How can you tell how old a child is?

[yorkie]

Other countries avoid this problem by charging adult fare from the age of 12.

If the aim is to prevent 16 year olds travelling at half rate, I agree that requiring 12 year olds to pay full rate would pretty much eliminate the problem. However it would be like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and it would unduly penalise many young people. That said, it wouldn't completely eliminate it; it is possible for some not yet 12 year olds to look older than recently turned 16 year olds (especially if you consider that girls can be taller and appear to look a lot older than boys around that age).

Of course whatever age you set, you will always get people who look older than that age being accused of having an invalid ticket, and you will always get people who look younger than that age trying to use (or even being offered) invalid tickets.

I came across two boys trying to avoid a Guard on an XC service a few weeks ago. I convinced them to get off and buy a ticket on their next train. When I looked up the fares, I did ask if they qualified for child fares, as I thought one of them looked 16-17 and the other 12-13, I thought perhaps they were brothers. But they told me they were actually both 14. But I wasn't surprised as you really can't tell.

The short answer to the original question in the thread title is very simple: you can't.

 

[Mathew S]

It’s all very well saying that phone calls should be made, BTP summonsed etc but how much does this cost, in most cases far more than the revenue that might be at risk.

I’m not condoning over 16s travelling on child tickets but a commercial sense of perspective is also needed.

Fair point, but it's only through properly - and fully - enforcing the rules that the railway gains credibility on these things and (most) fare dodgers of whatever flavour stop trying their luck.

 

[Mathew S]

If the aim is to prevent 16 year olds travelling at half rate, I agree that requiring 12 year olds to pay full rate would pretty much eliminate the problem. However it would be like using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, and it would unduly penalise many young people. That said, it wouldn't completely eliminate it; it is possible for some not yet 12 year olds to look older than recently turned 16 year olds (especially if you consider that girls can be taller and appear to look a lot older than boys around that age).

Of course whatever age you set, you will always get people who look older than that age being accused of having an invalid ticket, and you will always get people who look younger than that age trying to use (or even being offered) invalid tickets.

I came across two boys trying to avoid a Guard on an XC service a few weeks ago. I convinced them to get off and buy a ticket on their next train. When I looked up the fares, I did ask if they qualified for child fares, as I thought one of them looked 16-17 and the other 12-13, I thought perhaps they were brothers. But they told me they were actually both 14. But I wasn't surprised as you really can't tell.

The short answer to the original question in the thread title is very simple: you can't.

I'd argue that the fact that you can't is the reason why a national ID scheme would be useful. That said, I'd also say that this is exactly how I'd expect staff to act: apply common sense just as @yorkie has done here.

There's a difference, though, between not being sure whether someone's a child or not, and dealing with someone who's obviously taking the proverbial, at whom the book should clearly be thrown.

 

[221129]

Fair point, but it's only through properly - and fully - enforcing the rules that the railway gains credibility on these things and (most) fare dodgers of whatever flavour stop trying their luck.

No it won't.

 

[LOL The Irony]

This is why the age limit should be raised to 18.

 

[Mathew S]

No it won't.

Why not? To use the area where I live as an example, there are regular stories in the local press castigating Northern for being so unreasonable as to insist that people buy a ticket, and preferably the right ticket, in accordance with the rules. One of the main reasons for this is that so many people get away with not doing it so regularly that they cry foul on the rare occasions when the rules are finally enforced.
Now I know that some areas, and some staff, are better than others, but making sure that the rules are properly enforced all the time is surely the only way to make the point. Especially since people seem to just ignore posters, announcements, social media, websites, and printed info telling them to buy the right ticket before they board.

 

[221129]

Why not? To use the area where I live as an example, there are regular stories in the local press castigating Northern for being so unreasonable as to insist that people buy a ticket, and preferably the right ticket, in accordance with the rules. One of the main reasons for this is that so many people get away with not doing it so regularly that they cry foul on the rare occasions when the rules are finally enforced.
Now I know that some areas, and some staff, are better than others, but making sure that the rules are properly enforced all the time is surely the only way to make the point. Especially since people seem to just ignore posters, announcements, social media, websites, and printed info telling them to buy the right ticket before they board.

