Is this even fare evasion?

[RJ]

At the ticket office, I've been bemused several times by this situation.

Adult rocks up with small child(ren.) They buy a Travelcard for themselves. When asked how old the child is, they say "4 years old." Almost instantly, the child spiritedly pipes up "I'm 5!" or "I'm 8!" or "I'm [insert age where child requires a ticket to travel]!" Cue an awkward look from the adult, sometimes with them telling the child to be quiet.

In this situation, I have been known to smile and ask the adult a second time how old the child is. It is amazing how often they made a mistake the first time around! I take this as an opportunity to give the benefit of the doubt and inform the adult of when it is necessary for the child's fare to be covered. It has been said more than once that they don't feel they should pay for children because they don't have to on TfL services. Truthfully, there is scope for genuine confusion where child fares are concerned in London. Inter-availability arrangements don't help as you can't say in all accuracy that children don't go free on National Rail services.

To all, what would you do in the ticket seller's situation? I'd also be interested to know if any of our resident on board retailers/ticket inspectors have ever asked an adult how old their accompanying children are if they don't have a child ticket?

 

[lightning76]

I can't speak for rail ticket staff, but as a bus driver, I simply issue the tickets requested. I'm not very good at judging the ages of small children, not having any myself, and AFAIK there are no provisions for me to demand to see their birth certificates.

Like you I would explain the tickets required a couple of times and leave it at that. If my employers are that concerned then their revenue staff can deal with it. I've explained the situation and correctly issued the tickets requested. End of.

 

[attics26]

I agree issue whatever they ask for .... unless the 4,6,8 yr old is smoking or drinking cider then I might query the entitlement to a child ticket or free travel

 

[soil]

I don't think we bothered buying tickets for my son for a couple of years after he turned five.

He's 11 now, and we have a daughter too, so we couldn't really get away with it.

I know my wife's friend was pulled up on it with her son when he was over five, but I don't think they really do anything.

 

[Mojo]

Just out of interest; the age of criminal responsibility is 10, so what could happen to a child aged above the age of free travel but under 10? Is there a law making their parents responsible?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Re: "Is this even fare evasion?" I believe the answer can be found in the Court's decision in "Murphy v Verati" [1967] 1 WLR 641, and that answer is 'yes, it is'.

In that case's summary: "Commission of the offence of tendering money to enable the person on whose bahalf it is tendered to travel without having previously paid his fare is possible, not only before that person has travelled, but also while continuing to do so . . . "
Although that case didn't involve a child fare, the principle seems to the same - V and his female companion arrived at the exit barrier at Stockwell station on the Underground without tickets, and V gave the inspector 2s for the fare of both of them saying "two from Kennington" and accepted 8d change. In fact, they had both travelled from Kings Cross (from which a higher fare was due). V was judged on his actions in respect of the fare for himself and his companion - whether that companion had been an aquantance, a child or other person seems to me to be irrelevant in judging his misrepresentation of the actual tickets which would have been correct for the journey.

V was charged with "intent to enable that person (in that case, his companion, in this case, a young person of 5 or more years of age) to travel on the railway without having previously paid his fare". The Magistrates found him Not Guilty, but on Appeal by the Railway Company, the Magistrates were directed to convict.

 

[soil]

Re: "Is this even fare evasion?" I believe the answer can be found in the Court's decision in "Murphy v Verati" [1967] 1 WLR 641, and that answer is 'yes, it is'.

V was charged with "intent to enable that person (in that case, his companion, in this case, a young person of 5 or more years of age) to travel on the railway without having previously paid his fare". The Magistrates found him Not Guilty, but on Appeal by the Railway Company, the Magistrates were directed to convict.

This would appear to be a prosecution under the Railway Byelaws of 1965, Byelaw 8

"No person, with intent that the Board shall be defrauded or prejudiced, shall
(1) tender or deliver up to an authorised person a ticket or money on behalf of another person with intent to enable the person on whose behalf the ticket or money is tendered or delivered up to travel without having previously paid his or her fare,
(2) transfer, tender or deliver up a ticket to another person with intent to enable any person to travel on the railway without having previously paid his or her fare."

This is now Byelaw 22:

"22. Fares offences committed on behalf of another person
(1) No person shall buy a ticket on behalf of another intending to enable another person to travel without having paid the correct fare.
(2) No person shall transfer or produce a ticket on behalf of another person intending to enable that other person to travel without having paid the correct fare."

