17 Year Old Questioned without parent or approprate adult

pdy · 22 Mar 2018

On 1st November 2017 my 17 year old travelled from West Worthing to Brighton with a friend (also 17). On arrival she realised that she had left her season ticket at home in her other coat pocket. The station was packed so her friend who had already passed through the barrier passed her own ticket back over. This was quickly spotted by a ticket inspector who came over and told her to come with him along with her friend (my daughter had not used the ticket to cross the barrier but this was clearly her friends suggestion to save time and thus arrive at College on time). At the same time the ticket inspector apologised in a very loud voice to other passengers for the delay whilst he dealt with "these two fare dodgers".

Apparently they were then split up and taken to separate offices and questioned. After around 10-15 minutes of this my 17 year old was asked her age. She was then asked for her name and address and allowed to leave the station.

Today nearly five months on a letter has been received addressed to "Parent/Guardian" accusing her of:

"Receiving a ticket with intent" and

"entering a train for the purpose of travelling on the railway without a ticket entitling travel".

The letter proposes a payment of £80.80 to settle the matter in order to avoid it being reported to the Magistrates Court (this figure includes the rail fare).

Fortunately I still have a scanned copy of her season ticket and student railcard which have since both been renewed.

I am somewhat concerned:

1. Due to the very significant delay between the incident and the letter being sent.
2. Why my daughter who is a juvenile was questioned without a parent or appropriate adult present.

I appreciate that my daughter has made a mistake but a simple call from the station to me at the time would have helped to establish that two young people had misjudged the actions needed when forgetting/mislaying a ticket.

We have 21 days to appeal. Have the rail company acted appropriately?

RailUK Forums

island · 22 Mar 2018

They have up to 6 months to prosecute a case so they are within time.

At what stage did your daughter make her age known to a staff member?

Why did your daughter not seek out a staff member at Brighton to regularise her situation?

Has she turned 18 since the incident/does she turn 18 by May?

pdy · 22 Mar 2018

She said they did not ask her age until the end of the questions. The rail staff were questioning them separately to check out their story (which matched). Apparently she was intimidated by the ticket guy after he had announced to the public on the station that she was a "fare dodger".

She said she decided not to speak to the ticket inspector because there was a very long queue and her friend was concerned about being late. No doubt a bad decision but kids make mistakes/bad judgements.

She is not 18 until October (ie. she was just 17 last November and here friend was 16 not 17 as previously stated - they do not look older in my view and were arriving with a host of other college age youths).

thejuggler · 22 Mar 2018

I’d concentrate on the safeguarding issues this raises. I don’t believe they have acted correctly at all.

If as a minor she was alone in a room with an adult in a position of authority being questioned that leaves both her and the staff member wide open for all sorts of allegations.

Your local Council safeguarding board is the place to start as you have a concern about how a public body is dealing with minors.

Gareth Marston · 23 Mar 2018

Regardless of the age issue they clearly tried to pull a stunt right in front of a member of staff and delayed other travelers by their actions a poor decision all round. I would be getting the friend to pay half the settlement figure so they both learn.

The question of the age / they let her go once established i suspect will be one of these "how long is a piece of string" type things- I would get the settlement paid and then take this up but don't expect to be quick and fruitful.

yorkie · 23 Mar 2018

When does she turn 18?

Darandio · 23 Mar 2018

It's in post 3 sir.

yorkie said:
When does she turn 18?

pdy said:
She is not 18 until October

Fawkes Cat · 23 Mar 2018

In my view, probably the best advice is to pay the £80.80. I can see two or three lines of reasoning, a couple of which lead to this.

To take the reasons in turn:

1) If your daughter and you want a quiet life, paying the settlement offered and then moving on is the easiest way to get there. There will be no need to go to court, no risk of a conviction (which may show up on your daughter's DBS record should she later look for a job or college course which needs convictions to be checked) and you will know how much has to be paid. Against this, the question of whether your daughter has been treated correctly as a juvenile will not be resolved, and the possibility of concluding the matter with no penalty will be lost.
2) You can treat the issues of the alleged offence and the railway's process in interviewing your daughter as completely separate. In this case, you should

pay the penalty now to avoid the case ending up in court. After doing this, you may want to complain to the train company on the facts of the alleged offence and invite them to refund the penalty;
separately make contact with the railway company (and as above in post #4, quite possibly with the involvement of your local council's safeguarding board) to take up the issue of how your daughter has been treated.

