15 year old denied travel due to smoking

[ANorthernGuard]

I have a very simple rule

If I see someone smoking or drinking then it is adult fare

reason why how old do you have to be to purchase cigarettes or alcohol

If you are old enough to purchase the above then you pay an adult fare

unless they want to report the person that brought them the cigarettes or alcohol, which never happens (Obviously).

They soon learn

 

[Squaddie]

I have a very simple rule

If I see someone smoking or drinking then it is adult fare

You have no right whatsoever to apply that rule, and in doing so you are acting beyond your authority. As has been pointed out above, it is not illegal for a child to smoke, and how they obtained the cigarettes is not your concern.

They soon learn

It's not your job to teach anyone a lesson; it's your job to sell the appropriate ticket to the passenger.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

You have no right whatsoever to apply that rule, and in doing so you are acting beyond your authority. As has been pointed out above, it is not illegal for a child to smoke, and how they obtained the cigarettes is not your concern.

It's not your job to teach anyone a lesson; it's your job to sell the appropriate ticket to the passenger.

The appropriate ticket is what I see fit for that person in accordance with nrcoc as to put it bluntly if I feel that person is 16 or over and if they are smoking or drinking I will assume that they are I will charge then an adult ticket and would love to see a complaint made by the person who the ticket was sold to, but it will never happen. And I have every right

 

[LexyBoy]

I'm rather surprised that there seems to be no official guidance on what to do in such circumstances.

I think there must be some burden of proof on the passenger to show that they are entitled to a child rate ticket - but it's not acceptable to simply remove their ticket when there is a chance that they are perfectly entitled to it. If someone is obviously 30 and shows a child ticket then that's different.

Is there any way for a guard or other authorised person to demand proof of age for a child ticket? (Either on-board or to be provided later.) It seems silly if there's no way to address 16-20 year olds on child rate tickets, when it's easy to stop the much smaller number of older fraudsters.

I guess the nuclear option would be to threaten legal proceedings in every case - explaining to the passenger that all they need to do is prove they're under 16 it to be dropped

 

[ANorthernGuard]

I'm rather surprised that there seems to be no official guidance on what to do in such circumstances.

I think there must be some burden of proof on the passenger to show that they are entitled to a child rate ticket - but it's not acceptable to simply remove their ticket when there is a chance that they are perfectly entitled to it. If someone is obviously 30 and shows a child ticket then that's different.

Is there any way for a guard or other authorised person to demand proof of age for a child ticket? (Either on-board or to be provided later.) It seems silly if there's no way to address 16-20 year olds on child rate tickets, when it's easy to stop the much smaller number of older fraudsters.

I guess the nuclear option would be to threaten legal proceedings in every case - explaining to the passenger that all they need to do is prove they're under 16 it to be dropped

The majority of people who are found to be smoking and drinking are easily 16 or over anyway so it tends not to be a problem and to this day I have never had any problems whatsoever if they are under 16 then a travel incident report gets filled in and sent off.

 

[Yew]

But surely the burden of proof would be on the toc? As the person would be innocent until proven guilty. And if you think tht many places have a think 25 policy. As people under 18 can look upto 25 years of age. The "he looked older than that" line probably wouldn't stick.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

But surely the burden of proof would be on the toc? As the person would be innocent until proven guilty. And if you think tht many places have a think 25 policy. As people under 18 can look upto 25 years of age. The "he looked older than that" line probably wouldn't stick.

We get told that it is up to the passenger to prove their age and to be fair so it should be.

 

[MikeWh]

She says he spent all of his money on a child train ticket. But surely he didnt, as he had enough spare for some ciggies!

How do you know in what order he bought the things? Assuming that he bought the ciggies, and that's possibly a big assumption, is it not possible that they were bought first, maybe even a previous day?
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

The majority of people who are found to be smoking and drinking are easily 16 or over anyway so it tends not to be a problem and to this day I have never had any problems whatsoever if they are under 16 then a travel incident report gets filled in and sent off.

That's fine because the person still gets to travel, yes?

I just hope that all these staff on here who seem happy with the idea of stranding a potentially vulnerable person by removing their ability to travel home, will still be happy when they later learn that the person was attacked while walking home/hitching a lift and is now in hospital, or maybe even a morgue?

 

[Yew]

But surely the burden of proof would be on the toc? As the person would be innocent until proven guilty. And if you think tht many places have a think 25 policy. As people under 18 can look upto 25 years of age. The "he looked older than that" line probably wouldn't stick.

