Son inadvertently purchased child ticket

[Flamingo]

"Costs" could also be seen as making a contribution towards the cost to the TOC of having to have a structure in place to detect fare evasion and deal with it in the first place...

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I agree with the others that you should wait till South West Trains write to your son asking for his version of events and they you should offer an out of court settlement normally around £600-£800 is a figure I often hear.

Really? Often? Are you sure? For a first offence, on a single journey?

I would expect a figure in the range £70 - £240 depending on just how much time is expended.

"Costs" could also be seen as making a contribution towards the cost to the TOC of having to have a structure in place to detect fare evasion and deal with it in the first place...

Yes. That's quite correct. Revenue protection overheads are apportioned to offenders.

Talk of out-of-court settlement in the order of £600-£800 is both excessive and premature in my view.

The reality here is that it is likely to result in a summons alleging deliberate fare evasion contrary Section 5(3)(a) Regulation of Railways Act (1889).

It is possible that the op's son might be able to reach settlement, but I'd say it's a little more likely that he will be prosecuted, though could go either way.

I agree, though without knowing how the incident has been recorded in the Inspector's notebook, I'm hesitant to guess which way it might be dealt with.

 

[furlong]

But your line of questioning appears to be born of the presupposition that an amount which a TOC may accept in lieu of prosecuting a person for an alleged offence has in some way to bear relevance to the costs involved. It does not.

Imagine that a TOC offers a settlement for an amount higher than its direct costs and the passenger rejects it solely for this reason and it proceeds to court. The risk to the TOC is that the magistrates might be persuaded that precious court time has been wasted and that the TOC should bear all the costs.

 

[richw]

I agree there is no direct connection, hence why I said 'similar to'.

There would be little advantage to the passenger to pay an out of court settlement that was several multiples higher than what the court-imposed fine would be*. Similarly, the TOC would be ill served to accept an amount significantly less than what would be imposed by the court as a fine, if the intent is for it to serve as a deterrent.

*Presuming that we are talking about a non-recordable Byelaws offence.

In my local paper there has been a number of rail ticketing court cases locally recently. All of them have been fined by the court in the region of £300-400 plus contribution to costs plus compensation to the TOC for the cost of the fare to give an idea of court-imposed fines.
From a court perspective the TOC will get the compensation of the fare. They wont see any of the fine. It is therefore a win for both TOC and fare dodger to get an out of court settlement.

 

[najaB]

Imagine that a TOC offers a settlement for an amount higher than its direct costs and the passenger rejects it solely for this reason and it proceeds to court. The risk to the TOC is that the magistrates might be persuaded that precious court time has been wasted and that the TOC should bear all the costs.

For that to happen, the TOC would have to tell the passenger their direct costs. I don't see that as being likely.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is therefore a win for both TOC and fare dodger to get an out of court settlement.

I agree. Which is why I would expect the amount of any settlement will be proportionate to the expected amount of any fine. The passenger pays approximately the same amount - without having to go to court -and the TOC gets more than they would have if it did go to court.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I agree, though without knowing how the incident has been recorded in the Inspector's notebook, I'm hesitant to guess which way it might be dealt with.

Yes Dave, I agree that it may be that the job hinges on the content & quality of the recorded notes of interview.

I based my response on an assumption that everything is correctly recorded and evidence of the alleged offence is secured by the reporting inspector.

If not, maybe no action may follow at all. Don't rush into offering exorbitant sums
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There would be little advantage to the passenger to pay an out of court settlement that was several multiples higher than what the court-imposed fine would be*. Similarly, the TOC would be ill served to accept an amount significantly less than what would be imposed by the court as a fine, if the intent is for it to serve as a deterrent.

*Presuming that we are talking about a non-recordable Byelaws offence.

Intent to avoid the correct fare as described by the OP is definitely not a Byelaw offence.

The advantage of a settlement is in avoiding a criminal conviction.

 

[najaB]

Intent to avoid the correct fare as described by the OP is definitely not a Byelaw offence.

The advantage of a settlement is in avoiding a criminal conviction.

Agreed. My post was an off topic (sorry) reply to the assertion that settlement amounts were a form of extortion by the TOCs.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed. My post was an off topic (sorry) reply to the assertion that settlement amounts were a form of extortion by the TOCs.

