Tale of two Northern guards dealing with fare evaders.

[Bletchleyite]

I don't understand this post. Taken to court for what?

Neglect? Too many parents seem to think other people are responsible for their children.

 

[Rail Blues]

Neglect? Too many parents seem to think other people are responsible for their children.

Having worked for social services (and at a time before austerity decimated budgets and staffing levels) this doesn't even come close to meeting the criteria for neglect, especially if you saw what we dealt with (or reluctantly took nfa on due to chronic underfunding and massive caseloads) on a day to day basis. Child neflect is defined in England and Wales as

".the persistent failure to meet a child's basic physical and/or psychological needs, likely to result in the serious impairment of the child's health" (DofE 2007)

What is it about children using public transport independently at that age that you consider persistently and chronically neglectful or indicative of a demonstrable pattern of failing to meet their needs? Plenty of children travel to and from school by train each day in the hours of darkness. Also given that this incident is described as taking place 18 months ago (Summer 2017) it is likely to be still light at 8pm.

If you wanted every parent if every child aged 12 investigated by social services or prosecuted for using public transport independently , both social care and the court systems in England and Wales would grind to a halt.

 

[northwichcat]

Some questions:

Why do you care?
How do you know this difference between an "AFC" and someone acting as one?
What would you have done differently?
Why do you care?

I said one was a guard acting as an AFC. I know he's a qualified guard because he has worked 'South Manchester' lines for 15 years+ as a guard and I know he wasn't doing the door and dispatch duties on that particular service. I have also seen guards post on here that when they get a second guard to assist they are referred to as an Assistant Fare Collector. I don't understand what your question is asking or trying to imply.

I don't understand why the AFC let the girl off without even asking questions or informing her it was wrong to try and travel for free. However, I'm asking the question why there is such an inconsistent approach.

Are you a member of Northern staff? If you are then don't you care that one of your colleagues might have to deal with an angry parent if they find out their child had the book thrown at them while an older child get let off?

 

[northwichcat]

If you wanted every parent if every child aged 12 investigated by social services or prosecuted for using public transport independently , both social care and the court systems in England and Wales would grind to a halt.

Let's not forget local councils can expect an 12 year old to travel to their school on public transport (not just designated school buses.) I've seen school kids travelling home at 17:30 in school term time, I don't instantly think they've been up to no good, it could be they'd done after school sports or other activities.

 

[northwichcat]

**As a parent, both children would feel my ire about not paying their fare. Regardless of what happened to a different kid or what the actions of the Guard/AFC were my primary concern is MY child and their actions. If I was more concerned about how my Son was treated when HE failed to pay his fare and was more concerned that someone else got let off then I feel that I would have failed in my duty as a parent. I would also be concerned about where the money for the ticket went

**HUGE caveat here : This is MY view as a parent and other parents my have a differing opinion of how they wish to parent their children and that is perfectly fine with me. There is no right or wrong answer, its hard enough as it is a parent without the sanctimonious judgement from others. We all, just do our best.

Well certainly I don't think many parents would see "X did it and got away with it" as an acceptable excuse for doing the wrong thing. However, if you wouldn't be even slightly annoyed that Northern sent your child back to the station they came from for not having a ticket, possibly meaning you had to go and pick them up, while knowing the parents of an older child didn't have to do the same thing the previous day, you must be someone who doesn't get annoyed easily.

 

[ComUtoR]

Oh, I'd be seething but at my child for not traveling with a ticket. The action of Northern is neither here nor there (and is entirely debatable) that is a direct consequence of the fare evasion.

Because someone else was treated differently has no bearing on how I feel about my child's actions and frankly, has nothing to do with me whatsoever. The likelyhood of me finding out about it is slim, to none. The second that we allow for discretion means that we have to see each situation as unique and accept the circumstances. Personally I'd be more grateful that they weren't given a penalty fare.

Whats the alternative ? Should there be a fully consistent unilateral policy of ticket enforcement and prosecution ? Should everyone without a ticket be given a penalty fare if they haven't boarded with a ticket ? or should discretion and common sense apply ? As I said, there are so many variables that are unknown that either staff member would have taken into account.

The professionals in this thread have posted a common sense approach and sound reasoning for their actions and decision making. That's what makes them good at what they do. If you were the Guard or AFC. What would you have done in both situations ?

 

[Esker-pades]

There has also been the incident where a woman was raped when she was not let on the last bus because she didn’t have enough money.

TfL have a policy for night buses that if a passenger doesn't have a fare, the bus driver is obliged to take them, but personal details have to be written in a special book so that TfL can chase up the unpaid fare. In practice, most drivers will just wave someone on, but the system is in place if required.

 

[DarloRich]

Children (and even teenagers, at times grudgingly) require handling with care. You don't know what's going off and why they might not have any money.