We get told that it is up to the passenger to prove their age and to be fair so it should be.

But since there is no obligation for people to carry identification, and you are basing your assumptions on a highly inaccurate method, surely the passanger cannot be penalised.

 

[island]

Could they have UPFNed him for the adult fare on the understanding that the notice would be quashed if proof was provided by post? Although I seem to remember that under-18s can't be UPFNed...

 

[cuccir]

Legally, when selling alcohol, it is incumbent upon the purchaser to provide ID. While there is no law saying that you need ID with you at any time, there are laws which say that it is up to you to provide ID if you are trying to purchase this particular age-restricted product. I don't know if this extends to all other age restricted products but, I think it does.

I don't know whether this is relevant to purchasing child tickets, of course, but it might be a guide. Certainly, it contradicts those who say that 'there is no obligation to carry identification' - because there is if you want to purchase age-restricted products.

--
The closest that the National Rail Conditions of Carraige comes to dealing with this is Condition 15:

Some types of tickets (including many Season Tickets, tickets bought with a Railcard and
Electronic Tickets) are only valid with either:
(a) a photocard showing a photograph which is a true likeness of the person for whom the
ticket was issued; or
(b) another form of personal identification.
Details of this requirement, and the tickets to which it applies, are available where the
relevant tickets are sold

This doesn't mention age restricted tickets, but neither does it rule them out: 'some tickets... are only valid with... another form of personal identification'. Moving to Condition 22

You must show and, if asked to do so by the staff of a Train Company or its agent, hand
over for inspection a valid ticket and any relevant Railcard, photocard or other form of
personal identification in accordance with Condition 15. If you do not, you will be treated
as having joined a train without a ticket and the relevant parts of Condition 2 or 4 will
applied

Again, it doesn't mention age restricted tickets specifically, but in light of condition 15 I think it means that TOCs can reasonably say that child tickets are only available with adequate ID.

 

[BestWestern]

You have no right whatsoever to apply that rule, and in doing so you are acting beyond your authority. As has been pointed out above, it is not illegal for a child to smoke, and how they obtained the cigarettes is not your concern.

It is perfectly reasonable to consider somebody's behaviour when making an assessment of their age, indeed it is a key indication in many cases. If somebody who is and looks 45 offers or requests a child ticket, in what way is it more acceptable to refuse them than with somebody who looks over 18 and is smoking? At what point do your 'rules' change, or would you suggest that we simply take everybody's word for it and use no judgement at all when dealing with ticket fraud of this type?

 

[AlterEgo]

Could they have UPFNed him for the adult fare on the understanding that the notice would be quashed if proof was provided by post? Although I seem to remember that under-18s can't be UPFNed...

I am reasonably sure that a UPFN for a minor isn't binding, as a minor cannot have a civil debt.

In all honesty here (and I am not a hand-wringer, and say this with a heavy intake of breath), the Railway has a Duty of Care to minors. Simply having a fag in your mouth does not make you over 16. Indeed, in Scotland I'd be half expecting a 15-year-old to have a can of Special Brew in hand too....I digress!

I'm disappointed the young man got stranded. That is not on, and reflects badly on the Railway regardless of the consequences. Was a SILK arrangement not offered to the young man and/or his mother?

 

[LexyBoy]

Legally, when selling alcohol, it is incumbent upon the purchaser to provide ID.

So every time I go to the pub I'm committing an offence? News to me.

 

[ANorthernGuard]

Could they have UPFNed him for the adult fare on the understanding that the notice would be quashed if proof was provided by post? Although I seem to remember that under-18s can't be UPFNed...

Correct as a UFN is a form of a credit agreement. We use our besy judgment regarding ages and I have never thrown anyone off at an unmanned station under the age of 18 and I never will, from what some are saying on here they feel if a person is 16 or under they should practically do what they like, not a hope in hells chance, I will call the police and I will report (whatever I feel is the best course of action) if you feel u r old enough to drink and smoke then you arer old enough to pay for your actions.

 

[BestWestern]

I just hope that all these staff on here who seem happy with the idea of stranding a potentially vulnerable person by removing their ability to travel home, will still be happy when they later learn that the person was attacked while walking home/hitching a lift and is now in hospital, or maybe even a morgue?

