Twickenham to Reading unpaid fare notice

[Cam]

On 23rd August I travelled from twickenham to reading for reading festival. I was travelling on a child ticket because I was 17, I don't use trains often and every time I've used a child ticket nobody has told me otherwise, I've even handed this ticket to ticket inspectors while visiting my grandma and been given the all ok. So there was no ticket inspector on the train, but when I arrived at Reading station I was asked my birthday, which I provided and he pulled me aside, was acting all intimidating for no reason as I was co-operative. Asked for my address etc and handed me a unpaid fare notice for £15. Now obviously since I had just arrived at a festival this went straight into my pocket and forgotten about, and probably lost. Come 4 days ago, I got a letter demanding I pay £40 (ticket plus £25 fee), but I'm debating whether to pay it or not - will GWR really take me to court over a small fine like this especially since I'm 17? I cannot afford £40, I don't work, I simply study at college and my living situation means I have no parents able to pay it for me so I don't know what to do in the situation I'm in.
Many thanks

 

[tiptoptaff]

On 23rd August I travelled from twickenham to reading for reading festival. I was travelling on a child ticket because I was 17, I don't use trains often and every time I've used a child ticket nobody has told me otherwise, I've even handed this ticket to ticket inspectors while visiting my grandma and been given the all ok. So there was no ticket inspector on the train, but when I arrived at Reading station I was asked my birthday, which I provided and he pulled me aside, was acting all intimidating for no reason as I was co-operative. Asked for my address etc and handed me a unpaid fare notice for £15. Now obviously since I had just arrived at a festival this went straight into my pocket and forgotten about, and probably lost. Come 4 days ago, I got a letter demanding I pay £40 (ticket plus £25 fee), but I'm debating whether to pay it or not - will GWR really take me to court over a small fine like this especially since I'm 17? I cannot afford £40, I don't work, I simply study at college and my living situation means I have no parents able to pay it for me so I don't know what to do in the situation I'm in.
Many thanks

The experts will be along soon to offer their opinions, but, 16+ is an adult on the railway. They initially offered you the chance to pay £15, and now £40 is a very modest settlement. They will prosecute if you don't pay. Find £40 and pay it, or you'll have a lot more to pay in the long run

 

[Clip]

The experts will be along soon to offer their opinions, but, 16+ is an adult on the railway. They initially offered you the chance to pay £15, and now £40 is a very modest settlement. They will prosecute if you don't pay. Find £40 and pay it, or you'll have a lot more to pay in the long run

Not strictly true as its a bit of a sticky area at 17 but the OP should really pay and move on with their life and not do it again.

 

[Gareth Marston]

The experts will be along soon to offer their opinions, but, 16+ is an adult on the railway. They initially offered you the chance to pay £15, and now £40 is a very modest settlement. They will prosecute if you don't pay. Find £40 and pay it, or you'll have a lot more to pay in the long run

When you ignore things they escalate.

Now obviously since I had just arrived at a festival this went straight into my pocket and forgotten about, and probably lost.

Is no defense whatever I'm afraid.

 

[Puffing Devil]

but I'm debating whether to pay it or not - will GWR really take me to court over a small fine like this especially since I'm 17? I cannot afford £40

Yes - they can and they probably will if you continue to ignore.

I travelled from twickenham to reading for reading festival. I cannot afford £40, I don't work, I simply study at college and my living situation means I have no parents able to pay it for me

I'm going to make an observation here: You managed to pay for a trip to Reading Festival, which would cost far in excess of £40, so you have had monies available for discretionary spend. The revenue inspector who stopped you will have most likely asked about the purpose of your trip and this information will have been recorded and will be read out in court. The court is also able to ask you about the purpose of your journey.

Finding £40 seems a small price to pay to make this go away.

 

[Cam]

Yes - they can and they probably will if you continue to ignore.



I'm going to make an observation here: You managed to pay for a trip to Reading Festival, which would cost far in excess of £40, so you have had monies available for discretionary spend. The revenue inspector who stopped you will have most likely asked about the purpose of your trip and this information will have been recorded and will be read out in court. The court is also able to ask you about the purpose of your journey.

Finding £40 seems a small price to pay to make this go away.

Actually 3 of my friends who work paid the cost split between them as a present for my birthday because my dad had a stroke right before this and I wasn't able to come otherwise with the group of 12 friends going so I know it seems as though I have just tried to skip the payment, it was an honest mistake and would they really spend so much time and money prosecuting over such a minor offence and on a clean record? I wouldn't expect so but I'm not informed on any of this so that's why I'm here asking for advice. Thanks

 

[MichaelAMW]

Yes - they can and they probably will if you continue to ignore.