They debatably are, though I do see the argument in favour of them, because the TOC and not the Crown gets the money.

Neil

 

[najaB]

They debatably are, though I do see the argument in favour of them, because the TOC and not the Crown gets the money.

I see them as less extortion, and more the result of negotiation, going by the number of people who post here seeking advice on how to reach one.

 

[DaleCooper]

As I see it if you don't buy a ticket you are accepting the potential cost of your actions, furthermore if there were no fare evasion the TOCs could save a lot of money on ticket inspectors, RPIs, ticket gates etc.

 

[Clip]

They debatably are, though I do see the argument in favour of them, because the TOC and not the Crown gets the money.

Neil

Well that's a new one. Out of court costs are a form of extortion!
By that reckoning then we should as a business take away this function and just take everyone to court and let them decide based on proven case law which will in the majority of cases always find the defendant guilty.

 

[dakta]

extortion surely is a criminal conduct where people are forced into an activity by coercion.

So, is it standard practice for a toc to send a letter 'we're taking you to court! unless.............. *wink* *wink*'

If not then the extortion argument is surely nothing more than someone being a bit sore that saving a quid at someone elses expense ultimately cost themselves several.

 

[PermitToTravel]

Given it sounds like a safe prosecution with a criminal record, I'd say the TOC can ask for whatever it likes. It holds the cards. Pay or go to court and get a record.

Yes, with the risk that if they ask for more than an offender is able to pay, they'll go to court and the TOC will only get their costs back. I'm sure it's a finely calibrated process - interestingly the average figures stated above for settlements are lower than the average figures stated above for fines!

 

[ainsworth74]

Well that's a new one. Out of court costs are a form of extortion!
By that reckoning then we should as a business take away this function and just take everyone to court and let them decide based on proven case law which will in the majority of cases always find the defendant guilty.

Indeed! I find the suggestion somewhat odd. Further given the choice between actually going to court, facing a potentially large fine and a criminal record (with all the damage that will lead to future job prospects) and simply paying any outstanding fare and costs directly to the TOC? I would choose to settle.

If you're sure you're innocent then you're welcome to wait for the TOC to take you to court and defend yourself accordingly. Otherwise TOCs being willing to accept out of court settlements seems like a net positive to me.

 

[island]

Imagine that a TOC offers a settlement for an amount higher than its direct costs and the passenger rejects it solely for this reason and it proceeds to court. The risk to the TOC is that the magistrates might be persuaded that precious court time has been wasted and that the TOC should bear all the costs.

I don't believe it works that way for criminal matters. A county court might well take a dim view of parties' failure to settle, but I am not aware of any expectation of the same for a criminal offence.

 

[Tim R-T-C]

Depends on your approach really. If you look at most parking tickets, they offer a fixed fee to pay it, or a fine of considerably more if you take it to court.

Some people view the fine as a quick and easy way to pay for their error without fuss, some people complain that the higher court fine is being used as a threat to stop people taking the issue to court.

In my opinion it is completely reasonable of the train company.

 

[Bletchleyite]

I don't believe it works that way for criminal matters. A county court might well take a dim view of parties' failure to settle, but I am not aware of any expectation of the same for a criminal offence.

It's the involvement of a criminal offence that is to me the difficult issue.

If it were a civil matter and it was a case of "Our costs are deemed to be £100, you can either pay them out of court, or we will sue you, win and you will pay £100 plus the court costs" I would fully support the idea.

But let's say someone assaulted me, which has a clear criminal penalty. The criminal who did so offered me a bribe not to press charges. Would that be right? I think most people would say no.

Or if I stole something from a shop - should I be able to avoid being charged with theft because I pay the shop the price of the stolen item plus an arbitrary sum for costs which is higher than that likely recovered if I were prosecuted? I'm really not sure. And equally I'm not sure I should be able to buy myself out of criminal proceedings - the law is surely the law.

I see why it has benefit for such a passenger to be able to do this (if guilty), and for the railway in that they get more money. But it just seems a bit odd as a concept.

Hmm.

Neil

 

[najaB]

But let's say someone assaulted me, which has a clear criminal penalty. The criminal who did so offered me a bribe not to press charges. Would that be right? I think most people would say no.