This is why I don't trouble myself with interrogating individuals unless they're known to cause a problem. They're kids. They act up. I usually give them a bit of a curt tongue lashing and leave them be. I certainly don't put them off the train at any point.

I'll give an example. I work a train which is used by a large number of 9 and 10 year olds to travel home from school. Most have passes, some pay on the day and a few act up. Some of my colleagues report having behavioural issues with them, I've never really found them to be a problem. I go down, have a laugh with them, issue a few half hearted tellings off to those who've had too much sugar or haven't got their fare for the 3rd time that month and move on.

There's a regular one that doesn't fit that pattern, I'll call him Joe. I know his actual name because the other kids have a habit of shouting out 'Joe's not got his pass again!!' when you go down checking tickets. He looks a bit scruffier than the others and seems to be in a world of his own.

I don't know what's going on with him but I've asked the route manager to have a word with the school to make sure everything is OK with him.

That's the way things need to be done with children (and I'm not talking idiots with driving licences and a beard who claim to be children). You don't want them to be scared of you and you don't them to grow up with a dislike of you from the start.

That is a very sensible approach - children in a difficult situation at home find secure adult role models in all kinds of places.

 

[DarloRich]

Having worked for social services (and at a time before austerity decimated budgets and staffing levels) this doesn't even come close to meeting the criteria for neglect, especially if you saw what we dealt with (or reluctantly took nfa on due to chronic underfunding and massive caseloads) on a day to day basis. Child neflect is defined in England and Wales as

".the persistent failure to meet a child's basic physical and/or psychological needs, likely to result in the serious impairment of the child's health" (DofE 2007)

What is it about children using public transport independently at that age that you consider persistently and chronically neglectful or indicative of a demonstrable pattern of failing to meet their needs? Plenty of children travel to and from school by train each day in the hours of darkness. Also given that this incident is described as taking place 18 months ago (Summer 2017) it is likely to be still light at 8pm.

If you wanted every parent if every child aged 12 investigated by social services or prosecuted for using public transport independently , both social care and the court systems in England and Wales would grind to a halt.

A very good post. I have experience of both social services and children helped by social services from a previous life and posters here would be shocked if they knew what goes on. What they consider abuse or neglect would not even scratch the surface.

 

[LowLevel]

That is a very sensible approach - children in a difficult situation at home find secure adult role models in all kinds of places.

It's one of the reasons I find people saying 'behave or the ticket man will throw you off the train!' to their kids rather irritating.

If anything they should be learning that if they ever are in trouble in lieu of a police officer or similar a uniformed railway official is probably one of the best people they can go to to keep them safe. Hence I always draw them a smiley face on their ticket or let them print 'their own' (battery test!) ticket on my machine.

 

[bramling]

Well certainly I don't think many parents would see "X did it and got away with it" as an acceptable excuse for doing the wrong thing.

Many people use precisely this sort of logic to justify many things in life. Another one (this time in a workplace setting) is "X should do that task because they are on a high salary" - which normally translates as "I can't be bothered to do it, but I need to find a justification which sounds better than I can't be bothered".

 

[DarloRich]

It's one of the reasons I find people saying 'behave or the ticket man will throw you off the train!' to their kids rather irritating.

If anything they should be learning that if they ever are in trouble in lieu of a police officer or similar a uniformed railway official is probably one of the best people they can go to to keep them safe. Hence I always draw them a smiley face on their ticket or let them print 'their own' (battery test!) ticket on my machine.

Agreed - get them to speak to someone official if in trouble.

 

[northwichcat]

Because someone else was treated differently has no bearing on how I feel about my child's actions and frankly, has nothing to do with me whatsoever. The likelyhood of me finding out about it is slim, to none. The second that we allow for discretion means that we have to see each situation as unique and accept the circumstances. Personally I'd be more grateful that they weren't given a penalty fare.

Given I made 3 relatively short return journeys in the past week of school holidays and overheard two different teenagers both claiming to have no ticket or money for ticket and both treated differently I think there's a reasonable chance people are going to pick up on there being an inconsistent approach on Northern services.

Whats the alternative ? Should there be a fully consistent unilateral policy of ticket enforcement and prosecution ? Should everyone without a ticket be given a penalty fare if they haven't boarded with a ticket ? or should discretion and common sense apply ? As I said, there are so many variables that are unknown that either staff member would have taken into account.

The professionals in this thread have posted a common sense approach and sound reasoning for their actions and decision making. That's what makes them good at what they do. If you were the Guard or AFC. What would you have done in both situations ?

Firstly neither incident was on a PF route so a PF would be inappropriate.

