14 Year Old School Pupil accused of lying about her age

[BJames]

Problem is that one 18 year old looks like a 14 year old and another 14 year old looks like an 18 year old. Children mature at very different rates. That's why we have "Challenge 25", because very few 25 year olds genuinely look like kids.

The only way to be 100% is to say "adult fare unless you have a child fare card", which TfL is getting very close to these days.

True. I know a few people who still ask for under 19 (i.e. you need to be 18) day tickets on NCT despite being 22 or 23 years old because they look young enough that the drivers never question it.

I was also completely unaware of the railway child photocards.

 

[43066]

There isn't a law against asking for ID but if you are under 25 and wanting to buy alcohol or tobacco you can expect to need ID, a 14 year old child wearing school uniform and with their school id shouldn't be expected to need ID. I didn't bother until I could get my provisional...

And if you’re a 14yo child who is big for your age you can expect to be asked for ID if you’re travelling on a child ticket. It sounds as though the ID described in the article isn’t sufficient for proof of age, but there are child photo cards available as above. School uniform doesn’t always work either; my school had the same uniform at 15 and 16.

There's a difference between and obviously middle aged adult and a child in school uniform.

But there really needs to be a blanket policy. You appeared to be suggesting that, because there’s no blanket requirement to carry age ID on the railway, the railway should simply take someone’s age at face value. There will always be a few who find a way to exploit that.

 

[AdamWW]

But there really needs to be a blanket policy. You appeared to be suggesting that, because there’s no blanket requirement to carry age ID on the railway, the railway should simply take someone’s age at face value. There will always be a few who find a way to exploit that.

Maybe I have had a sheltered life but while I have seen staff question passengers on whether they are really young enough for a child ticket, I have never seen ID requested.

Combined with the fact that until looking on the web today I don't think I've ever seen an official suggestion that children should carry ID if they look over 16, the conclusion I came to is that the railway essentially does take age at face value.

Which I have always thought is a bit odd.

And I suspect it's more than a few who exploit it...

 

[Energy]

But there really needs to be a blanket policy. You appeared to be suggesting that, because there’s no blanket requirement to carry age ID on the railway, the railway should simply take someone’s age at face value. There will always be a few who find a way to exploit that.

Agreed, requiring ID after a certain age isn't necessarily bad as long as the railway continues to provide free access to it. Right now you can't expect a passenger to have ID as it isn't required though some will bring it of their own initiative.

In this case the passenger did have ID with their school ID saying their year group (year 9 so no 16 year olds) and a SouthEastern ID.

 

[duncombec]

Perhaps worth noting this story was carried by the local paper a few days earlier, using almost exactly the same wording in some paragraphs. KentOnline are fairly well known for borrowing things from social media and asking for a comment, so I think we can lay the assumption it's a poor story because it's in the Daily fail to rest: https://www.kentonline.co.uk/malling/news/they-accused-her-of-lying-and-left-her-in-tears-287792/

Note it also includes a picture of the "receipt" issued, and the statement from the mother that she is aware her daughter can look older. It seems to me that the complaint is rather less about the issue, and rather more about the behaviour of the RPIs involved.

From interactions with them at gateline inspections, SouthEastern has some very good RPI staff... and some who failed their manners and common sense classes by a country mile...

 

[jumble]

For a start, the article says they were train guards. They weren't, and it's an important distinction.

Secondly, in general terms, if there is doubt about validity due to any factor, age or otherwise, reporting for investigation is entirely appropriate.

When age was proven, the report was cancelled. This is entirely appropriate also.

A penalty fare is not appropriate, however, (if the story is correct). I doubt that the report can be taken at face value. I also doubt that the quotes attributed to Southeastern are presented in context.

The motivation behind the parent's decision to go to the papers.... Well.

Finally, I cannot believe that I have just broken a lifelong boycott of that publication by reading that article.

Do you think SouthEastern apologised or not?
Do you think they should have done?
Do you think it accepatble to go through a child's phone?
Having had one of my Children abused by an RPI in the past (and received compensation)
I feel very strongly that people who hold power and then abuse that power 100% need to be held to account

 

[43066]

Maybe I have had a sheltered life but while I have seen staff question passengers on whether they are really young enough for a child ticket, I have never seen ID requested.