If you're talking about a minor assault, it's up to the victim to choose if they want to press charges or not. It isn't really anyone else's business what goes into their decision making - if they choose to settle the matter privately instead of pressing charges, good on them. It saves taxpayer's money for more serious matters.

If it was a serious assault, that option wouldn't be available as the prosecution will be brought by the State.

 

[island]

It's the involvement of a criminal offence that is to me the difficult issue.

If it were a civil matter and it was a case of "Our costs are deemed to be £100, you can either pay them out of court, or we will sue you, win and you will pay £100 plus the court costs" I would fully support the idea.

But let's say someone assaulted me, which has a clear criminal penalty. The criminal who did so offered me a bribe not to press charges. Would that be right? I think most people would say no.

Or if I stole something from a shop - should I be able to avoid being charged with theft because I pay the shop the price of the stolen item plus an arbitrary sum for costs which is higher than that likely recovered if I were prosecuted? I'm really not sure. And equally I'm not sure I should be able to buy myself out of criminal proceedings - the law is surely the law.

I see why it has benefit for such a passenger to be able to do this (if guilty), and for the railway in that they get more money. But it just seems a bit odd as a concept.

Hmm.

Neil

Perhaps it is because so many railway prosecutions are done privately. I wonder how the system differs in Scotland where private prosecutions are very rare indeed.

I would urge contributors to make sure they flag well their opinions on how things should be so that they are not misinterpreted by OPs and everyone else as statements of facts.

 

[TheEdge]

I would urge contributors to make sure they flag well their opinions on how things should be so that they are not misinterpreted by OPs and everyone else as statements of facts.

Fact: Its nigh on impossible to genuinely purchase a discounted ticket by accident.

Fact: By buying a childs ticket and saying they were 15 then admitting they were 18 OP's child has committed an offence and has also left themselves open to a RoRA conviction rather than just byelaws.

Fact: In this case the ball is currently in the TOC's court and they hold all the cards due to the two reasons above.

Fact: A significantly sized out of court settlement is most likely the best possible outcome. Worst is a criminal conviction.

 

[Clip]

But let's say someone assaulted me, which has a clear criminal penalty. The criminal who did so offered me a bribe not to press charges. Would that be right? I think most people would say no.

Or if I stole something from a shop - should I be able to avoid being charged with theft because I pay the shop the price of the stolen item plus an arbitrary sum for costs which is higher than that likely recovered if I were prosecuted? I'm really not sure. And equally I'm not sure I should be able to buy myself out of criminal proceedings - the law is surely the law.

I see why it has benefit for such a passenger to be able to do this (if guilty), and for the railway in that they get more money. But it just seems a bit odd as a concept.

Hmm.

Neil

what a silly set of comparisons to be making.

The first one has been answered but for the shoplifting thing there are stories around of Supermarkets sending round debt collectors to offenders to claim back their costs and they also get awarded costs when in court I do believe and because the person got caught they also got their stock back!

However, just because other issues either do not allow you to pay to avoid going to court does not mean that the railway can not accept one if it is offered.

And this by dakta is just as daft

So, is it standard practice for a toc to send a letter 'we're taking you to court! unless.............. *wink* *wink*'

I cant remember ever seeing a letter go out that asks you to pay or you go to court, it is the passengers offer that changes the direction and is not instigated by the TOC. Or at least any I work for or have done.

 

[ainsworth74]

Fact: Its nigh on impossible to genuinely purchase a discounted ticket by accident.

Fact: By buying a childs ticket and saying they were 15 then admitting they were 18 OP's child has committed an offence and has also left themselves open to a RoRA conviction rather than just byelaws.

Fact: In this case the ball is currently in the TOC's court and they hold all the cards due to the two reasons above.

Fact: A significantly sized out of court settlement is most likely the best possible outcome. Worst is a criminal conviction.

I do not believe those are the facts (mostly because they are the facts) that island was keen people make clear are opinions. Rather some of the discussion that's flowing about how fare evasion should be dealt with (civil or criminal law). Which could cause confusion to others who may read and think that fare evasion is civil when it most certainly is not.

I cant remember ever seeing a letter go out that asks you to pay or you go to court, it is the passengers offer that changes the direction and is not instigated by the TOC. Or at least any I work for or have done.

