WMR - 13 year old issued PF, unable to show ticket held. Worth appealing?

[X-City-WM]

Hello,

Long time lurker, infrequent poster.

Some advice on whether this Penalty Fare is worth appealing.

My step-daughter was commuting to school in the morning on her normal train when she had her ticket checked by WMR revenue inspectors.

Her mother had bought her ticket for her, as she always does, well before the time of the train.

When stopped 13 year-old couldn’t work out how to show the ticket she had, for some unknown reason. It would’ve been emailed to her as a PDF, which is something the WMR app allows.

I’m guessing that she hadn’t downloaded the PDF ticket before travel and was somewhere without phone signal.

She was issued a penalty fare and told that if she upload proof of her ticket later, that would make the penalty null and void.

My partner thinks that uploading proof of purchase should cover it. However, I’m more sceptical, thinking that proof of purchase doesn’t mean that ticket wasn’t used by someone else; she failed to produce a valid ticket when challenged, so the penalty fare was issued correctly.

Do you think it’s worth appealing? Maybe on the basis that she did have a ticket but is only a (tech savvy) 13 year old, so didn’t understand fully how to show it?

I’ve not had sight of the PF notice yet, so can’t check for technical grounds for appeal.

 

[skyhigh]

Do you think it’s worth appealing?

There's absolutely no harm in appealing, the clock gets stopped on deadline to pay the reduced amount while the appeal is decided.

 

[X-City-WM]

Yeah, I figured there’s no loss in appealing.

I guess I was looking for insight into whether people think it’s sufficient grounds for appeal?

A valid ticket was bought before she commenced her journey. She is a minor (both by legal and railway standards). Old enough to travel on her own, but maybe a bit young to be expected to fully grasp NRCoT.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Yeah, I figured there’s no loss in appealing.

I guess I was looking for insight into whether people think it’s sufficient grounds for appeal?

A valid ticket was bought before she commenced her journey. She is a minor (both by legal and railway standards). Old enough to travel on her own, but maybe a bit young to be expected to fully grasp NRCoT.

It seems to me that the practical way forward is to submit something that is labelled as an appeal, but is essentially a request for discretion to be shown. Produce as much evidence as possible (so it sounds as if proof of purchase is readily available, but if you can possibly round up the online ticket, find that as well): draw the railway's attention to what she was told on the train, explaining that you are now doing your very best to fulfil this: make it abundantly clear that she has learned her lesson and as responsible parents you have discussed the importance of not just having the right ticket but having it to hand (so you have also gone through how and when to bring the ticket up on the phone): remind them that she is 13: ask if in the circumstances your appeal can be accepted and the penalty fare be withdrawn.

Tl:dr - grovel.

 

[AlterEgo]

Fascinatingly dumb move to issue a PF to a child of this age. Appeal it, then rest easy knowing it can neither be prosecuted (legally they are blocked because you appealed), and cannot be recovered by civil means (because she is 13). Then get on with your life having had to pay nothing.

 

[X-City-WM]

It seems to me that the practical way forward is to submit something that is labelled as an appeal, but is essentially a request for discretion to be shown. Produce as much evidence as possible (so it sounds as if proof of purchase is readily available, but if you can possibly round up the online ticket, find that as well): draw the railway's attention to what she was told on the train, explaining that you are now doing your very best to fulfil this: make it abundantly clear that she has learned her lesson and as responsible parents you have discussed the importance of not just having the right ticket but having it to hand (so you have also gone through how and when to bring the ticket up on the phone): remind them that she is 13: ask if in the circumstances your appeal can be accepted and the penalty fare be withdrawn.

Tl:dr - grovel.

I did think about the grovelling angle “she’s only a minor. We have explained to her the seriousness of always having a valid ticket available to present. The fact that as an adult she could be facing criminal proceedings, etc”

From reading this forum, I noticed that emotional appeals don’t seem to succeed and only technical ones seem to.

That said, I’ve not seen a similar case. A minor, with a ticket, but unable to present it.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Nov 2024 ==

Fascinatingly dumb move to issue a PF to a child of this age. Appeal it, then rest easy knowing it can neither be prosecuted (legally they are blocked because you appealed), and cannot be recovered by civil means (because she is 13). Then get on with your life having had to pay nothing.

I understand why they did, she was unable to present a ticket when asked. I bet loads of teens try it on.

They presumably couldn’t confirm her age, but she was wearing school uniform. Maybe they thought she could be 16, so an adult - as far as the railway is concerned?

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Nov 2024 ==

but if you can possibly round up the online ticket, find that as well

I’m sure my partner has the ticket. That’s kinda what I meant by proof-of-purchase. Proof that a ticket was bought before travel, but we don’t have proof that another random child didn’t use it instead.

 

[furlong]

If the ticket was scanned, there'll be a record of this.
So they will be able to see it was never used.

As AlterEgo points out, appeal under 16(3)(d) compelling circumstances and, although they won't let on, the railway doesn't really have the tools to enforce payment.

 

[Haywain]

If the ticket was scanned, there'll be a record of this.
So they will be able to see it was never used.

A ticket not being scanned is not proof that it has not been used, it is only proof that it has not been scanned.

 

[X-City-WM]

The ticket won’t have been scanned, as there’s no barriers at the start nor the end point of her journey.

She said the inspectors were nice. They reassured her that it would be easily dealt with on uploading proof of a valid ticket - I don’t know how much of this was to not cause her distress. Either way, I’m glad they didn’t intimidate her.

 

[furlong]

The ticket won’t have been scanned, as there’s no barriers at the start nor the end point of her journey.

It would have been scanned during the same inspection. It's for a party claiming "a random child could have used it" to provide evidence to support that as the default position would be what the OP claims - without a scan or other evidence (such as purchase time), there's no reason to doubt the straightforward explanation offered.

