Parent fined after son loses zip card

[londonbridge]

Not sure if this is best suited under buses or fares advice but I'll put it here for now.

London schoolboy in uniform on way home finds he's lost his zip/oyster card. Speaks to the bus driver who allows him to board. Inspectors board the bus. He tells them the situation. His mother then receives a fine.

This is the scenario which a parent on one of my local Facebook groups is complaining about. For clarification she is using the word 'fine', whereas I suppose it should really be a penalty fare notice. Her argument is it's not right to fine someone for not having a ticket for something that is free anyway. There is the usual selection of comments from others, including a) telling her that the fine is valid because the kid should have a regular Oyster until they receive the replacement (which the mother had applied for), b) she should appeal, and c) that if a kid has no Zipcard but is in school uniform then the driver should just let them on anyway.

Strictly speaking the kid is guilty of 'failing to show on demand a valid ticket, pass or other authority to travel', even though no monetary fare is actually due. However, since the driver has allowed him to board, does that count as "being given pemission to travel by an authorised person"? I suspect this is one of those cases which, if the mother appeals and loses, will end up in the local/national papers until TFL back down.

Your thoughts and observations please.

 

[87 027]

I once saw a bus inspector insist that a driver who was travelling to work in full uniform on one of his company’s services pay on contactless because he didn’t have his staff Oyster on him, or be issued with a penalty fare. His protests that he had been allowed to board by the driver and worked for the company didn’t cut any ice with the inspector, who insisted it was TFL rules and she was being generous by offering the option to pay before issuing the PF

 

[Bletchleyite]

I once saw a bus inspector insist that a driver who was travelling to work in full uniform on one of his company’s services pay on contactless because he didn’t have his staff Oyster on him, or be issued with a penalty fare. His protests that he had been allowed to board by the driver and worked for the company didn’t cut any ice with the inspector, who insisted it was TFL rules and she was being generous by offering the option to pay before issuing the PF

As it's TfL revenue risk, TfL get to decide who boards and who doesn't, not individual companies/drivers. This, while it might seem a bit jobsworth, is therefore correct.

 

[87 027]

As it's TfL revenue risk, TfL get to decide who boards and who doesn't, not individual companies/drivers. This, while it might seem a bit jobsworth, is therefore correct.

Yes, the inspector stood her ground very firmly on the TFL point.

Edited to add - on point (c) in the OP, Zip cards can be withdrawn by TFL in cases of antisocial behaviour so it does not follow that everyone of school age in uniform has an automatic entitlement to free travel

 

[dmncf]

Her argument is it's not right to fine someone for not having a ticket for something that is free anyway.
...
Strictly speaking the kid is guilty of 'failing to show on demand a valid ticket, pass or other authority to travel', even though no monetary fare is actually due.

How old is the boy in question? If he is over 10 years old, then a fare is due if he doesn't present his Zip Oyster Photocard. These can be withdrawn for bad behaviour, hence it cannot be assumed that all children of a certain age will be holders of the relevant Zip Oyster Photocard; there isn't a universal entitlement to them and some kids will have had them withdrawn.

 

[PeterC]

Yes, the inspector stood her ground very firmly on the TFL point.

Edited to add - on point (c) in the OP, Zip cards can be withdrawn by TFL in cases of antisocial behaviour so it does not follow that everyone of school age in uniform has an automatic entitlement to free travel

So a driver isn't an "authorised person"?

 

[londonbridge]

@dmncf doesn’t say anywhere in the post or comments how old he is I’m afraid.

 

[RJ]

Officially, children are only entitled to free travel if holding a valid pass or accompanied by an adult if under 11.

In practice, many drivers let anyone who looks like a child on without a pass or challenge. Back when I was a driver we had an Unpaid Fare Notice book and were supposed to issue one to anyone who was let on without a valid ticket. Many passengers got on and demanded a UFN because they didn't want to pay that day and many drivers entertained this. Few people actually paid them but it covered the driver.

I've seen drivers merely try to explain to children that they need a pass (before letting them on) and other passengers will jump in and abuse the driver for not letting them on without challenge. All that does is teach children that it's fine to travel without a valid ticket and not to follow due process. Some people think it doesn't matter because they might entitled to free travel but I'm not convinced it's the best thing ever.

Some schools are very good with assisting in supervising boarding after school and making sure their pupils are following the correct process to get their free travel. If all schools did this it would help to reduce instances such as that in the first post. Replacements for lost Zip cards are sent out within one working day. Whoever is caring for the child should really ensure they have the means to travel or have an authority to travel if they've lost their pass.

If a free travel pass has been withdrawn then whoever cares for the child is responsible for shelling out to ensure they have a valid means of travel.

 

[F262YTJ]

The seems over zealous of the inspector and TfL.

I work for one of the major groups in the North West and we are instructed to carry minors if they have no ticket or means to pay because they are classed as vulnerable especially if travelling by themselves.
Surely common sense should prevail and the fine/penalty will be rescinded on appeal.

 

[BJames]

The seems over zealous of the inspector and TfL.

I work for one of the major groups in the North West and we are instructed to carry minors if they have no ticket or means to pay because they are classed as vulnerable especially if travelling by themselves.
Surely common sense should prevail and the fine/penalty will be rescinded on appeal.

When I used to travel on my local TfL route to and from school (quite a small, local route and only very very busy in school times, so it was the same driver for a week on the school bus), the drivers would usually challenge any children trying to board and tell them that they could board today to get home, but that tomorrow they would need to have a card or they wouldn't be able to board. Seems fair to me, they're not being stranded but if its the second or third day, they've had plenty of opportunity to get a contactless or other oyster or find another way of getting home.

 

[RJ]

The seems over zealous of the inspector and TfL.

I work for one of the major groups in the North West and we are instructed to carry minors if they have no ticket or means to pay because they are classed as vulnerable especially if travelling by themselves.
Surely common sense should prevail and the fine/penalty will be rescinded on appeal.

The child was permitted to travel which was the correct course of action.

When I was 11 I understood I needed a pass to travel and so did pretty much the whole school. Bus drivers wouldn't let you on without one and that was that. The school would probably help out or call a caregiver to help if needs be.

Nowadays inspectors are being criticised for explaining to a child that they need a ticket to travel, even when they have been allowed to complete their journey. It's not known what conversation took place - the child could have had their Zip Card stopped or persisted with travelling without a pass. In which case the caregiver should be coughing up for a child ticket so the child doesn't have to implore the driver every time they board the bus, or risk being spoken to by an inspector.

If it was genuinely a case of a recently lost pass and a one off, I doubt an inspector would issue a penalty fare. Whatever the reason it its issue, and I make no judgement on whether it was right or wrong, it should encourage the caregiver to sort a replacement pass out fairly sharpish (they are dispatched within one working day once ordered) unless they want to waste money on tickets.

Once upon a time the driver was required to issue a UFN to anyone who was let on without a ticket, else both the passenger and driver would get into trouble if an inspector boarded. Is this still the case?