I think the first thing to do is try to establish why they are on the train with no ticket or money. If I believe they've genuinely lost their wallet or a bully has taken their money then I'm not going to take the same approach as if I believe they've just been in the shop and spent the money they've been given for the train fare or have the money in their pocket but are trying to keep it there.

 

[ComUtoR]

I think the first thing to do is try to establish why they are on the train with no ticket or money. If I believe they've genuinely lost their wallet or a bully has taken their money then I'm not going to take the same approach as if I believe they've just been in the shop and spent the money they've been given for the train fare or have the money in their pocket but are trying to keep it there.

Which is exactly why you observed "inconsistent" behavior.

Child A - You feel got bullied, so you let them off
Child B - You felt spunked it so you take a different approach

Why the inconsistency......

Well its obvious. You applied discretion and made a decision. Neither had a ticket but were treated differently.

 

[yorkie]

Neglect? Too many parents seem to think other people are responsible for their children.

What evidence is there of neglect?

I was able to travel by train on my own at that age and see no reason why I shouldn't have been.

 

[MotCO]

I think the first thing to do is try to establish why they are on the train with no ticket or money. If I believe they've genuinely lost their wallet or a bully has taken their money then I'm not going to take the same approach as if I believe they've just been in the shop and spent the money they've been given for the train fare or have the money in their pocket but are trying to keep it there.

I think that this demonstrates exactly why discretion should be used. The problem is when kids are telling porkies, and whether kids think that it is alright to 'get away with it' - they could be posting on here in a few years time asking for advice on being caught without a ticket! Is there any process for taking details to issue an Unpaid Fair Notice? In this way there is a chance that the genuine 'bully took my wallet' could be sifted from the chancers.

 

[yorkie]

Is there any process for taking details to issue an Unpaid Fair Notice? In this way there is a chance that the genuine 'bully took my wallet' could be sifted from the chancers.

Yes, they could either arrange for a SILK payment from parents, or parents could book online and the ticket office could issue the tickets, or a UFN could be issued. Or discretion could be shown, or the ticket office could write a note. The exact procedure may vary depending on location and it may help if the ticket office and train service are operated by the same company.

 

[Intermodal]

or a UFN could be issued

Where I work we are not allowed to issue UPFNs to people under the age of 18 as it is considered a form of credit. Not sure whether this is the case at all TOCs.

 

[northwichcat]

Which is exactly why you observed "inconsistent" behavior.

Child A - You feel got bullied, so you let them off
Child B - You felt spunked it so you take a different approach

Why the inconsistency......

Well its obvious. You applied discretion and made a decision. Neither had a ticket but were treated differently.

Yet in the cases I saw it looked more like a case of AFC deciding teenagers without tickets are more hassle than they are worth, while the guard decided he didn't want any freeloaders on his train.

 

[northwichcat]

Where I work we are not allowed to issue UPFNs to people under the age of 18 as it is considered a form of credit. Not sure whether this is the case at all TOCs.

Surely you don't always know if they are over or under 18 unless they show you ID which includes their DOB or try to use a type of payment card that wouldn't be issued to someone under 18 (and the payment fails.)

 

[Intermodal]

Surely you don't always know if they are over or under 18 unless they show you ID which includes their DOB or try to use a type of payment card that wouldn't be issued to someone under 18 (and the payment fails.)

Well clearly we can be lied to, but we are required to ascertain their age if there is any doubt at all that they are over 18.

 

[Bookd]

On a (London) bus the other day a girl who may or may not have been 16 or under boarded and claimed to have lost her Oyster card - the driver challenged her and asked if she had tried this before - her reply was to the effect that 'I haven't told you before' (so she might have told another driver!).
He let her on - if she was indeed 16 she would travel free anyway, although should have an Oyster card, and it is probably not worth the aggravation to debate her age and motives while holding up the service.

 

[Tom Quinne]

Thursday morning at around 08:30 - a Piccadilly guard was acting as an Assistant Fare Collector. While it was a morning peak train I'm sure the train actually needed the AFC with the train being quieter than usual - perhaps Northern had surplus guards due to engineering works on other routes. A girl (around 16) got on without a ticket and claimed she didn't have means to buy one. The AFC raised his hand as if to say he didn't care and walked off, the girl traveled to her destination for free.

Friday evening at around 17:30 - a guard (not a guard acting as an AFC) is doing a ticket inspection. A boy (around 12) has no ticket and claims he has no means to buy a ticket. The guard gives him a lecture about fare evasion and says he has to get off at the next station. I think he also said something about he would ask the guard on the next service in the opposite direction to let him travel back to where he originally got on.

While I accept guards aren't always going to catch everyone trying to travel for free and have to use discretion when they find a passenger without a ticket, how can their approach be so inconsistent? If I was the girl's parent I'd be annoyed that she was let off without even been given a warning, while if I was the boy's parent and knew an older girl got let off during daylight hours I'd be angry he got thrown off a train at a station without any staff when it was dark.