You are being overly dramatic. The railway is not a travelling charity, if people fail to appreciate the need to behave accordingly when attempting to use it, they are likely to come unstuck. The notion that we cannot do anything other than smile sweetly as soon as somebody says they are a minor is not a black and white matter, as with most things discretion is applied. I said earlier on that I would have no problems refusing travel to somebody, if their behaviour for whatever reason warranted it, who I had seen smoking and who in my opinion looked over the child age. The aspect of them smoking would form a substantial part of any argument I might use to justify my actions.

 

[cuccir]

So every time I go to the pub I'm committing an offence? News to me.

Not exactly; I should have clarified that it is incumbent upon you to provide ID if challenged. So legally you would be unable to buy alcohol if asked to provide ID (no matter how old you are).

 

[LexyBoy]

Not exactly; I should have clarified that it is incumbent upon you to provide ID if challenged. So legally you would be unable to buy alcohol if asked to provide ID (no matter how old you are).

That's what I thought. I'd not been ID'd for years until attempting to buy zero-alcohol beer the other day... epic fail.

 

[MikeWh]

Let's just remind ourselves of the sketchy details that we do know:

My youngest son (15) was refused entry onto a train and had his half fare ticket taken off him by ‘can’t be arsed meglamanic’ ticket collector at Edinburgh station the other day because….wait for it…’he must be 18 because he was smoking’!!!!!! My son did not have ID on him and as he has spent all his money on an overpriced single ticket was unable to purchase another ticket to get home!!! It was only when a police officer intervened and spoke to us on the phone that he was allowed to go on his way.

There is no indication that the ticket collector thought he looked over 15, just that as he was smoking he must be 18. Now this may well not have been how the exchange actually took place, but I am still concerned by the inference. It also doesn't say how a policeman became involved, was he there anyway, called by the ticket collector or by the child? We'll never know. In fairness, we also don't know how the child behaved. He might have appeared abusive, although whether his reaction was driven by panic about how he was to get home, again we'll never know.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not suggesting that anyone should get a free ride just because they say they are under 16. And if they do something that confirms that they are over 18 (like have a credit card in the wallet they pull out to find ID) then throw the book at them. But as AlterEgo says, the railway has a duty of care towards minors and thus I think they need a bit more than "he can't be a child because he is smoking".

 

[island]

Legally, when selling alcohol, it is incumbent upon the purchaser to provide ID.

No it's not. It's an offence (for the seller) to sell alcohol to someone under-18, but the seller has a defence if the purchaser produced valid-looking ID.

 

[big_dirt]

Let's just remind ourselves of the sketchy details that we do know:
There is no indication that the ticket collector thought he looked over 15, just that as he was smoking he must be 18. Now this may well not have been how the exchange actually took place, but I am still concerned by the inference. It also doesn't say how a policeman became involved, was he there anyway, called by the ticket collector or by the child? We'll never know. In fairness, we also don't know how the child behaved. He might have appeared abusive, although whether his reaction was driven by panic about how he was to get home, again we'll never know.

For the avoidance of doubt, I'm not suggesting that anyone should get a free ride just because they say they are under 16. And if they do something that confirms that they are over 18 (like have a credit card in the wallet they pull out to find ID) then throw the book at them. But as AlterEgo says, the railway has a duty of care towards minors and thus I think they need a bit more than "he can't be a child because he is smoking".

Sorry to be pedantic Mike, but a child can legally have a credit card, just not a credit agreement. If someone has a credit card account and wishes to put their child as an authorised user on that account then they can do so and the child will get a card which looks identical to the primary account holder's. The primary account holder will be responsible for all bills etc and if the kid goes off the rails, they won't be forced to pay. Quite unadvisable for the account holder really but not a guaranteed sign of age.

 

[pemma]

Also, I don't know what it's like now but when I was a kid 14 and 15-year-olds were required to possess a child rate photo card in order to obtain a child fare on the buses; and try purchasing an acholoic beverage without proof of age if you look young. Why should train travel be any different? Otherwise the network would be open to all sorts of abuse.

It depends which area you are in. West Yorkshire has a policy like that and offers free proof of age cards but many areas do not.

The problem with rail is there isn't a national card. I must have heard conductors on Northern Rail trains asking kids from Cheshire for their proof of age cards hundreds of times. When the kid looks confused they always say that boy/girl over there has one so you should - it always the case that the 'kid over there with the proof of age' lives or goes to school in Merseyside or Greater Manchester.