There will always be chancers, no matter what you do or what press coverage there is you will never get rid of those chancers.

 

[Mathew S]

There will always be chancers, no matter what you do or what press coverage there is you will never get rid of those chancers.

Yes, absolutely, there will always be some who try it on. I just wish the rules were better enforced so that they get caught when they do, and more people are dissuaded from chancing it.

 

[sefton]

Nobody is suggesting 'making things up as you go along'.
Posing as a child when you're an adult to get a cheaper ticket is 'Fraud by false representation' and a serious criminal matter which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. It's not simply a byelaw or RORA issue, like many ticketing matters, but a serious criminal offence which can be prosecuted under the Fraud Act 2006.
An RPI, or other railway staff, is perfectly entitled to investigate further if they have a reasonable suspiscion that someone is breaking the law like this (and reasonable is defined in law as what most people would believe given the circumstances and available information, it doesn't matter if their reasonable belief is later found to have been incorrect). If needs be, that can - and should - mean asking for proof of entitlement to the child discount or reporting them to BTP/prosecutions if they can't provide that proof.

But how has the member of staff passed the "reasonably suspected" test if you cannot tell how old a 15 year old is just by looking at them?

With no other evidence they cannot reasonably suspect so there is no legal basis to ask the customer to provide any more information other than their (valid) ticket.

If the member of staff thinks they can demand information when the legislation doesn't support it, then they are making it up as they go along.

 

[221129]

But how has the member of staff passed the "reasonably suspected" test if you cannot tell how old a 15 year old is just by looking at them?

With no other evidence they cannot reasonably suspect so there is no legal basis to ask the customer to provide any more information other than their (valid) ticket.

If the member of staff thinks they can demand information when the legislation doesn't support it, then they are making it up as they go along.

The legislation supports asking for name and address...

 

[Mathew S]

But how has the member of staff passed the "reasonably suspected" test if you cannot tell how old a 15 year old is just by looking at them?

With no other evidence they cannot reasonably suspect so there is no legal basis to ask the customer to provide any more information other than their (valid) ticket.

If the member of staff thinks they can demand information when the legislation doesn't support it, then they are making it up as they go along.

I think it's highly unlikely that, other factors aside, you'd ever reasonably suspect a 15-year-old unless they looked an awful lot older than their age.

 

[sefton]

The legislation supports asking for name and address...

It does if the "reasonably suspected" test is passed, if not it doesn't.

Reasonably suspected is not the same as 'no idea if they are or are not'.

 

[221129]

It does if the "reasonably suspected" test is passed, if not it doesn't.

Reasonably suspected is not the same as 'no idea if they are or are not'.

Where does it say reasonably suspected?

 

[D365]

This is why the age limit should be raised to 18.

How’s that going to help when a 14 or 16 year old can easily look older than 18?

 

[sefton]

Where does it say reasonably suspected?

In the legislation.

 

[mwmbwls]

In the legislation.

For the benefit of contributors less familiar with the "Legislation" than yourself it would be helpful if you could either cite or, following the rules of this site, quote the specific point of law.

 

[mallard]

Of course, you could always do what many bus companies (who also run much of the rail network) do and abolish child fares altogether, replacing them with what they call a "proof of age card" (actually a child's discount card; no other form of ID is accepted).

It's pretty lucrative in tourist areas where non-locals won't (and can't, without a local address to have it sent to) have the card and therefore have to pay full fare. When they charge around £50 per year for the card, it can even be quite lucrative even without the tourist market.

(This also shows why the "is school out test" is stupid. Just because schools are "in" in your area, doesn't mean they are the world over, nor does it mean that particular child's school isn't having a teacher-training day or that the child doesn't have another authorised reason to be out of school, such as work-experience week, granny's funeral, etc.)