The case in the OP is clearly distinguishable from the 1967 case.

In the 1967 case, the defendant purchased two tickets from a cheaper destination, one for himself, and one 'on behalf of another'.

In the case rj describes, the purchaser purchases only one ticket, for himself. The other person (the child) does not have a ticket.

The purchaser, if questioned, would say 'he doesn't need a ticket', 'he's a child', 'he's only four' or perhaps the more elaborate:

P: 'He's seven'
I: 'He needs a ticket then.'
P: 'Oh does he, I didn't know, I thought he was free.'

Since no ticket exists for the child the offence of Murphy v. Verati is not committed.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

The relevance of the Verati decision is in the reasoning - reasoning which can helpfully be applied to modern statute. I apologise for not having made that clear.

The interpretation which flowed from V's misrepresentation to the ticket seller seemed to be encapsulated quite succinctly in my last quote : "intent to enable that [other] person to travel on the railway without having previously paid his fare". In applying the protocols of statutory interpretation, I would expect to see the decision in Verati used as an authority in understanding how to determine 'intent' in S.5 of the RoRA : "any person Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof".

 

[tony6499]

As most cases here children travel with an adult for £1 flat fare there is no excuse to not have a ticket for them, of course if they are caught on the train then it is the full child single fare and not £1

 

[soil]

The relevance of the Verati decision is in the reasoning - reasoning which can helpfully be applied to modern statute. I apologise for not having made that clear.

The interpretation which flowed from V's misrepresentation to the ticket seller seemed to be encapsulated quite succinctly in my last quote : "intent to enable that [other] person to travel on the railway without having previously paid his fare". In applying the protocols of statutory interpretation, I would expect to see the decision in Verati used as an authority in understanding how to determine 'intent' in S.5 of the RoRA : "any person Travels or attempts to travel on a railway without having previously paid his fare, and with intent to avoid payment thereof".

S5 refers to a person travelling or attempting to travel without paying. 'John travels without buying John's ticket'

Byelaw 22 refers to enabling another person to travel. 'John buys a platform ticket for Joanna'

With reference to s5 the person that travels without paying is the small child, who is incapable of committing the offence. The adult pays for his ticket.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

As most cases here children travel with an adult for £1 flat fare there is no excuse to not have a ticket for them, of course if they are caught on the train then it is the full child single fare and not £1

Here in SWTland the fare is half the adult fare, which can be a significant sum.

 

[RJ]

£1 flat fares aren't in place on all lines out of London and there are relatively few within London itself. When I work within the zones, child Travelcards are the full £3.40. I'll never offer a cheaper outboundary Travelcard which does have corresponding flat fares for children (£2 I think) unless I'm asked specifically.

Very interesting insight DaveNewcastle - thanks. I do issue whatever is asked of me. If I have any suspicion that there is an element of someone trying it on, I will ask questions and take the opportunity to educate on the correct ticket to buy. It has to be a good reason for a suspicion, such as an honest child showing off their age or a child purporting to be 15 having a provisional driving licence in their wallet. If they come up with an excuse that could be legitimate, such as buying the ticket on someone else's behalf, I always give the benefit of the doubt. Revenue Protection can deal with any misdemeanors from that point.

 

[Harlesden]

Sorry RJ, but I had always believed it was part of a NR ticket seller's training to offer the passenger the cheapest applicable valid fare available. It is a basic part of customer service.

 

[91103eastcoast]

The suggestion of offering the cheapest fare available could suggest that splits then have to be considered, so it could potentially be problematic.

 

[RJ]

Sorry RJ, but I had always believed it was part of a NR ticket seller's training to offer the passenger the cheapest applicable valid fare available. It is a basic part of customer service.

It's my obligation to sell the simplest and cheapest ticket, in that order. I don't want to have to explain to people why the ticket I've given them has a different origin station on it - the onus is on the passenger to do that kind of research. I keep it simple and give the customer exactly what they ask for. I don't voluntarily suggest split tickets either unless there is no other option. People can lose their tempers very quickly if you try to suggest anything other than the specific ticket they've asked for. Once bitten, twice shy and all that.