Combined with the fact that until looking on the web today I don't think I've ever seen an official suggestion that children should carry ID if they look over 16, the conclusion I came to is that the railway essentially does take age at face value.

Which I have always thought is a bit odd.

And I suspect it's more than a few who exploit it...

Agreed it isn’t something should really be taken on trust IMO. It also opens up a can of worms in terms of potentially offending people and creates scope for all manner of awkward interactions where people have to be asked.

I’ve not witnessed it on a train that I can recall. I’ve certainly seen people being pulled over at gatelines being interviewed.

Agreed, requiring ID after a certain age isn't necessarily bad as long as the railway continues to provide free access to it.

Perhaps child photo cards should be mandatory for all children old enough to travel unaccompanied (say 10+).

The National Rail website currently states:

Train Travel with Children | National Rail

There are many discounts for children’s train tickets. Here’s what you need to know about rail travel with children.

www.nationalrail.co.uk

We suggest that children who look older than 16 carry a form of ID to show that they are entitled to a child rate fare. For example, a Child Rate Photocard, which can be obtained for free at any staffed National Rail station.

But in terms of “looking older than 16”, how long is a piece of string?!

 

[Energy]

Perhaps child photo cards should be mandatory for all children old enough to travel unaccompanied (say 10+).

I'd say 12 years old to prove under 16, 14 years old to prove under 18. Though there should be a clause that any fine issued due to insufficient ID gets cancelled once sufficient ID is provided afterwards within a reasonable timeframe.

which can be obtained for free at any staffed National Rail station.

Requires the local station to be staffed, perhaps a video link for smaller stations?

 

[rs101]

And if you’re a 14yo child who is big for your age you can expect to be asked for ID if you’re travelling on a child ticket. It sounds as though the ID described in the article isn’t sufficient for proof of age, but there are child photo cards available as above. School uniform doesn’t always work either; my school had the same uniform at 15 and 16.



But there really needs to be a blanket policy. You appeared to be suggesting that, because there’s no blanket requirement to carry age ID on the railway, the railway should simply take someone’s age at face value. There will always be a few who find a way to exploit that.

The article said she had a "Southeastern ID card" - wouldn't that be the child photo card you mention?

 

[61653 HTAFC]

With regard to the points a few have made about how students in year 11 can be over sixteen, perhaps the issue there is that the cut-off for child fares is an age rather than education status. A Year 11 born on 3rd September will have a whole year of having to pay adult fares, whilst their classmate born on 20th August the following year can pay half-fare for the whole year. This despite these two students being at the same stage of education. For the purposes of transport fares the cut-off is arbitrary.
Indeed now that compulsory education lasts an extra two years, concessionary fares should be valid for all up until they leave compulsory education.

 

[Dave242]

This isn’t go into to go well, for the RP or SouthEasten, going on the information available. Especially if the Police get involved

Her School ID perfectly acceptable, for the police, why is SE different? If true the RP looking at her phone is at best stupid. Even the Police, via stop and search powers dose not give them the right to look through your phone unless you are suspected of terrorism or child sex offences.

As to, Siobhan Bradshaw. Why did she make a comment and why did SE let her make comments to the press?

Dave

 

[Krokodil]

RPIs tend to get commission while guards usually don't.

Other way around.

The pupil had already divulged their name and school from their uniform and school ID badge and probably also her age, even though they didn't believe her.

If someone rings up and the school confirm that Jane Smith is a pupil at that school, an abusive father now knows how to find their estranged family. Schools should not provide any information at all over the phone.

 

[Energy]

As to, Siobhan Bradshaw. Why did she make a comment and why did SE let her make comments to the press?

Indeed, the comment needed to be "We are deeply sorry for the upset caused to this passenger, our staff member shouldn't have looked through her phone and we are launching an internal investigation into why this occurred and why they felt the school ID was insufficient evidence. The fine issued has been cancelled. While we do not require, we do recommend that passengers have photo ID to prove their age with Child Rate Photocards being available for free at any staffed National Rail station."

Other way around.

