Incorrectly issued penalty fare

[Pepsie]

My son received a penalty notice through the post for my 13 year old grandson. He appealed the notice to south eastern railways and the appeal was rejected, instead they referred him to the debt recovery agency. At the time of the incident my grandson was at home with his parents. The notice had the correct name and address but incorrect date of birth. This has resulted in a £100 penalty from South eastern, £75 from debt recovery plus the original fayre. We have requested the cctv from the train operator to prove this was not my grandson, however, they will not release the footage due to data protection because they say it is not my grandson yet they are still trying to enforce this fine. Any advice would be appreciated.

 

[spag23]

Welcome to the forum.
A way through this DP impasse might eventually be for you (or your son?) to send them a photo of the grandson, suitably corroborated by a teacher or GP. If he has an alibi, it was probably a "friend" giving the details. Others will be along soon with tailored advice and requests for more information (especially the correspondence). Pursuing a 13 year old for a debt needs an expert's input.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Welcome to the forum. As @spag23 has just opined, it could well be that someone who possibly knows your grandson (perhaps, but not necessarily, a school classmate) has been caught by South Eastern's revenue protection team and has falsely provided your grandson's name and address, but seemingly didn't know what your grandson's correct date of birth was.

If you are entirely confident that your grandson isn't the guilty party here, others on the forum will be along in due course to advise how best to "clear his name", so to speak. What @spag23 has suggested would be a useful starting point. The process will be a bit of a faff, but what needs to be done should be straightforwardly achievable.

 

[island]

They are correct in not releasing any CCTV as if your grandson is saying it's not him, he has no right of access to it and it would be a personal data breach for them to send it.

 

[silverfoxcc]

Also should the debt recovery boys come round asking for the money. just tell the to refer the matter to their princinpals. This is standard practice forpeople who have received an invoice from the parking company and have asked the local debt boys to collect it. They try all ms oeans oif convincincing ther person they should pay, but have no legal standing to do so. Only Court appointed baliffs can demand payment.

 

[WesternLancer]

My son received a penalty notice through the post for my 13 year old grandson. He appealed the notice to south eastern railways and the appeal was rejected, instead they referred him to the debt recovery agency. At the time of the incident my grandson was at home with his parents. The notice had the correct name and address but incorrect date of birth. This has resulted in a £100 penalty from South eastern, £75 from debt recovery plus the original fayre. We have requested the cctv from the train operator to prove this was not my grandson, however, they will not release the footage due to data protection because they say it is not my grandson yet they are still trying to enforce this fine. Any advice would be appreciated.

Reply in writing, (signed by parent I suspect as 'responsible adult') stress they have the wrong person, provide as much evidence to corroborate that as possible - photo of accused, statement of where accused was at the time of incident etc, any supporting evidence etc (phone location record for example?)
It may be that this needs to be sent to the prosecutions dept of the train company, not the (fairly useless) independent appeals body - but maybe send a copy of what is written to one, to the other in these circs.

This is all assuming that you are 100% sure your grandson is telling you the truth, but you and his dad will have a good insight into that I am sure.

If not telling the truth - I fear the best option is to pay the penalty ASAP to resolve the matter.

Just to say I am not doubting that this is the truth. And if someone is impersonating your grandson (a "friend" for example) they are seriously doing him no favours.

Good luck - and head back here for more advice as and when you need it.

This must be a common antic, esp amongst youths of a certain age, so SE Trains will have had it befor and must have a process to deal with such situations.

 

[spag23]

They are correct in not releasing any CCTV as if your grandson is saying it's not him, he has no right of access to it and it would be a personal data breach for them to send it.

ISTR we had this issue a few months back. If someone who identifies themselves to an official as, say, Fred Bloggs of 19 Acacia Avenue, surely they are in no position to complain to the Information Commissioner if footage of them is given to Fred Bloggs of 19 Acacia Avenue.
Anyway my post#2 suggestion solves this.

 

[Pepsie]

Thank you for all your helpful advice.

 

[MotCO]

I thought that minors could not be pursued for ticketing irregularities?

 

[spag23]

That's an issue that, in post #2, I was suggesting needed attention.

Pursuing a 13 year old for a debt needs an expert's input.

 

[Segedunum]

When I used to issue PFNs there was a section for a person's description as well as their other details. This was designed to avoid someone impersonating someone else (usually kids, to be honest).

As has been suggested, supplying a photo of your Grandson may be helpful if the method of issuing also involves taking a description (don't know if this is universal or just the light rail operator I used to work for).

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I thought that minors could not be pursued for ticketing irregularities?

I think this could be a bit of an oversimplification. The English age of criminal responsibility is 10 (https://www.gov.uk/age-of-criminal-responsibility) so it would legally be open to the railway to prosecute. So it seems to me that it would be open to the railway to seek an out of court settlement from a child (of 10 or older) with the threat of prosecution should payment not be made. But in practice this might well not be done as it might not reflect well on the railway to seek to prosecute a child for fare dodging.

It seems to be the case that a civil debit can't be enforced against a child. But realistically we don't see this (i.e. county court judgements) used by the railway against adults either.

And of course in this case the railway seems to be pursuing the wrong person, so as we have advised, the approach to take is to explain this point to the railway.