3) You can treat the issues of the alleged offence and the railway's process in interviewing your daughter as being linked. In this case, you would essentially be contacting the railway to say that they should not be seeking to prosecute your daughter as she had not been treated fairly in the first place - that as you have suggested in your initial post, since she was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence, an appropriate person should have been with her during the interview. It seems to me that to take this route, your daughter would have to be willing to appear in court in that if the railway will not agree with you at an early point it will become a matter of whether the magistrates agree that your daughter has been wrongly treated.

It seems to me that the possibility of everything being sorted out in your daughter's favour increases somewhat from my suggestion 1 to 3. But so does the level of stress and difficulty that you and your daughter will face - and in my view, the stress and so on increases substantially. It is a matter for you (and importantly, for your daughter) to decide which of these routes is the best balance between getting the whole thing out of the way on the one hand, or making sure that your daughter is not taken advantage of on the other.

AlterEgo · 23 Mar 2018

OP: Was your daughter questioned alone in an office? Was there only one member of staff questioning her? And no other person present?

pdy · 23 Mar 2018

thejuggler said:
I’d concentrate on the safeguarding issues this raises. I don’t believe they have acted correctly at all.

If as a minor she was alone in a room with an adult in a position of authority being questioned that leaves both her and the staff member wide open for all sorts of allegations.

Your local Council safeguarding board is the place to start as you have a concern about how a public body is dealing with minors.

There was more than one adult present so I do not believe there is a safeguarding issue here.

pdy · 23 Mar 2018

Gareth Marston said:
Regardless of the age issue they clearly tried to pull a stunt right in front of a member of staff and delayed other travelers by their actions a poor decision all round. I would be getting the friend to pay half the settlement figure so they both learn.

The question of the age / they let her go once established i suspect will be one of these "how long is a piece of string" type things- I would get the settlement paid and then take this up but don't expect to be quick and fruitful.

Thanks for your comments. Had the girls taken the correct action and reported the season ticket issue to staff other passengers would still have been delayed. I have already acknowledged that mistakes were made. However, from what you say I am not sure you are experienced in dealing with teenagers who often make poor choices as part of growing into adulthood. Most teenagers do not work and as such usually have no money for expenses such as this - it comes from their parents. I doubt her friend's parents would be too keen on paying towards this settlement.

pdy · 23 Mar 2018

Fawkes Cat said:
In my view, probably the best advice is to pay the £80.80. I can see two or three lines of reasoning, a couple of which lead to this.

To take the reasons in turn:

1) If your daughter and you want a quiet life, paying the settlement offered and then moving on is the easiest way to get there. There will be no need to go to court, no risk of a conviction (which may show up on your daughter's DBS record should she later look for a job or college course which needs convictions to be checked) and you will know how much has to be paid. Against this, the question of whether your daughter has been treated correctly as a juvenile will not be resolved, and the possibility of concluding the matter with no penalty will be lost.
2) You can treat the issues of the alleged offence and the railway's process in interviewing your daughter as completely separate. In this case, you should

pay the penalty now to avoid the case ending up in court. After doing this, you may want to complain to the train company on the facts of the alleged offence and invite them to refund the penalty;

separately make contact with the railway company (and as above in post #4, quite possibly with the involvement of your local council's safeguarding board) to take up the issue of how your daughter has been treated.

3) You can treat the issues of the alleged offence and the railway's process in interviewing your daughter as being linked. In this case, you would essentially be contacting the railway to say that they should not be seeking to prosecute your daughter as she had not been treated fairly in the first place - that as you have suggested in your initial post, since she was a juvenile at the time of the alleged offence, an appropriate person should have been with her during the interview. It seems to me that to take this route, your daughter would have to be willing to appear in court in that if the railway will not agree with you at an early point it will become a matter of whether the magistrates agree that your daughter has been wrongly treated.

It seems to me that the possibility of everything being sorted out in your daughter's favour increases somewhat from my suggestion 1 to 3. But so does the level of stress and difficulty that you and your daughter will face - and in my view, the stress and so on increases substantially. It is a matter for you (and importantly, for your daughter) to decide which of these routes is the best balance between getting the whole thing out of the way on the one hand, or making sure that your daughter is not taken advantage of on the other.