Double checked and you are right, Ticket Examiners also get commission.

 

[rg177]

From the point of view of someone who used to have to check a lot of child tickets...

This whole incident is appalling. You don't go through someone's personal devices and you don't go to the daft extremes that the staff involved here have gone to.

A school uniform was usually a good indicator of someone being entitled to child tickets. In any case, if they're travelling to/from school, general consensus was to let them go on their way. Usually they'd all come through at once as well, so your main concern was that they had a ticket and that they were getting through safely.

As for how I'd check if I was unsure, questions like 'are you under 18' would usually trip some up, as they'd say they were 16 or 17, or just give inconsistent/bitty answers that didn't add up. Others were very obviously not children (and we're not talking people in their twenties).

I managed to never cause anyone any distress, get myself assaulted, or end up in the papers, so it's not hard to do. Unfortunately a small minority of staff enjoy the power they're given a little too much.

As for the response from Southeastern, oh dear.

 

[Wolfie]

With regard to the points a few have made about how students in year 11 can be over sixteen, perhaps the issue there is that the cut-off for child fares is an age rather than education status. A Year 11 born on 3rd September will have a whole year of having to pay adult fares, whilst their classmate born on 20th August the following year can pay half-fare for the whole year. This despite these two students being at the same stage of education. For the purposes of transport fares the cut-off is arbitrary.
Indeed now that compulsory education lasts an extra two years, concessionary fares should be valid for all up until they leave compulsory education.

That would appear logical. Ergo in the world of the railway it will never happen, sadly.

From the point of view of someone who used to have to check a lot of child tickets...

This whole incident is appalling. You don't go through someone's personal devices and you don't go to the daft extremes that the staff involved here have gone to.

A school uniform was usually a good indicator of someone being entitled to child tickets. In any case, if they're travelling to/from school, general consensus was to let them go on their way. Usually they'd all come through at once as well, so your main concern was that they had a ticket and that they were getting through safely.

As for how I'd check if I was unsure, questions like 'are you under 18' would usually trip some up, as they'd say they were 16 or 17, or just give inconsistent/bitty answers that didn't add up. Others were very obviously not children (and we're not talking people in their twenties).

I managed to never cause anyone any distress, get myself assaulted, or end up in the papers, so it's not hard to do. Unfortunately a small minority of staff enjoy the power they're given a little too much.

As for the response from Southeastern, oh dear.

The voice of commonsense from the coalface, thank you.

This isn’t go into to go well, for the RP or SouthEasten, going on the information available. Especially if the Police get involved

Her School ID perfectly acceptable, for the police, why is SE different? If true the RP looking at her phone is at best stupid. Even the Police, via stop and search powers dose not give them the right to look through your phone unless you are suspected of terrorism or child sex offences.

As to, Siobhan Bradshaw. Why did she make a comment and why did SE let her make comments to the press?

Dave

Spot on. Re your second para to do such examination the police have to invoke specific dedicated powers. The Home Office has just come a cropper for taking asylum seekers' phones and demanding that passwords be handed over with threats of action otherwise. A Court ruled that illegal and litigation for compensation (think millions if not tens of millions in total) will follow. The Home Office at least had some excuse. This RPI could rightly be absolutely hammered.

 

[MikeWh]

With regard to the points a few have made about how students in year 11 can be over sixteen, perhaps the issue there is that the cut-off for child fares is an age rather than education status. A Year 11 born on 3rd September will have a whole year of having to pay adult fares, whilst their classmate born on 20th August the following year can pay half-fare for the whole year. This despite these two students being at the same stage of education. For the purposes of transport fares the cut-off is arbitrary.
Indeed now that compulsory education lasts an extra two years, concessionary fares should be valid for all up until they leave compulsory education.

That would appear logical. Ergo in the world of the railway it will never happen, sadly.

It has already happened. London resident zip 11-15 cards expire at the end of September following the 16th birthday. Zip 16-18 cards likewise run on educational years, as does the Student 18+ Oyster.

 

[Dave W]

From the point of view of someone who used to have to check a lot of child tickets...

Thanks for this, a measured and reasonable response to this incident.

