How can you tell how old a child is?

[DanNCL]

I didn't have this problem very often when I was 15 (up north the ticket office staff and the guards usually give you the benefit of the doubt), but down south it's a completely different story. Once the ticket office staff at Paddington wouldn't sell me a child ticket because I looked older; this was despite me showing them my under 16 oyster card to prove my age!

 

[Master29]

Oh I think it would.

Your view of course but most of the time nobodies tend not to get the limelight

 

[Master29]

I wondered when this would appear on the forum. I knew it would!

When TheAdelante and I go to Glasgow in January we shall bring copies of our passports.

Sad isn’t it, that people should have to do that just to be accepted on board a train.

Not really. A bit like saying I have a disability but don`t have a disability card. I don`t doubt your integrity but all too often people take advantage. that`s life. I have a disabled railcard and if I forget it and get caught I face the consequences. My own fault.

 

[RJ]

Refusing to let them travel is the issue being discussed here and is not a good idea and BTP are as useful as a chocolate fireguard

Hmmm - in my experience the BTP have always turned up rapidly in groups of 2-4 when called as a result of a dispute involving valid tickets and no aggravating factors.

Given railway staff sometimes call them out for such stupid reasons, it's a small wonder that they can't always respond quickly enough to real incidents. Maybe a programme of product knowledge and basic conflict management would result in less timewasting calls to them and thus faster response times.

So if ticket sellers and ticket inspectors don't bother, then who should bother [about checking that people on child tickets are really children]?

My check extends as far as asking them their age and giving the benefit of the doubt unless I have a compelling reason not to. What else can one do?

 

[matt_world2004]

This is partly the fault of Atoc.Atoc should come up with a scheme whereby confusion is minimised about a childs age (Such as requiring a child over the age of 11 to have a photocard to proove age)

 

[221129]

It was in response to the poster mentioning the London child oystercard as a means of ID - that is funded by London taxpayers - and national taxpayers as they also help to fund TfL.


Try reading the related parts of the thread before making any comment and discounting people's comments as nonsense. Do you work for The Sun ?

The post you quoted was talking about the national child photocard so nothing to with TfL...

 

[RJ]

This is partly the fault of Atoc.Atoc should come up with a scheme whereby confusion is minimised about a childs age (Such as requiring a child over the age of 11 to have a photocard to proove age)

I think in this case it's the fault of the staff at Euston. In some places on the railways there's a counter productive culture of closing ranks and ganging up on the customer, even when the customer is right. As much is evident in the response given by Virgin to the media.

Somebody at the time should really have had a quiet word with the inspector, out of earshot of anyone else and advise them to do the correct thing, rather than supporting that wholly unwarranted treatment against the 15 year old. How any colleague could watch and let that inspector deny her entry like that is beggar's belief.

I don't think the RDG are responsible and don't agree with mandating the carrying of identifying documents to get a child discount. Unless proof of her being 16+ was readily available err on the side of caution and give the benefit of the doubt. It's common sense.

 

[matt_world2004]

I think in this case it's the fault of the staff at Euston. In some places on the railways there's a counter productive culture of closing ranks and ganging up on the customer, even when the customer is right. As much is evident in the response given by Virgin to the media.

I don't think the RDG are responsible and don't agree with mandating the carrying of identifying documents to get a child discount. Unless proof of her being 16+ was readily available err on the side of caution and give the benefit of the doubt. It's common sense.

The problem is if the rdg do not set a policy on this it becomes inconsistent across tocs which can lead to an inconcistent customer experiance. I have no sympathy for vt ticket checkers. As I have heard stories about how they break the conditions of carriage (particularly involving split ticketing)

 

[radamfi]

Other countries avoid this problem by charging adult fare from the age of 12.

 

[Y Ddraig Coch]

Other countries avoid this problem by charging adult fare from the age of 12.

I would do the opposite, make adult tickets start from when you can drink, vote and actually become an adult, adult tickets from 18

 

[30907]

I would do the opposite, make adult tickets start from when you can drink, vote and actually become an adult, adult tickets from 18

So we now have a 17-year-old with a ticket marked "not a child"... there may be an argument for altering the child age, in fact we had one not so long ago IIRC, but this isn't it.

 

[bkhtele]

Sadly not. £10 for 5-10, £15 for 11-15 and £20 for 16-18.

Outside London & various PTE a ticket office in National Rail can issue a child photo card for free that expires on their 16th birthday. Some children take a picture of their passports and most Rail staff would accept either.

 

[Mathew S]

Demanding information that a customer isn't required to provide isn't acceptable.

Either apply the legislation as it stands or don't do anything. Making things up as you go along isn't acceptable.