If people speculatively ask, or complain about the fare and are polite about it, I might suggest a very basic level workaround where there is no chance of any issues at gateline or with ticket inspection staff. An example being instead of selling a single from Purley to Milton Keynes, I'd offer a Milton Keynes Travelcard. Or a Zone 1-6 Travelcard plus BZ extension if it's cheaper.

 

[bb21]

Sorry RJ, but I had always believed it was part of a NR ticket seller's training to offer the passenger the cheapest applicable valid fare available. It is a basic part of customer service.

No and no.

The cheapest ticket between the origin and destination. One is not expected to trawl through the fares database in case there is a cheaper fare from a different origin.

How long do you think that will take? :roll:

 

[CC 72100]

No and no.

The cheapest ticket between the origin and destination. One is not expected to trawl through the fares database in case there is a cheaper fare from a different origin.

How long do you think that will take? :roll:

And if you want a slightly 'different' ticket, the onus is on the customer to ask for it, I believe?

For example, the ticket office was more than happy to issue me a journey with 3 split tickets, but it is not their responsibility to 'educate' me and spend time issuing me them if I did not specifically ask for them.

 

[bb21]

And if you want a slightly 'different' ticket, the onus is on the customer to ask for it, I believe?

For example, the ticket office was more than happy to issue me a journey with 3 split tickets, but it is not their responsibility to 'educate' me and spend time issuing me them if I did not specifically ask for them.

That's correct AFAIK.

 

[tsr]

NRCoC Introduction:

Train Companies and other Ticket Sellers must:
Give you, if you ask, information they have access to about:
- timetables and fares appropriate for your needs; for example, by telling you about the lowest fare or fastest trip for the journey you describe

So if you want information about any details of potentially cheaper fares for your journey than those for an advertised ticket between your origin & destination, you must (and can) ask, and presumably if the staff know about any useful splits, they would be in breach of the NRCoC by not detailing them. It says "lowest fares", not specifically "tickets".

 

[Haywain]

"The journey you describe" is from the origin to the destination. If you then describe an intermediate point as well, that will be taken into account. This is not a simple matter of an interpretation of the NRCoC, but also the rules of impartial retailing in the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement.

 

[bb21]

How do you prove that they knew about a cheaper split but did not tell you?

 

[tsr]

"The journey you describe" is from the origin to the destination. If you then describe an intermediate point as well, that will be taken into account. This is not a simple matter of an interpretation of the NRCoC, but also the rules of impartial retailing in the Ticketing and Settlement Agreement.

As far as the customer is/should be concerned, their ticket is subject to the NRCoC, and the TSA is neither detailed nor mentioned as terms of the contract during the vast majority of ticket office transactions.

Also, some ticket combinations which may be sold as cheaper fares (e.g. Boundary Zone splits) do not involve a fixed intermediate station during the journey.

How do you prove that they knew about a cheaper split but did not tell you?

In the same way the TOCs also seem to be able to prove that the customer knew about the conditions of a promotion or cheaper fare (see also: Groupsave offerings; supposed evening peak restrictions on the Greenford branch with certain Travelcards; concessionary fares which may be incorrectly advertised on TVMs as valid for all passengers; etc.) without them dispensing or advertising such information...? There are many things which are hard to prove, but it still doesn't mean anyone should breach the NRCoC (clearly printed as the conditions on NR tickets), Byelaws or other binding documentation. My point at the start of this paragraph is that TOCs expect you to know about conditions through your own research; therefore, ticket office staff should at least apply any knowledge from their research, in accordance with the NRCoC.

 

[bb21]

Good luck with that line of thinking in a court of law if it ever comes to it.

 

[IanXC]

How do you prove that they knew about a cheaper split but did not tell you?

I'm not sure its qualified to "knew about". I suppose one has to dissect "information they have access to about [the lowest fare]"

Does that mean simply fares or combinations listed in a document, or that the seller has local knowledge of?

Or given that we find cheaper fares using the same set of data could this be expected from that introduction?

It seems to me that the intention was to say 'information they have access to about cheaper routes or tickets', as "the lowest fare" is a rather difficult thing to guarantee, particularly when coupled with the undefined term "journey"!

 

[455driver]

If you ask for ticket from A to D that is what you will sold, if you ask for tickets from A to B, B to C and C to D then that is what you will be sold.