 

[Wolfie]

It has already happened. London resident zip 11-15 cards expire at the end of September following the 16th birthday. Zip 16-18 cards likewise run on educational years, as does the Student 18+ Oyster.

I know, as a London resident, what happens there.

 

[richw]

With regard to the points a few have made about how students in year 11 can be over sixteen, perhaps the issue there is that the cut-off for child fares is an age rather than education status. A Year 11 born on 3rd September will have a whole year of having to pay adult fares, whilst their classmate born on 20th August the following year can pay half-fare for the whole year. This despite these two students being at the same stage of education. For the purposes of transport fares the cut-off is arbitrary.
Indeed now that compulsory education lasts an extra two years, concessionary fares should be valid for all up until they leave compulsory education.

Cornwall and Plymouth councils have both introduced a uniform age restriction applying to all buses in their area. The policy they have introduced is the day before someone turns 19. Compulsory education covered for all. The ticket is described as a young person fare not a child fare.

 

[Wolfie]

Cornwall and Plymouth councils have both introduced a uniform age restriction applying to all buses in their area. The policy they have introduced is the day before someone turns 19. Compulsory education covered for all. The ticket is described as a young person fare not a child fare.

That seems eminently sensible.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

Plus some kind of more sensible process for handling failures which doesn't involve throwing around demands of large fines.

I also disapprove of the idea of railway staff taking a passenger's property (their phone) and searching through it I hope very much that this did not happen as described because it sounds quite improper (and I suspect illegal).

Unfortunatley the whole "we'll fine you £100 even if you have no idea on how to work a ticket machine or look older despite being in school uniform" is putting people off travelling, what the Revenue Protection Inspectors should realise is that when it comes to children / anyone under 18 years of age then they, the RPI's, should treat the issue with caution to the wind. What I'm saying is the RPI's could have easily ended up in a situation whereby the lasses father could have violently beaten up the RPI's over the whole thing which could have resulted in the RPI's being hurled before the police and a judge over inadequate behaviour (e.g. searching the passenger/ looking through private information, etc). The father would have also been questioned but understandible upset over someone treating his daughter in such a way.

Either way the Revenue Protection Inspectors will be bricking it now incase this does go to court with them being questioned by a judge over their disgusting actions i.e. looking through private texts on the cutomers phone.


Thankfully not all Revenue Protection Inspectors behave like this as some take the role of customer service seriously.

 

[AdamWW]

Thankfully not all Revenue Protection Inspectors behave like this as some take the role of customer service seriously.

I suspect that very few act like this and we don't really know if these actually acted like this because we're reading someone's description of what happened as then written up by a journalist.

And while I don't want to suggest that journalists deliberately make stuff up, whenever I've seen a news story about something I wasa actually involved in or have particular knowledge of, it's never been very accurate.

 

[zwk500]

I suspect that very few act like this and we don't really know if these actually acted like this because we're reading someone's description of what happened as then written up by a journalist.

And while I don't want to suggest that journalists deliberately make stuff up, whenever I've seen a news story about something I wasa actually involved in or have particular knowledge of, it's never been very accurate.

The fact that Southeastern cancelled the fine suggests that the journalist has the gist of the story right - i.e. the RPI was totally in the wrong - even if it's not 100% accurate.

 

[AlterEgo]

The fact that Southeastern cancelled the fine suggests that the journalist has the gist of the story right - i.e. the RPI was totally in the wrong - even if it's not 100% accurate.

Well, it shows the child was indeed a child and the RPI was wrong to refuse their credentials, at the very least.

 

[NorthernSpirit]

1 - Do you think SouthEastern apologised or not?
2 - Do you think they should have done?
3 - Do you think it acceptable to go through a child's phone?
Having had one of my Children abused by an RPI in the past (and received compensation) I feel very strongly that people who hold power and then abuse that power 100% need to be held to account.

1 - I don't think thay they have.
2 - Yes, they should.
3 - Absolutley not, not by any account. The RPI/s who have, have successfully opened themselves up towards and bordering on being labled as perverts and/or paedophiles by behaving in an unproffesional manner towards a minor/juvinile. Which for the record isn't going to look good for SouthEastern or any of its contractors and especially the employee/contractor who has decided to risk their career/job and their future by sifting through a child's phone.