 

[JD1504]

Fascinatingly dumb move to issue a PF to a child of this age. Appeal it, then rest easy knowing it can neither be prosecuted (legally they are blocked because you appealed), and cannot be recovered by civil means (because she is 13). Then get on with your life having had to pay nothing.

Incorrect - recovery can be directed towards the parent/guardian in these cases. The child is not exempt from producing a valid ticket as per the conditions of travel, the only difference is the way in which it is dealt with.
Also, prosecution can still occur by way of civil claims to recoup any losses, should agreement not be reached or payment not made in full.

To the OP - proof of purchase is not proof of the ticket, as the ticket would have a unique barcode that can show when it was purchased and used. There is no harm in sending this in the absence of the actual ticket, but it would be an idea to try and locate the ticket. If you purchased it through the WM app, it should still be there or in the account you used, albeit under expired.

 

[AlterEgo]

Incorrect - recovery can be directed towards the parent/guardian in these cases.

No it can’t. Parents are not automatically liable for the actions of their children that accrue a debt.

The child is not exempt from producing a valid ticket as per the conditions of travel

Nobody is arguing otherwise.

, the only difference is the way in which it is dealt with.

In practice it’s by selling a new ticket or getting them to leave the train, but whatever is chosen, the railway company has a duty of care to the child. A 13 year old child cannot accrue an enforceable debt except in very rare circumstances and no, the parents are not legally responsible for paying a penalty fare.

Also, prosecution can still occur by way of civil claims to recoup any losses, should agreement not be reached or payment not made in full.

That’s not what a prosecution is. Prosecution means a criminal matter.

A 13 year old cannot be sued for a penalty fare anyway. Nor can their parents.

 

[robbeech]

A ticket not being scanned is not proof that it has not been used, it is only proof that it has not been scanned.

Of course, in the same way a paper ticket not being clipped/marked isn’t proof. However the railway will want to consider taking steps to ensure all tickets are scanned on every step of every journey should they wish to start using the argument that a ticket could still have been “used” even if it wasn’t scanned.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I did think about the grovelling angle “she’s only a minor. We have explained to her the seriousness of always having a valid ticket available to present. The fact that as an adult she could be facing criminal proceedings, etc”

From reading this forum, I noticed that emotional appeals don’t seem to succeed and only technical ones seem to.

I’m a little late coming back on this - apologies.

I wasn’t trying to suggest an ‘emotional’ appeal, so that’s my bad wording. Rather, I am trying to say that you need to point out the reasons why a penalty fare isn’t necessary to make sure that your stepdaughter will have a valid ticket in future. As other posters have pointed out since, while the railway have done nothing illegal in penalty faring a child, there are strong practical reasons why it’s not a good idea from the railway’s point of view - so if you can give them reason to think that they won’t lose out by withdrawing the sanction then they may be happy to do so because they won’t have the ongoing problems of trying to enforce the penalty against a child.

 

[Lewisham2221]

No it can’t. Parents are not automatically liable for the actions of their children that accrue a debt.


Nobody is arguing otherwise.


In practice it’s by selling a new ticket or getting them to leave the train, but whatever is chosen, the railway company has a duty of care to the child. A 13 year old child cannot accrue an enforceable debt except in very rare circumstances and no, the parents are not legally responsible for paying a penalty fare.


That’s not what a prosecution is. Prosecution means a criminal matter.

A 13 year old cannot be sued for a penalty fare anyway. Nor can their parents.

So what you're saying is, there's no practical requirement for a child to actually purchase/hold a ticket, as nothing can actually be done about it anyway?

 

[cool110]

So what you're saying is, there's no practical requirement for a child to actually purchase/hold a ticket, as nothing can actually be done about it anyway?

Not quite, they can still be prosecuted in the youth courts. The problem is that appealing a Penalty Fare takes that option off the table, so they would have to go down the criminal route from the offset.

 

[AlterEgo]

Not quite, they can still be prosecuted in the youth courts. The problem is that appealing a Penalty Fare takes that option off the table, so they would have to go down the criminal route from the offset.

Quite. And TOCs do not prosecute children.

The available practical options are basically to sell a new ticket or to eject the child, or even call the police, but a decision on the latter two must always be done with the child’s welfare considered, bearing in mind the duty of care staff have to children.

That the staff have PF’d the child here effectively renders the matter unenforceable, which is why it is funny and daft they did so.

 

[NorthernSystem]

The available practical options are basically to sell a new ticket or to eject the child, or even call the police, but a decision on the latter two must always be done with the child’s welfare considered, bearing in mind the duty of care staff have to children.

Most TOCs have a policy against ejecting persons under the age of 18, as quite rightly you stated, duty of care.

 

[Lewisham2221]

Quite. And TOCs do not prosecute children.

The available practical options are basically to sell a new ticket or to eject the child, or even call the police, but a decision on the latter two must always be done with the child’s welfare considered, bearing in mind the duty of care staff have to children.

That the staff have PF’d the child here effectively renders the matter unenforceable, which is why it is funny and daft they did so.

The matter is effectively unenforceable anyway then. You can't kick a lone 13 year old off at a random station if they refuse/are unable to buy a new ticket. BTP aren't going to be interested. Which leaves the option of...

 

[pedr]

A 13 year old cannot be sued for a penalty fare anyway. Nor can their parents.

Is that always true? What is the provision of the Penalty Fare Regulations or other law which prevents a child being liable to pay the penalty fare which is a debt created by statute (rather than by contract, where the incapacity of children to form most contracts would prevent a suit)?

It might be that train companies choose not to pursue unpaid penalty fares in this way (and it seems they tend to fall back on the criminal law for adults, rather than using civil court processes) but I’m not sure there’s an absolute legal bar.