 

[sefton]

For the benefit of contributors less familiar with the "Legislation" than yourself it would be helpful if you could either cite or, following the rules of this site, quote the specific point of law.

Railway Bylaws 23 -

23. Name and address

(1) Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person.

(2) The authorised person asking for details under Byelaw 23(1) shall state the nature of the breach of any of these Byelaws in general terms at the time of the request.

 

[al78]

When I was at secondary school, there was something called an under 16 bus pass, which allowed me to pay the concessionary fare (because I was under 16, but only just). Is it not feasible to have something similar rolled out for the railway as well? It would greatly reduce the risk of problems like this. I wouldn't have thought that applying for such a pass would be any worse than applying for a railcard.

Expecting staff to apply their own judgement is going to be horribly unreliable.

 

[sefton]

Is it not feasible to have something similar rolled out for the railway as well?

So do you have two cards -
- Zero to 5 years old for the free tickets; and
- 5 to 15 years old for the 50% off tickets

How long are they valid for? 10 years from 5 to 15 - that photo is going to be recognisable
Who pays for the administration to issue the cards? Not going to be very popular if you have to pay £20 every year or two if you only take one train a year.

Expecting staff to apply their own judgement is going to be horribly unreliable.

Of course it is, which is why shops operate the "Think 25"system where shop staff are asked to question anyone who looks under 25 if they are trying to buy anything age restricted, so making sure they challenge anyone on the borderline.

Since the railway companies have specifically chosen not to have a proof of entitlement card or specifically require customers to carry proof of age, to prevent their staff making similar errors perhaps they ought to operate the Think 25 scheme in reverse. i.e. unless you look over 25 you don't get questioned.

 

[al78]

So do you have two cards -
- Zero to 5 years old for the free tickets; and
- 5 to 15 years old for the 50% off tickets

How long are they valid for? 10 years from 5 to 15 - that photo is going to be recognisable
Who pays for the administration to issue the cards? Not going to be very popular if you have to pay £20 every year or two if you only take one train a year.



Of course it is, which is why shops operate the "Think 25"system where shop staff are asked to question anyone who looks under 25 if they are trying to buy anything age restricted, so making sure they challenge anyone on the borderline.

Since the railway companies have specifically chosen not to have a proof of entitlement card or specifically require customers to carry proof of age, to prevent their staff making similar errors perhaps they ought to operate the Think 25 scheme in reverse. i.e. unless you look over 25 you don't get questioned.

Renewed every year, like a Network railcard or similar.
Probably have to put a cost on the applicant. If someone only takes one or two trains a year they might as well either chance it or pay full fare, it may be cheaper than paying £20 (if that is really how much it should cost).
If such a system can work on local bus networks, then why not on the railway? It is easy to come up with excuses as to why it can't happen, but doing that ultimately just leads to stagnation. We'd never progress on anything if we fixated on every possible issue that might not be perfect.

 

[mallard]

If such a system can work on local bus networks, then why not on the railway?

You realise I wasn't seriously suggesting the scheme that bus companies use? Their scheme is purely designed to boost their profit margins by abolishing the general right to lower fares for minors.

If proof of age becomes mandatory, all commonly recognised forms should be accepted, rather than the bus company scheme of selling a discount card by misrepresenting it as a "proof of age card".

Surely the better compromise would be that somethng similar to a UPFN is issued when staff suspects that a person travelling on a child ticket is over-age? If they can respond with proof of age, the notice is withdrawn, otherwise they pay the difference or a PF. As others have pointed out, "Child-rate Photocards" are apparently already available for children who regularly have their age questioned.

 

[sefton]

Surely the better compromise would be that somethng similar to a UPFN is issued when staff suspects that a person travelling on a child ticket is over-age? If they can respond with proof of age, the notice is withdrawn, otherwise they pay the difference or a PF. As others have pointed out, "Child-rate Photocards" are apparently already available for children who regularly have their age questioned.

No that isn't a better "compromise".