Agreed. I do not believe any TOCs write to someone saying 'pay or we take you to court' (perhaps the notable exception being Northern Rail's fake penalty fare scheme).

 

[Bletchleyite]

Agreed. I do not believe any TOCs write to someone saying 'pay or we take you to court' (perhaps the notable exception being Northern Rail's fake penalty fare scheme).

Perhaps my views are clouded by that, on which my view remains that if Northern want a Penalty Fares Scheme they should implement a proper one under the relevant laws (and I think they indeed do need one and should do so).

But that's OT and of no help to the OP so I won't go any further down that line.

Neil

 

[dakta]

And this by dakta is just as daft

I tried to disguise it as serious comment but you found me out

OP doesn't seem to have returned to read the replies yet

 

[island]

I do not believe those are the facts (mostly because they are the facts) that island was keen people make clear are opinions. Rather some of the discussion that's flowing about how fare evasion should be dealt with (civil or criminal law). Which could cause confusion to others who may read and think that fare evasion is civil when it most certainly is not.

Thank you, yes that is what I was trying to get across.

Agreed. I do not believe any TOCs write to someone saying 'pay or we take you to court' (perhaps the notable exception being Northern Rail's fake penalty fare scheme).

I seem to recall such a letter from SWT being posted a while back.

 

[ainsworth74]

I seem to recall such a letter from SWT being posted a while back.

Hmm I missed that letter thanks for bringing it to my attention.

 

[CockneySparrow]

I suspect the son is lying to his dad. Saying he was 15 proves intent and that it wasn't a mistake.

Yes agreed, and as previously mentioned you have to physically select child from the machines so impossible for accident, not to mention that the ticket would have had CHILD written all over it

 

[Stigy]

Yesterday my 18 year old son inadvertently purchased a child ticket from the ticket machine at Wokingham to travel to Reading. He didn't even realise he'd done it. He purchased a single as he was being picked up by me on this occasion, whereas he normally purchases a return, so was expecting the price to be less, so that didn't alert him. His ticket would not work in the barrier at Reading so he approached what he thought was a guard, but I think it must have been a revenue protection officer, who pointed out it was a child ticket and asked his age. He initially daid 15 - stupid I know- but told the truth when challenged and gave his correct name and address etc, showing ID. He was given the 'Anything you do say..' speech, then sent on his way. He said the officer gave him the impression he wasn't in too much trouble. I was concerned when he said about being cautioned, and started reading up about this, and of course have scared myself silly about the prospect of a criminal record etc. I do believe this was a genuine mistake as he was with a friend and probably not paining attention. He travels by train fairly regularly and has old tickets to prove he pays adult fare, and evidence on his bank statement that he purchased an adukt price return to Reading from the ticket machine less than a month ago. I appreciate no-one knows exactly wht will happen until we hear from the TOC, but am just seeking to put my mind at rest. Thank you

To purchase a child ticket from an SWT ticket vending machine (Wokingham being a South West Trains station) one has to delete the adult from the transaction (as this is the defaulted setting for sales) and then select 'child'. They then have to confirm that they are between 5 and 15 years old before being allowed to finish and pay (a pop-up box appears on the screen).

Although the staff would have been First Great Western staff at Reading, whom may not be aware of this fact.

Sorry if this has been said already, but I fear your son might be telling you what you want to hear.

Regarding the discussion about out of court settlements being referred to as bribes etc (as they often are on here!), although it will be a settlement to stop the matter proceeding to court, this would only be as much as the reasonable costs incurred by the TOC. It's acceptable for them to request their costs back, and the only compensation they get is from any avoided fares owed.

 

[jon0844]

If someone wishes to consider an out of court settlement a bribe and in some way wrong or immoral, simply don't pay it and go to court.

 

[sarahj]

Slightly off topic, but yesterday working a train a woman and child.

One single to Clapham junction please.
And your son, how old is he?
4
Child In disgust: 'I'm 6!!!'
Errr, he is 5, but will be 6 tomorrow.
Right, well he needs to pay when he is five
Oh, errr
Dont worry, just £2
Oh right.

I've also come across some very mature 'children' recently.

Beard and tattoo's 'I'm 15'
mmmm