Discretion?

[VauxhallandI]

I was on a Cheshunt to Liverpool Street train via Seven Sisters tonight when the inspectors came across someone who showed an invalid ticket.

Upon a second inspection of the ticket (as it was rather crumpled) the inspector noticed it was for Harlow Town to Cheshunt.

She immediately said "I have the money to buy a ticket"

The second inspector was called back and he asked them where they were going, she said Theobalds Grove.

He then rung up the amount on his machine to which she said I need the child fare, so he re-entered the details and sold her a ticket.

Should she not have been issued with a penalty?

 

[Urban Gateline]

Maybe the RPI was giving discretion as Penalty Fares are not supposed to be issued to Children!

 

[maniacmartin]

What time was this?
Note that Harlow Town ticket office closes at 21:00, and you cannot buy from other origin stations from Greater Anglia TVMs. Itineraries between Harlow Town and Theobald's Grove at this time of night have a 10-11 minute connection. Normally this would allow enough time to buy at Cheshunt, but its possible that there were large queues at Cheshunt (but unlikely I admit).

I agree that a Penalty would have technically been the correct response, but the RPI might have had sympathy if the Harlow Town to Cheshunt was bought in advance of travelling. If this was not the case then they really should have received a penalty.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Maybe the RPI was giving discretion as Penalty Fares are not supposed to be issued to Children!

I don't agree with this policy. Why should children be allowed to fare evade? It's law-abiding passengers that are subsidising this.

 

[VauxhallandI]

What time was this?
Note that Harlow Town ticket office closes at 21:00, and you cannot buy from other origin stations from Greater Anglia TVMs. Itineraries between Harlow Town and Theobald's Grove at this time of night have a 10-11 minute connection. Normally this would allow enough time to buy at Cheshunt, but its possible that there were large queues at Cheshunt (but unlikely I admit).

I agree that a Penalty would have technically been the correct response, but the RPI might have had sympathy if the Harlow Town to Cheshunt was bought in advance of travelling. If this was not the case then they really should have received a penalty.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---


I don't agree with this policy. Why should children be allowed to fare evade? It's law-abiding passengers that are subsidising this.

No he was typing up the first ticket before he learned she was a child.

It was at 17.43.

The station is pretty empty bar 8am

 

[island]

Maybe the RPI was giving discretion as Penalty Fares are not supposed to be issued to Children!

I'm not sure that's right, as there are sections in the penalty fares rules that tend to contradict you. Perhaps it is the case at your TOC as a matter of policy.

 

[yorkie]

I don't agree with this policy. Why should children be allowed to fare evade? It's law-abiding passengers that are subsidising this.

A penalty fare is not an accusation, nor response to, fare evasion.

I know the franchise has since changed hands, but this is best explained in this document.

A penalty fare is simply a charge that [Greater Anglia] is allowed to make under the Penalty Fare
Regulations and Rules. It is not a fine and anyone who
is charged one is not being accused of avoiding, or
attempting to avoid, paying his or her fare. ‘Fare dodging’
is a completely different matter. It is a criminal offence
and we treat it as such by prosecuting offenders under
criminal law.

 

[Flamingo]

But everybody knows that PF's are issued to disuade fare evasion, and as a "de-facto" on-the-spot fine.

They get issued for "genuine mistakes" when it is too difficult to prove the passenger is not telling the truth, and to record the details for if the same excuse gets used by the same person again.

 

[maniacmartin]

But everybody knows that PF's are issued to disuade fare evasion, and as a "de-facto" on-the-spot fine.

They get issued for "genuine mistakes" when it is too difficult to prove the passenger is not telling the truth, and to record the details for if the same excuse gets used by the same person again.

Of course, even though no-one admits it

 

[VauxhallandI]

But everybody knows that PF's are issued to disuade fare evasion, and as a "de-facto" on-the-spot fine.

They get issued for "genuine mistakes" when it is too difficult to prove the passenger is not telling the truth, and to record the details for if the same excuse gets used by the same person again.

Indeed and if anything in this case it was a blatant attempt at fare evasion. The ticket she didhave looked like it coukd have come off the floor. No proof of that mind

 

[Flamingo]

Digressing, I once got handed a ticket by a guy who claimed it had been stamped in error by an earlier guard on his way out. Unfortunately for him, it had been stamped by me the night before, as it was my stamper number!

it's the only occasion I've been able to prove it.

 

[jon0844]

One advantage of having a stamper with a date/code and not just scribbling on it with a biro as seems most common around here.

 

[Mojo]

I'm not sure that's right, as there are sections in the penalty fares rules that tend to contradict you. Perhaps it is the case at your TOC as a matter of policy.

To try and enforce a civil debt (after all that is what an unpaid Penalty fare is) against an under 18 would be a little challenging. And even if the Penalty fare was dropped and a prosecution initiated, sentencing guidelines, further to the guidance which says children should, wherever possible, be diverted away from the criminal justice system, makes the process a little long-winded for minimal reward on the part of the Toc.

 

[VauxhallandI]

Back to the topic, the inspector had made his mind up about selling the ticket before the child part came up.