Thank you. I am going to write an appeal letter to apologise and explain that I have spoken to my daughter with advice on how to deal with a similar situation in future. I will send a copy of her season ticket for the date in question and appeal on the basis that I have acted as a responsible parent in trying to ensure she has a valid ticket to travel on the rail network. My daughter is in education and has no money other than that provided by her family so in effect a penalty charge to me seems unreasonable when I have spent almost three hundred pounds on season tickets. I'm still unhappy that evidence was gathered without a responsible adult present but as you suggest principles cost and no real harm has occurred so I will drop that objection.

cactustwirly · 23 Mar 2018

The interview would be invalid if used in court, however your daughter still committed an offence by using her friends ticket.
You could win a court case (based on a lack of evidence) if you have a good solicitor and a lot of time and patience.
However in the grand scheme of things £80 isn't that much, so I'd just pay it.

pdy · 23 Mar 2018

cactustwirly said:
The interview would be invalid if used in court, however your daughter still committed an offence by using her friends ticket.
You could win a court case (based on a lack of evidence) if you have a good solicitor and a lot of time and patience.
However in the grand scheme of things £80 isn't that much, so I'd just pay it.

The interesting thing is that she did not use her friends ticket because they stopped her before she had a chance to (in which case how could they prove intent). She also had a valid ticket but it was not on her person (in which case can they prove the second point?) .

cactustwirly · 23 Mar 2018

pdy said:
The interesting thing is that she did not use her friends ticket because they stopped her before she had a chance to (in which case how could they prove intent). She also had a valid ticket but it was not on her person (in which case can they prove the second point?) .

But it does show intent to avoid the fare (in the eyes of the train company anyway) , which is written in the legislation.

LAX54 · 23 Mar 2018

cactustwirly said:
But it does show intent to avoid the fare (in the eyes of the train company anyway) , which is written in the legislation.

But why else would you hand a ticket, back over the barrier to another person if there was no intent to use it ? and as you say the staff 'stopped' her doing it. by the age 17 one would hope they know right from wrong !

30907 · 23 Mar 2018

pdy said:
...that I have spoken to my daughter with advice on how to deal with a similar situation in future. I will send a copy of her season ticket for the date in question and appeal on the basis that I have acted as a responsible parent in trying to ensure she has a valid ticket to travel on the rail network.

Your advice to your daughter in a similar circumstance should be: buy a ticket before travelling, then get the cost refunded, as this is the official (and long-standing) policy.

Season Tickets left at home
If you do not have your Season Ticket with you when you travel you must buy a ticket for your journey. You will be able to get a refund on the fare paid on the first two occasions this happens in any 12 month period. On the second such occasion an administration charge will be made (see below). No more than two of these types of refund will be made in any 12 month period. You will need to hand in the tickets you have bought. You should make refund claims of this type within 28 days of travel.

http://www.nationalrail.co.uk/times_fares/ticket_types/46571.aspx#STLAH

falcon · 23 Mar 2018

thejuggler said:
I’d concentrate on the safeguarding issues this raises. I don’t believe they have acted correctly at all.

If as a minor she was alone in a room with an adult in a position of authority being questioned that leaves both her and the staff member wide open for all sorts of allegations.

Your local Council safeguarding board is the place to start as you have a concern about how a public body is dealing with minors.

All

pdy said:
The interesting thing is that she did not use her friends ticket because they stopped her before she had a chance to (in which case how could they prove intent). She also had a valid ticket but it was not on her person (in which case can they prove the second point?) .

The suspect that intent will have been established at the interview. I suspect they will have admitted that that is what they intended to do (pass a ticket).

Gareth Marston · 23 Mar 2018

pdy said:
Thanks for your comments. Had the girls taken the correct action and reported the season ticket issue to staff other passengers would still have been delayed. I have already acknowledged that mistakes were made. However, from what you say I am not sure you are experienced in dealing with teenagers who often make poor choices as part of growing into adulthood. Most teenagers do not work and as such usually have no money for expenses such as this - it comes from their parents. I doubt her friend's parents would be too keen on paying towards this settlement.

Jutst pay it even its out her "pocket money" or whatever you want to call it. Make it go away is the best advice on here its an absolute clear cut case of attempted fraud no matter what your daughters age. We all love to think theirs a get out of jail card but let face it £80 odd quid makes it go away arguing the toss over when or when not your daughter was confirmed as being 17 is immaterial to the offence,

I work at a station that sees a lot of 16-18 commute for educational purposes including one of my daughters - those that forget their season tickets reluctantly but do pay for the anytime day return on the day and don't do it again. If teenagers in Mid Wales can do it whats so special about those in Sussex? I've worked in supported housing with care leaver consequence free behaviour just breeds more mistakes..

RPI · 25 Mar 2018

Unless the rules have changed you can be interviewed under caution at 17 without an appropriate adult, however it would still be prosecuted in a youth court, this isn't something I would be up to date on though as the TOC I work for only interview over 18's.