I'm going to make an observation here: You managed to pay for a trip to Reading Festival, which would cost far in excess of £40, so you have had monies available for discretionary spend. The revenue inspector who stopped you will have most likely asked about the purpose of your trip and this information will have been recorded and will be read out in court. The court is also able to ask you about the purpose of your journey.

Finding £40 seems a small price to pay to make this go away.

And it's not even punitive - it looks like all they want is the original £15 for the unpaid fare plus a very small admin fee of £25 in respect of the extra work you have caused them by not responding straight away. You need to appreciate that you have still not yet paid your fare for the journey and you are fully aware of that, so to ignore this demand would amount to deliberate fare evasion, which could quickly get serious.

 

[furlong]

Ask yourself how it was you didn't know the age restriction on a child ticket.

How did you buy that ticket? Online? From a machine? Go back and repeat what you did and look for the information about the age restrictions.

For example, if you used tpexpress.co.uk on the front page where you choose a child ticket it says "0 children (5-15)".
If you used Trainline, that says "child (0-15)" where you make the selection.

So if you ignore the letters and they prosecute you, consider how a court would react to your claim you didn't know the maximum age for the ticket was 15 years.

The longer you postpone settling the matter, the more serious it will get and the more it will cost you.

To put it another way, at the moment you're being "let off" with a warning, as you co-operated and they trust that you won't do it again. But if you don't accept this and it proceeds to court, as well as costing you a lot more, you might end up with a formal ruling that you behaved dishonestly.

 

[6Gman]

Ask yourself how it was you didn't know the age restriction on a child ticket.

How did you buy that ticket? Online? From a machine? Go back and repeat what you did and look for the information about the age restrictions.

For example, if you used tpexpress.co.uk on the front page where you choose a child ticket it says "0 children (5-15)".
If you used Trainline, that says "child (0-15)" where you make the selection.

So if you ignore the letters and they prosecute you, consider how a court would react to your claim you didn't know the maximum age for the ticket was 15 years.

The longer you postpone settling the matter, the more serious it will get and the more it will cost you.

To put it another way, at the moment you're being "let off" with a warning, as you co-operated and they trust that you won't do it again. But if you don't accept this and it proceeds to court, as well as costing you a lot more, you might end up with a formal ruling that you behaved dishonestly.

All very well put. And advice worth following.

 

[6Gman]

would they really spend so much time and money prosecuting over such a minor offence and on a clean record? I wouldn't expect so but I'm not informed on any of this so that's why I'm here asking for advice. Thanks

They might. They might not. But by the time you find out it'll be too late to get away with just paying £40.

So pay it now.

 

[najaB]

...would they really spend so much time and money prosecuting over such a minor offence and on a clean record?

You've already wasted their time by not buying the correct ticket before you traveled, and by failing pay the correct fare after you traveled. Now you're contemplating wasting more of their time.

So yes.

 

[Hadders]

Train companies have been known to prosecute over 10p before.

Rail fares prosecutions in court can result in a criminal conviction so absolutely not worth messing around hoping it will go away.

Pay the penalty to make the matter go away and move on.

 

[furlong]

Pay the penalty to make the matter go away and move on.

Technically this isn't even a penalty. It looks like the correct adult fare that was due plus a fairly small administration charge for needing to chase the debt after breaking the agreement made with the inspector to pay it by a certain date. If this is still left unpaid, that's when train companies conclude there was perhaps no intention to pay the fare and prosecute, letting the court impose its own penalties if there's a conviction.

 

[maniacmartin]

I would strongly advise finding the £40 (even if you have to borrow from someone), and paying without delay

 

[londonboi]

Ask yourself how it was you didn't know the age restriction on a child ticket.

How did you buy that ticket? Online? From a machine? Go back and repeat what you did and look for the information about the age restrictions.

For example, if you used tpexpress.co.uk on the front page where you choose a child ticket it says "0 children (5-15)".
If you used Trainline, that says "child (0-15)" where you make the selection.

So if you ignore the letters and they prosecute you, consider how a court would react to your claim you didn't know the maximum age for the ticket was 15 years.

The longer you postpone settling the matter, the more serious it will get and the more it will cost you.

To put it another way, at the moment you're being "let off" with a warning, as you co-operated and they trust that you won't do it again. But if you don't accept this and it proceeds to court, as well as costing you a lot more, you might end up with a formal ruling that you behaved dishonestly.

Very well put and correct me if I am wrong but I am sure I have saw on ticket machines before that if you press a child ticket it gives a pop up message stating the age restrictions and you have to press ok to confirm you read the message as well so really no excuse

 

[_toommm_]

Very well put and correct me if I am wrong but I am sure I have saw on ticket machines before that if you press a child ticket it gives a pop up message stating the age restrictions and you have to press ok to confirm you read the message as well so really no excuse

Some do, most don't.

