parent? What have I aided and abetted? I'm totally flummoxed by this suggestion from previous poster.....Allowing a numpty teenager on the rail network? Giving birth to a fare dodger?...........

 

[island]

What if a customer has a payment card, several for that matter, but doesn't wish to pay using that method.

Let's not start that one again.

 

[gray1404]

Let's not start that one again.

charming

 

[najaB]

What if a customer has a payment card, several for that matter, but doesn't wish to pay using that method.

Then it comes back to 'cash at the barrier'.

 

[reb0118]

What if a customer has a payment card, several for that matter, but doesn't wish to pay using that method.

There, I've given you the Fife version.

 

[Stigy]

I dont think it's common for them to take under 18s to prosecution - they have sent the letter to me not him which implies they consider him differently to adults and it mentions no further course of action - just talks about how much fare dodging costs the industry and ends with upon receipt of payment in settlement the company will consider the matter to be closed and will take no further action in this instance.
I think he was probably calm and compliant - he's in the wrong and he will have known it and just wanted to get to the game.

What low level misdemeanour have I committed then as parent? What have I aided and abetted? I'm totally flummoxed by this suggestion from previous poster.....Allowing a numpty teenager on the rail network? Giving birth to a fare dodger?...........

Sorry, I wasn't referring to you having committed an offence. I meant that one cannot aid and abet an offence of fare evasion or similar, therefore even if you had done something wrong, aiding and abetting wouldn't come in to it (not to say there's not other offences that would apply, just not aiding and abetting)

 

[island]

charming

I just don't want to descend into another dozen-page off-topic discussion that has been had absolutely to death in the past with no consensus.

 

[Hadders]

If I understand this correctly:

- Family books tickets to travel together using F&F Railcard
- Son travels on an earlier train with his friends, without a ticket
- Son gets challenged at the destination by an RPI. He has his details taken and is issued with a ticket to allow him to return home.
- Rail company writes to parents asking for the fare plus a £50 admin fee.

To be honest for the sake of the additional £50 I'd just pay it and chalk it up to experience. The last thing you or your son need is the hassle of a potential prosecution, you only have to browse through the threads on this forum to see what can happen when people don't make something go away at the earliest opportunity.

 

[swt_passenger]

If I understand this correctly:

- Family books tickets to travel together using F&F Railcard
- Son travels on an earlier train with his friends, without a ticket
- Son gets challenged at the destination by an RPI. He has his details taken and is issued with a ticket to allow him to return home.
- Rail company writes to parents asking for the fare plus a £50 admin fee.

To be honest for the sake of the additional £50 I'd just pay it and chalk it up to experience. The last thing you or your son need is the hassle of a potential prosecution, you only have to browse through the threads on this forum to see what can happen when people don't make something go away at the earliest opportunity.

I don't think the son travelled separately. The OP only says that he exited the station separately having gone ahead...

 

[30907]

I don't think the son travelled separately. The OP only says that he exited the station separately having gone ahead...

OP says later that son used a later train.

 

[Kateg]

Please don't think I was narked at your comment stigy it was yesterday's comment by 455driver where the aiding and abetting was chucked in - guessing it was a throw away comment but no idea why they would suggest it - they actually travelled on same train but not with each other - when he rang dad when he realised they were ticket checking (unusual apparently) he got no answer. Railcard terms are clear that they must travel together so he didn't have a valid ticket - he admitted it and now we've got the letter. I still believe that they are unlikely to want to prosecute a minor so will start with the offer of full fare and see how the conversation develops - will post outcome for information - place your bets now.....

 

[gray1404]

I actually do think it is worth the OP asking the question when they phone on Tuesday (I assume as Monday is a bank holiday) if they can simply pay the fare in final settlement. They may be able to do this on the basis they are simply the parent and not the actual passenger and it appars that the TOC has not actually looked at the case in too much depth thus far. The TOC may take the 'something is better then nothing' view. That said, for reasons stated earlier on in this thread, if GWR do not play ball I would be paying the full amount asked for in the letter (quite a low amount considering) in order to protect their son from further action and I would be doing that by card during the same call.

 

[Solent&Wessex]

One other point not so far mentioned, is that should the matter not be resolved to the satisfaction of the train company (and please note that all FirstGroup companies use the GWR Prosecutions Unit in Reading) then the offenders name and details will, almost certainly, be held on file and then should the same offender come to the attention of the company again in the future then the offer of a swift and easy resolution may not be forthcoming and harder line taken in the first instance.

It might also be worth noting that many Train Companies use a firm called Revenue Protection Support Services ( a debt collection agency, basically) to process Unpaid Fare Notices and for the verifying of name and address details for other matters. It is not uncommon for Train Companies to log details of MG11s and TIRs (the latter is what appears to have been the method of dealing with the OP's Son) they have dealt with on the RPSS records, so even if the offender comes to the attention of another TOC in the future, then the fact that they already have a previous case on file may well be available for them to see, as well as whether it was resolved or not. Again, this may result in a less favourable offering should the offender come to the attention of any TOC using RPSS in the future.

Basically, in summary, if the matter is not dealt with in a manner favourable to GWR / TPE, then this may come back to haunt the OP's son in years to come should he come to the attention of a TOC again for any other unrelated ticketing related matter, as that future occasion - whilst not able to follow up on the previous one - may de dealt with in a stricter manner in the first instance.

I would pay what is requested and ensure that the conditions of the F&F issued tickets are not breached in the future.

 

[Kateg]

Rang today - agreed fare plus £25 costs - they do not prosecute under 18s of that the operator was clear and they do not keep details on a database to be used to escalate in event of another misdemeanour - apparently that would go against data protection and no offence has legally been proven.

 

[bb21]

Sounds about fair I think.

Glad to hear that. Make sure you keep him on a tight leash next time.

 

[najaB]

That's a good result, glad to hear it.

 

[gray1404]

Shame they didn't bedge and waive the admin fee in full. However, thats a good result. I wonder what they would have done if you'd have done nothing...not that I'm recommending you should have done that.

 

[krus_aragon]

-Only if you want to get pished, you can legally ruin your lungs at 16!

But it's been tricky to buy them at that age for a while: Cigarette-buying age set to rise (2007)