K12r · 25 Mar 2018

The rules haven't changed - u18 must have appropriate adult .

pedr · 25 Mar 2018

The rules the police had to abide by - set by the Home Office - used to deem 17 year olds as adults for the purpose of interviews and meant they did not need the support of an appropriate adult.

Those rules changed a few years ago, following a court ruling which held that the rules were unlawful. All under 18s are now covered by the protections given to children. I don’t know whether those rules - a code of practice under PACE - apply to non-police interviews.

AlterEgo · 25 Mar 2018

K12r said:
The rules haven't changed - u18 must have appropriate adult .

Is this also the case for non-police interviews?

cactustwirly · 25 Mar 2018

AlterEgo said:
Is this also the case for non-police interviews?

They should do, the interview is being used as evidence in a criminal court, just like a police interview.

AlterEgo · 25 Mar 2018

cactustwirly said:
They should do, the interview is being used as evidence in a criminal court, just like a police interview.

Is there anywhere that’s written down? As I don’t recall the appropriate adult concept stretching beyond police processes when it was extended.

ForTheLoveOf · 25 Mar 2018

This interviewing disparity, and similarly the non-application of some important evidence and investigation procedure rules (e.g. parts of PACE) to private prosecutions - and/or lack of penalty for failing to comply with any applying rules, are part of why I am deeply unhappy with the current state of private prosecutions.

AlterEgo · 25 Mar 2018

ForTheLoveOf said:
This interviewing disparity, and similarly the non-application of some important evidence and investigation procedure rules (e.g. parts of PACE) to private prosecutions - and/or lack of penalty for failing to comply with any applying rules, are part of why I am deeply unhappy with the current state of private prosecutions.

For once, we agree.

However I’ll await written or website confirmation or otherwise that an appropriate adult is needed for PACE interviews conducted by private companies.

thejuggler · 25 Mar 2018

pdy said:
There was more than one adult present so I do not believe there is a safeguarding issue here.

Having two people present who may intimidate doesn’t mean there are no safeguarding issues. In fact it probably makes it worse!

One of them should have been senior and recognised this potential problem of two employees being alone with a child in a room together.

I’d be taking it further.

Llanigraham · 25 Mar 2018

It strikes me that a few people have been jumping to conclusions about the "safeguarding" situation, and I think need reminding of exactly what has been said in the opening post, in red below:

pdy said:
On 1st November 2017 my 17 year old travelled from West Worthing to Brighton with a friend (also 17). On arrival she realised that she had left her season ticket at home in her other coat pocket. The station was packed so her friend who had already passed through the barrier passed her own ticket back over. This was quickly spotted by a ticket inspector who came over and told her to come with him along with her friend (my daughter had not used the ticket to cross the barrier but this was clearly her friends suggestion to save time and thus arrive at College on time). At the same time the ticket inspector apologised in a very loud voice to other passengers for the delay whilst he dealt with "these two fare dodgers".

Apparently they were then split up and taken to separate offices and questioned. After around 10-15 minutes of this my 17 year old was asked her age. She was then asked for her name and address and allowed to leave the station.

Today nearly five months on a letter has been received addressed to "Parent/Guardian" accusing her of:

"Receiving a ticket with intent" and

"entering a train for the purpose of travelling on the railway without a ticket entitling travel".

The letter proposes a payment of £80.80 to settle the matter in order to avoid it being reported to the Magistrates Court (this figure includes the rail fare).

Fortunately I still have a scanned copy of her season ticket and student railcard which have since both been renewed.

I am somewhat concerned:

1. Due to the very significant delay between the incident and the letter being sent.
2. Why my daughter who is a juvenile was questioned without a parent or appropriate adult present.

I appreciate that my daughter has made a mistake but a simple call from the station to me at the time would have helped to establish that two young people had misjudged the actions needed when forgetting/mislaying a ticket.

We have 21 days to appeal. Have the rail company acted appropriately?

To me that reads that as soon as they realised the person was 17 the interview was terminated and she left. In that is the case then the law has been correctly followed in this aspect. Whether the age question should/could have been asked sooner is a matter of conjecture, especially as many young ladies look older than their years.

Llanigraham · 25 Mar 2018

thejuggler said:
Having two people present who may intimidate doesn’t mean there are no safeguarding issues. In fact it probably makes it worse!

One of them should have been senior and recognised this potential problem of two employees being alone with a child in a room together.

I’d be taking it further.

That is not what the Safeguarding Guidelines state.

17 Year Old Questioned without parent or approprate adult

Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Forum Staff

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Member

Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

On Moderation

On Moderation