 

[najaB]

Some do, most don't.

I think that's the other way around.

 

[furlong]

Since this thread began, I've found quite a number of TVMs that - quite remarkably - still do not tell you the age limit for a child ticket anywhere (not on the screen, not on the permanent notices on the machines), so if an infrequent "child" traveller who did not have prior knowledge of the age limit used one of those, they might perhaps be able to make an argument that the definition of "child" includes them and so their ticket is valid (a very important contractual term to this category of consumer, for example, that the company needs to explain).

The SWR machines I've looked at though, including the ones I found at Twickenham, all clearly show "5-15" next to Child on their display. (N.B. A reminder that we don't know where the OP purchased their ticket, but the most likely places all seem to show the age limit.)

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Since this thread began, I've found quite a number of TVMs that - quite remarkably - still do not tell you the age limit for a child ticket anywhere (not on the screen, not on the permanent notices on the machines), so if an infrequent "child" traveller who did not have prior knowledge of the age limit used one of those, they might perhaps be able to make an argument that the definition of "child" includes them and so their ticket is valid (a very important contractual term to this category of consumer, for example, that the company needs to explain).

The SWR machines I've looked at though, including the ones I found at Twickenham, all clearly show "5-15" next to Child on their display. (N.B. A reminder that we don't know where the OP purchased their ticket, but the most likely places all seem to show the age limit.)

Indeed, the railway's definition of "child" is significantly different to the layman's and the law in general's definition of a child. In most contexts, "child" means 17 and under. If the railway would like for it to have a different meaning, they must make it amply clear. I hope that no-one who makes the honest mistake of thinking the railway deems them the same child everyone else deems them (e.g. an infrequent rail travellerer boarding at a TVM-only station where the TVM gives no indication of the child cutoff age) is penalised.

Unfortunately, I suspect plenty of people in that position have already been unlawfully penalised.

 

[Controller1701]

A search of google on the age limits of a child on the national rail network of the United Kingdom took just 0.67 seconds to find the answer. Not sure how finding the answer to this could be any easier for any person who is over the age of five especially given that all school children have lessons in the subject of Information Technology. Even when I started secondary school in 1987 I had lessons in said subject as part of my regular school wekk.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

A search of google on the age limits of a child on the national rail network of the United Kingdom took just 0.67 seconds to find the answer. Not sure how finding the answer to this could be any easier for any person who is over the age of five especially given that all school children have lessons in the subject of Information Technology. Even when I started secondary school in 1987 I had lessons in said subject as part of my regular school wekk.

It may be very easy to find out the answer if you are in doubt, but someone who is used to the usual definition of "adult" in most of normal life may well not have the requisite doubt to think to even look it up - in other words, they don't even know they should be doubting their assumption.

A fair percentage of occasional rail travellers might fall into that category.

 

[30907]

It may be very easy to find out the answer if you are in doubt, but someone who is used to the usual definition of "adult" in most of normal life may well not have the requisite doubt to think to even look it up - in other words, they don't even know they should be doubting their assumption.

A fair percentage of occasional rail travellers might fall into that category.

I agree that the age limit should be shown, and its absence might be a defence.
However, "child" in a legal sense (=minor) is not the only common use of the word, and (in the commercial world alone) I doubt if most 16-17 year olds look for children's clothing, get a child discount at the cinema, eat off the children's menu....

 

[island]

It is worth noting that the OP was not prosecuted or given a Penalty Fare, but was issued with an unpaid fare notice, an invoice to pay the correct fare for their journey. This is the least severe of the possible outcomes save for letting them off entirely.

 

[6Gman]

Indeed, the railway's definition of "child" is significantly different to the layman's and the law in general's definition of a child. In most contexts, "child" means 17 and under. If the railway would like for it to have a different meaning, they must make it amply clear. I hope that no-one who makes the honest mistake of thinking the railway deems them the same child everyone else deems them (e.g. an infrequent rail travellerer boarding at a TVM-only station where the TVM gives no indication of the child cutoff age) is penalised.

Unfortunately, I suspect plenty of people in that position have already been unlawfully penalised.

"Child" is a very loose term. And the age at which child discounts cease varies, but - I suspect - 18 would be unusually high.

 

[Haywain]

It is worth noting that the OP was not prosecuted or given a Penalty Fare, but was issued with an unpaid fare notice, an invoice to pay the correct fare for their journey. This is the least severe of the possible outcomes save for letting them off entirely.

But is now facing the threat of prosecution as a result of not paying the UFN.

In any event, all of the waffle about the age limits for a child are irrelevant as ignorance will not be a defence.