If you want to be clever then put the legwork in yourself.

Oh and yes Rail ticketing is bloomin stupid.

 

[Flamingo]

Going back to the OP, I'll use it as an "education" opportunity, and deal with it exactly as you described, unless they fail the attitude test. I don't think I ever have had anybody do so.

Would I kick a parent and young child off a train? Hell No, I get enough flak as it is!

 

[tsr]

Good luck with that line of thinking in a court of law if it ever comes to it.

I am not suggesting it will come to that, but in theory, I cannot see why my point does not stand, in accordance with the conditions which currently exist - even if the theory is outweighed by the burden of proving the matter.

I'm not sure its qualified to "knew about". I suppose one has to dissect "information they have access to about [the lowest fare]"

One wonders, then, why the ambiguity was introduced.

Does that mean simply fares or combinations listed in a document, or that the seller has local knowledge of?

Any fares known to be available in line with documentation which complies with the NRCoC, including those shown by automatic analysis within software. If the seller doesn't know of them through local knowledge or training, there is no need (aside from possibility) to offer them. For example, if it is well known by the staff of ticket office X that passengers can split their fare with a specific zonal ticket, and a passenger confronted with a more expensive through ticket then asks them to detail any cheaper alternatives, I would suggest it would be in breach of the NRCoC to fail to mention the split. If, on the other hand, the only split would involve a ludicrous anomaly which the system is not designed to produce, and which is not known to staff, I would suggest this need not be speculatively searched for.

Or given that we find cheaper fares using the same set of data could this be expected from that introduction?

It would be somewhat implausible for the Ticket Seller to have knowledge of all possible combinations of fares in the data. So I would be happy for them to rely on industry guides & their own knowledge.

It seems to me that the intention was to say 'information they have access to about cheaper routes or tickets', as "the lowest fare" is a rather difficult thing to guarantee, particularly when coupled with the undefined term "journey"!

But the customer doesn't need to know what their intentions were in writing the conditions, as those might be hard to fathom to them. All they need to do is comply with the text of the NRCoC. With our fares structure, it would be unreasonable to offer a "guarantee", but I think a diligent consideration of systems & local knowledge is in order. To hide something within those would likely be in breach of the Conditions.

Going back to the OP, I'll use it as an "education" opportunity, and deal with it exactly as you described, unless they fail the attitude test. I don't think I ever have had anybody do so.

Would I kick a parent and young child off a train? Hell No, I get enough flak as it is!

I totally agree with your own attitude to that, and it seems sensible. By "educating" them, I expect you are offering sufficient advice.

 

[yorkie]

Sorry RJ, but I had always believed it was part of a NR ticket seller's training to offer the passenger the cheapest applicable valid fare available. It is a basic part of customer service.

You may not realise that if a ticket clerks offers the cheapest combination of fares possible unprompted, while commendable from a passenger point of view, they are potentially at risk of disciplinary action.

I heard about FCC giving ticket clerks a telling off, for advising people on how to by-pass their confusing evening peak restrictions by using a combination of tickets, for example.

 

[CyrusWuff]

You may not realise that if a ticket clerks offers the cheapest combination of fares possible unprompted, while commendable from a passenger point of view, they are potentially at risk of disciplinary action.

What he said. Impartial retailing requires the clerk to offer the most appropriate ticket for the journey as described, asking additional questions to narrow it down where there's a choice of tickets, and explicitly not to offer splits unless there is no through fare for the journey or the passenger requests a specific split.

Similarly, if a passenger requests a specific combination of tickets, there's no requirement to detail the restrictions that apply on those tickets.

 

[sheff1]

How do you prove that they knew about a cheaper split but did not tell you?

Why would you need to prove they 'knew about' something ? The wording of the NRCoC is 'information they have access to'. The ticket seller has as much access to the information as do members of this forum - it is, after all, in the public domain

Whether they choose to use the access is, of course, something completely different - as we all know, a number of staff claim published information (including the NRCoC) does not apply to them and/or their employer.

In the real world, of course, I would never expect a booking clerk to tell me anything ... especially if they were based at Sheffield

 

[WelshBluebird]

Out of curiosity, if I ask for a specific combination of tickets that I know to be valid, but the member of staff doesn't think they are valid, are they required to still sell me the tickets or are they allowed to refuse to do so?