The point is for example there was a thread about not being allowed to stand in a first class vestibule in a packed train with a standard ticket yet blatant fare dodgers are let off.

 

[Flamingo]

The point is for example there was a thread about not being allowed to stand in a first class vestibule in a packed train with a standard ticket yet blatant fare dodgers are let off.

One does what one can. To my mind, people who habitually travel in First Class with a STD class season ticket are in the same category as the 20 year-old on a child ticket.

 

[VauxhallandI]

One does what one can. To my mind, people who habitually travel in First Class with a STD class season ticket are in the same category as the 20 year-old on a child ticket.

Yes we went through this last time.

This was someone with no ticket for the journey, trying to con the inspector with a ticket they knew was not valid for the journey.

 

[Flamingo]

Fair enough, and I would have expected an RPI to deal with it a bit differently than us mere mortals who have no power (or time or training) to do the paperwork involved in an interview under caution, get correct details and complete an MG11.

Maybe it was coming near to the end of their shift!

To put the time involved, I had revenue on my train last week (what's rare is wonderful). The RPI did three pretty empty carriages, discovered two ticket irregularities (one Advance on wrong train, one missing railcard), and this took him over 45 minutes to do. He wasn't taking his time, or acting slow, that's just as long as it took. I opened-dispatched at three stations in that length of time and walked through checking the other five carriages, which I could never have done along with dealing with the passengers involved in the irregularities.

 

[Stigy]

To try and enforce a civil debt (after all that is what an unpaid Penalty fare is) against an under 18 would be a little challenging. And even if the Penalty fare was dropped and a prosecution initiated, sentencing guidelines, further to the guidance which says children should, wherever possible, be diverted away from the criminal justice system, makes the process a little long-winded for minimal reward on the part of the Toc.

Absolutely. It's all down to the public interest too. For example, would it be deemed in the public interest to cancel a PF and proceed to a Youth Court under Byelaw 18, for a minor? As it has to be demonstrated that all prosecutions are in the public interest due to CPS guidelines (CPS cases and private prosecutions have to abide by the same guidelines). Probably not worth the time, paperwork and hassle. Basically to issue a PF to an under 18 leaves the TOC with their hands tied should it go unpaid, and as such, the paperwork and time in admin duties etc wouldn't be worth their while. At best it gets the young 'un on the system for when they do eventually 'come of age'.

 

[jon0844]

The thing is that it would be better to deal with someone under 18 properly than let them come to learn that nothing bad will happen, and wait until they get older to prove them wrong (by which time, they've got a nice long record sheet).

It does make me wonder how the CPS judges what it's in the public interest, or why the public would think that someone young should be let off because they 'really don't know any better'.

 

[Stigy]

The thing is that it would be better to deal with someone under 18 properly than let them come to learn that nothing bad will happen, and wait until they get older to prove them wrong (by which time, they've got a nice long record sheet).

It does make me wonder how the CPS judges what it's in the public interest, or why the public would think that someone young should be let off because they 'really don't know any better'.

I agree, although can see the TOCs' point of view too. It's not just what the public would like to see, as the name would suggest, but obviously the other factors involved in bringing a case to court such as the Magistrates' time when there could be arguably more serious cases in the queue to be dealt with.

 

[RPI]

Maybe the RPI was giving discretion as Penalty Fares are not supposed to be issued to Children!

Nowhere in the PF rules does it state that you can't PF children, although common sense dictates that you use your noggin when dealing with youngsters, I draw the line at about 14 but if it's someone younger who is persistent then I will PF them but usually after speaking to the parents

 

[34D]

I was on a Cheshunt to Liverpool Street train via Seven Sisters tonight when the inspectors came across someone who showed an invalid ticket.

Upon a second inspection of the ticket (as it was rather crumpled) the inspector noticed it was for Harlow Town to Cheshunt.

She immediately said "I have the money to buy a ticket"

The second inspector was called back and he asked them where they were going, she said Theobalds Grove.

He then rung up the amount on his machine to which she said I need the child fare, so he re-entered the details and sold her a ticket.

Should she not have been issued with a penalty?

Was she fit?

 

[VauxhallandI]

Was she fit?

She was a child Le Vell!

 

[Muzer]

Maybe the RPI was giving discretion as Penalty Fares are not supposed to be issued to Children!

I was given a UFN when I was a child, but not a penalty fare - I'd forgotten my season ticket if that makes a difference (the one day I did so, ever, was one of the rare days there was an RPI at the station...). I think I was 11 (end of year 7 IIRC) So perhaps they do show discretion.

 

[34D]

She was a child Le Vell!

It was inferred that she was at the age where the inspector thought she was an adult.

 

[Flamingo]

One of my colleagues had a woman with no ticket recently claiming to be 14 (yea right) and the guy with her was being really abusive to the guard, but said he'd never met her before.

On arrival at the station, the guard asked platform staff to call BTP as this was a "Vulnerable underage female with no money, and this male appears to be a pervert who is following her".

 

[VauxhallandI]

It was inferred that she was at the age where the inspector thought she was an adult.

Gotcha