Equality, male and female being treated the same would be better.

But...in the real world I wouldn’t ever detrain a child or anyone I felt was vulnerable.

In fact I took the view point in my last few years as a guard not to detrain anyone, if they didn’t have the fare then so be it.

I was afraid of detraining someone (male or female) at a unknown location at any time of day or night and then coming to harm, whereby someone who has never worked a train in their life would judge I was somehow responsible and would hang me out to dry.

 

[Tom Quinne]

There has also been the incident where a woman was raped when she was not let on the last bus because she didn’t have enough money.

Horrific as that incident was, we could go down the road or allow free travel to all after say 2000hrs?

The potential for sexual assault can’t be used as an excuse to travel for free.

I’m sure the poor bus driver felt horrific after finding out what had happened, I would also bet that his life was also made hard by the “Facebook” generation calling for him to be sacked etc.

 

[wils180]

Yet in the cases I saw it looked more like a case of AFC deciding teenagers without tickets are more hassle than they are worth, while the guard decided he didn't want any freeloaders on his train.

Which is what it may have looked like if you had made the decision... to someone looking on, within earshot, and not involved in the conversation or thought process whatsoever

 

[northwichcat]

Which is what it may have looked like if you had made the decision... to someone looking on, within earshot, and not involved in the conversation or thought process whatsoever

As I said the guard who was acting as an AFC has been working the 'South Manchester' lines for a number of years and he'll be a familiar face to many. He generally takes the approach that he'll make himself available so that passengers can buy tickets but it's not his problem if someone without a ticket turns down the opportunity to buy a ticket.

 

[EssexGonzo]

Children (and even teenagers, at times grudgingly) require handling with care. You don't know what's going off and why they might not have any money.

This is why I don't trouble myself with interrogating individuals unless they're known to cause a problem. They're kids. They act up. I usually give them a bit of a curt tongue lashing and leave them be. I certainly don't put them off the train at any point.

I'll give an example. I work a train which is used by a large number of 9 and 10 year olds to travel home from school. Most have passes, some pay on the day and a few act up. Some of my colleagues report having behavioural issues with them, I've never really found them to be a problem. I go down, have a laugh with them, issue a few half hearted tellings off to those who've had too much sugar or haven't got their fare for the 3rd time that month and move on.

There's a regular one that doesn't fit that pattern, I'll call him Joe. I know his actual name because the other kids have a habit of shouting out 'Joe's not got his pass again!!' when you go down checking tickets. He looks a bit scruffier than the others and seems to be in a world of his own.

I don't know what's going on with him but I've asked the route manager to have a word with the school to make sure everything is OK with him.

That's the way things need to be done with children (and I'm not talking idiots with driving licences and a beard who claim to be children). You don't want them to be scared of you and you don't them to grow up with a dislike of you from the start.

What a very thoughtful approach. Not many posts in this thread have put the welfare of the child first.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

As I said the guard who was acting as an AFC has been working the 'South Manchester' lines for a number of years and he'll be a familiar face to many. He generally takes the approach that he'll make himself available so that passengers can buy tickets but it's not his problem if someone without a ticket turns down the opportunity to buy a ticket.

The other way of looking at it is he can spend half an hour debating why a particular person has not got a ticket, where as he has a train full of punters who are willing and wanting to buy tickets, that way he is earning himself commission and the company is also increasing their revenue at the same time. I understand your sentiments but end of the day, who is not to say he made a report about it to revenue protection etc. Train guards, AFC, ticket examiners (depending on company), OBS etc have limited powers. Unfortunately there is not enough RPIs and Rail Enforcement Officers to catch every fare evader it has to be proportionate.

 

[Bletchleyite]

What a very thoughtful approach. Not many posts in this thread have put the welfare of the child first.

In my view the best way to put the generic child's welfare first would be for the parents to be held legally liable for a UFN plus admin fee (or if applicable PF), and the child to get a very good talking to that you don't travel without paying, with some detail of the effects on later life of a RoRA prosecution.

Not enforcing against kids breeds fare dodging in adults when they grow up. Letting kids get away with things is as bad as putting them off at an unstaffed station at midnight.

That said, the poster of the post you replied to deserves congratulations for flagging up a possible neglect issue.

 

[Bletchleyite]

As I said the guard who was acting as an AFC has been working the 'South Manchester' lines for a number of years and he'll be a familiar face to many. He generally takes the approach that he'll make himself available so that passengers can buy tickets but it's not his problem if someone without a ticket turns down the opportunity to buy a ticket.

Wow. And people wonder why fare dodging is rife.

It IS his job and it IS his problem. He should only not do so if in that specific case he has reason to believe he will be at risk of assault.