If someone did this to my niece, that someone would never be working with the public ever again.

 

[125Spotter]

The problem with the approach of phoning the school and asking for confirmation is exactly as stated earlier – if the caller has a legitimate purpose, then the call would seem to pose no problem in revealing the yes/no to the caller, but revealing information about attendance of a vulnerable person at a particular institution to an unknown caller has plenty of hazards if the caller happens to not be who they say they are.

Having built systems that have to operate in such circumstances, where the identity of the "caller" cannot be readily validated (in this case the person on the other side of an API who is a minor or vulnerable person who is collecting user credentials, so cannot yet authenticate themselves), this is not only hard... it is challenging to design a system that is sufficiently robust to prove the party on the other side is indeed who they say they are. First/last name and date of birth can readily be known by others, and acceptance of such credentials to provide the service is sufficient for an existence proof to be made to the caller. That could have an unpredictable real-world impact.

It's also surprisingly difficult to convey this hazard to those who design such systems, with plenty of examples out there cited as "competitor X does it, so why can't we?". The world and peoples' lives are surprisingly colourful and difficult at times, and while the risk may be low, I wouldn't want to design a system where information can be leaked without knowing very sure the party on the other side is who they claim to be.

An ID number on the ID card or some other piece of unique data might help reduce the risk – but seems unlikely a protocol would have been implemented to check such data for such a rare usecase.

The risk might be low, but it's these edge cases that are vitally important to design in. Similar with designing legislation – might be fine for the author, but needs to be tested against all other legislation and potentially underrepresented groups. Well, that's the theory anyway, right?

 

[Krokodil]

This whole incident is appalling. You don't go through someone's personal devices and you don't go to the daft extremes that the staff involved here have gone to.

In the amount of time they've wasted, there were probably dozens of actual fare-dodging scrotes slipping right past them. If a kid is in school uniform, it's best to assume that they're probably 15 or under. Few schools make their sixth formers wear uniform and where used it usually differs from the lower school (different polo, or a suit-style uniform instead of a blazer). So apart from the handful who've only just turned 16, there aren't enough to be worth pursuing.

I just try to promote the 16-17 saver railcard as much as possible, which has introduced a useful buffer zone between "half-fare child" and 2/3-fare adult" with "half-fare adult".

It has already happened. London resident zip 11-15 cards expire at the end of September following the 16th birthday. Zip 16-18 cards likewise run on educational years, as does the Student 18+ Oyster.

But TfL is not "the railway" as such, is it? Getting the DfT to introduce that sort of sensible scheme nationwide would be like getting blood out of a stone.

Incidentally, when I came across a young girl hiding in the toilet without a ticket the other day, my response wasn't to give her the third degree, instead I asked a BTP PCSO to check up on her welfare. Several aspects were ringing alarm bells; including that the timing indicated possible truancy, she had a visible history of self-harm, and when the officer asked her for details she seemed not to know so much as her mother's name.

Safeguarding comes first.

 

[Western Sunset]

I'm wondering how Wee Jimmy Krankie would've faired in all of this. I don't think SouthEastern is feeling very "fandabidozi" over the (alleged) behaviour of a number of its RPIs, or the quality of response from their press spokeswoman.

On a more serious note, maybe the Children's Commissioner for England (currently Rachel de Souza) should take an interest in the interaction between children (defined as someone who has not yet reached their 18th birthday) and transport undertakings. Safeguarding, equality and discrimination are factors to be considered.

Maybe railways (and other transportt modes) could finally enter the 21st century and only start charging adult fares when a child actually becomes an adult.

 

[Wolfie]

The same story is being run in the Independent. I have to say that the SouthEastern manager quoted comes across as an out of touch, arrogant, incompetent, clown who should not be in a publicly funded customer facing role. Perhaps she needs to be put in her place, or her bosses, with a little session in front of the Transport Select Committee....

 

[MikeWh]

But TfL is not "the railway" as such, is it?

The zip card schemes cover all National Rail operators in London, as well as LU and DLR. Not forgetting bus travel as well.