The customer has a valid ticket bought under the train companies rules. By issuing a UPFN the member of staff has determined the guilt of the customer bu issuing a penalty (albeit unpaid), and the customer now has to suffer the burden of proving their innocence.

That is not acceptable.

The train companies expect customers to stick to the rules, so it is reasonable for the train companies to also stick to the rules; if a customer has a presented a valid ticket, there is nothing more they should expect the customer to do.

 

[mallard]

The customer has a valid ticket bought under the train companies rules. By issuing a UPFN the member of staff has determined the guilt of the customer bu issuing a penalty (albeit unpaid), and the customer now has to suffer the burden of proving their innocence.

That is not acceptable.

I said "something similar to a UPFN", not an actual UPFN... Call it a "proof of age request" or something, just with a mechanism similar to a UPFN. Obviously there would need to be a rule change to accomodate this.

 

[sefton]

I said "something similar to a UPFN", not an actual UPFN... Call it a "proof of age request" or something, just with a mechanism similar to a UPFN. Obviously there would need to be a rule change to accomodate this.

And in your scheme what happens if the customer declines to respond to the "proof of age request" as they had a valid ticket?

 

[alxndr]

And in your scheme what happens if the customer declines to respond to the "proof of age request" as they had a valid ticket?

Include it in the terms and conditions of the ticket that a proof of age must be complied with where a request is submitted, otherwise they will escalate and demand full adult fare plus additional charge to discourage chancers.

This could be advertised alongside an optional child photocard to allow people who suspect they might be challenged to preemptively purchase one. Other accepted forms of proof of age should be made clearly available, perhaps including a signed letter from a teacher on letterheaded paper with contact details to make it accessible to the vast majority of people (although this could be open to forgery).

 

[sefton]

Include it in the terms and conditions of the ticket that a proof of age must be complied with where a request is submitted, otherwise they will escalate and demand full adult fare plus additional charge to discourage chancers.

This could be advertised alongside an optional child photocard to allow people who suspect they might be challenged to preemptively purchase one. Other accepted forms of proof of age should be made clearly available, perhaps including a signed letter from a teacher on letterheaded paper with contact details to make it accessible to the vast majority of people (although this could be open to forgery).

So you want the system to remain pretty much as it is, with the burden falling on the customer for the train companies failings and to have to pay to prove their innocence.

Nice.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Here's my solution to this headache.

As with the ENCTS pass scheme, the Government should issue a young persons version of the scheme which could be called ENYP, English National Youth Pass which would be valid on all buses, trains and trams (the latter where they have them) and would be issued from the age of ten and would be valid until the holder is nineteen - after which its full whack with no further discount given.

What I'm saying is, having a single England wide scheme would iron out most problems.

 

[sheff1]

What I'm saying is, having a single England wide scheme would iron out most problems.

Like a national ID card

 

[alxndr]

So you want the system to remain pretty much as it is, with the burden falling on the customer for the train companies failings and to have to pay to prove their innocence.

Nice.

Is it really a train company's failing if they can't do the impossible and age someone on sight? By that logic everywhere that sells alcohol/tobacco/other age restricted goods is at fault because they require people to show formal ID and don't psychically know they're old enough.

At no point did I suggest that individuals would have to pay, and don't believe that they should have to (hence the idea of a letter from a teacher being acceptable proof of age), just that the option could be there for people who know that they are likely to get challenged and use the train regularly to buy a photocard for a small fee. For a regular traveller with no other ID who looks older than their age they might opt to do so. I'm only imaging something like a ticket office issued photocard for railcards, so nothing expensive or fancy. Could probably even be done for free if it were possible to get the right people agreed!

Thinking about it, offering a free card and implementing a condition that proof of age could be requested at a later date if the card (or other proof of age) has been forgotten might solve the whole issue as it is. People would still get the benefit of the doubt but there would be opportunity to chase up on it later without it immediately escalating to an UPFN, and the idea that they might be expected to show proof might deter chancers and make it cost effective for TOCs. The issue is that it'll never happen, because how can figures be produced for how much revenue is lost through people "getting away with it"?