Nobody is suggesting 'making things up as you go along'.
Posing as a child when you're an adult to get a cheaper ticket is 'Fraud by false representation' and a serious criminal matter which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. It's not simply a byelaw or RORA issue, like many ticketing matters, but a serious criminal offence which can be prosecuted under the Fraud Act 2006.
An RPI, or other railway staff, is perfectly entitled to investigate further if they have a reasonable suspiscion that someone is breaking the law like this (and reasonable is defined in law as what most people would believe given the circumstances and available information, it doesn't matter if their reasonable belief is later found to have been incorrect). If needs be, that can - and should - mean asking for proof of entitlement to the child discount or reporting them to BTP/prosecutions if they can't provide that proof.

 

[Mathew S]

Sad isn’t it, that people should have to do that just to be accepted on board a train.

Very much so.

 

[Mathew S]

Other countries avoid this problem by charging adult fare from the age of 12.

I think, if anything, I'd stuggle even more to tell an 11-year-old from a 12-year-old. Though perhaps fewer young kids would defraud in the first place.

 

[fowler9]

Nobody is suggesting 'making things up as you go along'.
Posing as a child when you're an adult to get a cheaper ticket is 'Fraud by false representation' and a serious criminal matter which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. It's not simply a byelaw or RORA issue, like many ticketing matters, but a serious criminal offence which can be prosecuted under the Fraud Act 2006.
An RPI, or other railway staff, is perfectly entitled to investigate further if they have a reasonable suspiscion that someone is breaking the law like this (and reasonable is defined in law as what most people would believe given the circumstances and available information, it doesn't matter if their reasonable belief is later found to have been incorrect). If needs be, that can - and should - mean asking for proof of entitlement to the child discount or reporting them to BTP/prosecutions if they can't provide that proof.

Nonsense. Read back what you just said. Travelling on a child's ticket when you are an adult does not carry a maximum sentence of ten years. Stop frothing.

 

[Mathew S]

Nonsense. Read back what you just said. Travelling on a child's ticket when you are an adult does not carry a maximum sentence of ten years. Stop frothing.

It does. Nobody is ever going to get that sentence unless they've an enormous criminal record already and there are massively agravating circumstances, but that's the maximum sentence for Fraud by False Representation. I'll even link to, and quote, the relevent guideline from the Sentencing Council for you:

Fraud by false representation, fraud by failing to disclose information,
fraud by abuse of position
Fraud Act 2006 (section 1)
Triable either way
Conspiracy to defraud
Common law
Triable on indictment only
Maximum: 10 years’ custody
Offence range: Discharge – 8 years’ custody

https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Fraud_bribery_and_money_laundering_offences_-_Definitive_guideline.pdf#Fraud Definitive Guideline - content_V2_WEB_version.indd:Anchor 1:59451

And for the record, I object to 'frothing'.

 

[njr001]

As someone not directly involved in the rail industry, without wishing to get in a debate about whether children should carry some ID giving their age, would not the common sense approach to adopted by RPI's /gateline staff etc. to ask for details of the child's parent or guardian, this could then be checked with the electoral register, the child could then be allowed to travel and further investigation could be carried out at a later date.

 

[greyman42]

Hmmm - in my experience the BTP have always turned up rapidly in groups of 2-4 when called as a result of a dispute involving valid tickets and no aggravating factors.

Given railway staff sometimes call them out for such stupid reasons, it's a small wonder that they can't always respond quickly enough to real incidents. Maybe a programme of product knowledge and basic conflict management would result in less timewasting calls to them and thus faster response times.



My check extends as far as asking them their age and giving the benefit of the doubt unless I have a compelling reason not to. What else can one do?

An excellent approach. Had the member of staff taken the same approach this incident would never of happened.

 

[fowler9]

It does. Nobody is ever going to get that sentence unless they've an enormous criminal record already and there are massively agravating circumstances, but that's the maximum sentence for Fraud by False Representation. I'll even link to, and quote, the relevent guideline from the Sentencing Council for you:



https://www.sentencingcouncil.org.uk/wp-content/uploads/Fraud_bribery_and_money_laundering_offences_-_Definitive_guideline.pdf#Fraud Definitive Guideline - content_V2_WEB_version.indd:Anchor 1:59451

And for the record, I object to 'frothing'.

Give me one example of someone getting 10 years for fraud for bunking on the train. Can anyone who is an expert in ticketing answer this? I still say it is nonsense.

 

[bkhtele]

It is a difficult problem at times. A 27 year old with a child ticket is a clear case, and it is not fair to allow them to travel while others pay full fare. It is also difficult when a group of young people travel together most pay full fare while a few chance it on a child ticket. Must be frustrating for the ones who pay full fare. (As it is for those who are challenged while they are still a child)
Mostly children are given the benefit of the doubt to avoid situations like this. Unfortunately several adults use child tickets unfairly.

Personally I think the child age should have been increased as school going age has increased....

 

[Mathew S]

Give me one example of someone getting 10 years for fraud for bunking on the train. Can anyone who is an expert in ticketing answer this? I still say it is nonsense.

Hang on, have you read what I wrote? I didn't say anyone has ever been given that sentence. In fact I said I thought it was incredibly unlikely.
The point, which you seem to be ignoring, is that obtaining financial benefit (ie. a cheaper ticket) by deception is fraud.
If the sentencing guidelines tell us anything, it's the seriousness with which the courts regard such behaviour.

As a final note, because I don't think there's any value in discussing this with you further if you choose to ignore the facts, obviously any prosecution should always be the last resort. However, the severity of the potential charges are a clear justification for rail staff taking the mater of adults fraudulently travelling on child tickets very, very seriously indeed.

 

[fowler9]

Hang on, have you read what I wrote? I didn't say anyone has ever been given that sentence. In fact I said I thought it was incredibly unlikely.
The point, which you seem to be ignoring, is that obtaining financial benefit (ie. a cheaper ticket) by deception is fraud.
If the sentencing guidelines tell us anything, it's the seriousness with which the courts regard such behaviour.

As a final note, because I don't think there's any value in discussing this with you further if you choose to ignore the facts, obviously any prosecution should always be the last resort. However, the severity of the potential charges are a clear justification for rail staff taking the mater of adults fraudulently travelling on child tickets very, very seriously indeed.

I read exactly what you wrote and right away you were talking about it being fraud by misrepresentation with a maximum tariff of ten years. You only wound your neck in when I told you that was nonsense.

 

[Mathew S]

I read exactly what you wrote and right away you were talking about it being fraud by misrepresentation with a maximum tariff of ten years. You only wound your neck in when I told you that was nonsense.

Again, read what I said. I'm not engaging with you any further, since you're choosing to ignore what I'm saying. If you're prepared to enter into a calm, rational discussion that's fine; but at the moment you're being disrespectful to say the very least.

 

[6Gman]

Nobody is suggesting 'making things up as you go along'.
Posing as a child when you're an adult to get a cheaper ticket is 'Fraud by false representation' and a serious criminal matter which carries a maximum penalty of 10 years in prison. It's not simply a byelaw or RORA issue, like many ticketing matters, but a serious criminal offence which can be prosecuted under the Fraud Act 2006.
An RPI, or other railway staff, is perfectly entitled to investigate further if they have a reasonable suspiscion that someone is breaking the law like this (and reasonable is defined in law as what most people would believe given the circumstances and available information, it doesn't matter if their reasonable belief is later found to have been incorrect). If needs be, that can - and should - mean asking for proof of entitlement to the child discount or reporting them to BTP/prosecutions if they can't provide that proof.

The 15-year old who can't "provide ... proof" of age should be reported to BTP? At the time, or subsequently?

 

[fowler9]

Again, read what I said. I'm not engaging with you any further, since you're choosing to ignore what I'm saying. If you're prepared to enter into a calm, rational discussion that's fine; but at the moment you're being disrespectful to say the very least.

Sincere apologies if you found it disrespectful, I personally don't think I was and that the word respect is thrown around far too often, is thinking someone is talking nonsense now "disrespect"?. I did ask if someone who knows about ticketing could give their opinion as I think it highly unlikely that someone would be prosecuted for fraud for bunking on on a childs ticket. If I'm wrong then I'm wrong.

 

[Mathew S]

The 15-year old who can't "provide ... proof" of age should be reported to BTP? At the time, or subsequently?

Not quite what I meant. If staff suspect they're travelling on a child ticket when they're an adult, and if they've nothing on them at all which would prove their age to the staff's satisfaction (doesn't have to be official documentation, common sense is key) then yes, I'd suggest further investigation by either BTP or the TOCs prosecutions team would be appropriate. Ultimately, provided they give correct details, a simple phonecall should be all that's needed to prove their age, I really don't think it's all that difficult.

The key to what I'm saying is that it's about staff applying common sense and whether they genuinely reasonably suspect there's something amiss.

 

[sheff1]

Not really. A bit like saying I have a disability but don`t have a disability card. I don`t doubt your integrity but all too often people take advantage. that`s life. I have a disabled railcard and if I forget it and get caught I face the consequences. My own fault.

Not the same at all. A railcard discounted ticket is not valid without the supporting railcard. A child ticket does not require any supporting documentation (except for certain localised schemes which do not apply in this case). Of course, carrying a "Child Railcard" could be made compulsory nationally, but no relevant body seems to have the desire to do so.

 

[sheff1]

Other countries avoid this problem by charging adult fare from the age of 12.

And yet other countries charge an adult fare from 18 or 21.

 

[Hadders]

It’s all very well saying that phone calls should be made, BTP summonsed etc but how much does this cost, in most cases far more than the revenue that might be at risk.

I’m not condoning over 16s travelling on child tickets but a commercial sense of perspective is also needed.