 

[michael769]

I just hope that all these staff on here who seem happy with the idea of stranding a potentially vulnerable person by removing their ability to travel home, will still be happy when they later learn that the person was attacked while walking home/hitching a lift and is now in hospital, or maybe even a morgue?

Central Edinburgh is hardly a a dangerous place to be. Certainly no more dangerous for a 15yo than travelling on a train.

It's not like he was put off the train in Briech......

But as AlterEgo says, the railway has a duty of care towards minors and thus I think they need a bit more than "he can't be a child because he is smoking".

And at what point did the railway agree to provide supervision for this person's children?
The railway is not a public nursery if his parents felt he was not able to look after himself on his own, why was he on his own?

I agree that if he had actually been stranded in an isolated location there would be a case to answer here - but being refused entry to private property in the middle of a busy city is hardly a death sentence. It would be in no means difficult for his parents to get him home safely from Central Edinburgh.

 

[cuccir]

No it's not. It's an offence (for the seller) to sell alcohol to someone under-18, but the seller has a defence if the purchaser produced valid-looking ID.

The point being, then, that it is illegal to sell someone alcohol if they were unable to produce ID ie it is incumbent upon the purchaser to have ID and prove that they are old enough

--
Anyway, the key point at hand is that people buying age-restricted products are often legally required to produce ID (even if that requirement emerges in a round-about way). As my quotes from the NRCOC suggest, child tickets are only valid if ID can be produced; therefore it the assertions that people are 'innocent until proven guilty' or that there 'is no requirement to carry ID' are incorrect when it comes to buying these age-restricted products.

 

[Ferret]

You have no right whatsoever to apply that rule, and in doing so you are acting beyond your authority. As has been pointed out above, it is not illegal for a child to smoke, and how they obtained the cigarettes is not your concern.

It's not your job to teach anyone a lesson; it's your job to sell the appropriate ticket to the passenger.

Usual armchair expert waffle. Always amazes me that some on here see fit to tell people how to do their jobs. Tell you what Squaddie, tell us where you work and we'll come to that place of work, tell you what to do, what you're doing wrong and then lambast you on a public forum. What's that? You don't like that idea much? No, I didn't think so.

 

[LexyBoy]

The closest that the National Rail Conditions of Carraige comes to dealing with this is Condition 15:

This doesn't mention age restricted tickets, but neither does it rule them out: 'some tickets... are only valid with... another form of personal identification'. Moving to Condition 22

Again, it doesn't mention age restricted tickets specifically, but in light of condition 15 I think it means that TOCs can reasonably say that child tickets are only available with adequate ID.

I don't think this would cover Child tickets - there is no condition as far as I can see which gives this requirement; compare Railcard tickets where it is clearly stated in the Railcard T&Cs that the Railcard must be shown when requested, or a Photocard for a Season.

I asked Lisa and got the following reply:

You asked:
do i need id for a child ticket?
Lisa says:
Children aged five to fifteen get a 50% discount. In addition, up to two children under five can travel free with each fare paying passenger. If the child looks over the age of 16, it may be appropriate for proof of age to be carried when purchasing the ticket and also when travelling to avoid embarrassment.

So far, so vague...

I can see that it would be hard to make ID compulsory - after all what ten-year-old carries proof of age, and irregular travellers & tourists may not be aware of such a requirement. There should be some formal approach to it though, rather than being totally dependent on the guard's reckoning (questioning is fine, ripping up a ticket is not).

 

[WelshBluebird]

Out of curiosity, for those suggesting that ID would need to be carried for a child fare to be valid, what ID would you suggest? Kids cannot get a driving licence, and I very much doubt parents would trust a kid with a quite expensive passport. There are options such as the CitizenCard, but why would the railways accept that when most pubs, bars and clubs will not accept it (because it is so easy to fake / change the dates).

As a side, I was accused of being over 16 and having a child ticket when I was 13. The reason? I had a bad cough. And so the guard assumed I must be a smoker (despite the lack of any evidence for that assumption). Luckily, the train was busy and he was more interested in selling tickets to other people than taking the time and effort to deal with me. However, had he tried to throw me off / charge me an adult fare, would I have had any come back to the guard / TOC?

 

[LexyBoy]

what ID would you suggest?

A free-of-charge photocard issued at a station on presentation of valid ID such as a passport would be fine (in addition to any ID issued by a Local Authority, Citizencards etc).

That said, I don't think it should be compulsory - it would just make things easier.

 

[Ferret]

Welsh Bluebird, when I was of that age (yikes!), Brum Council did a card that we could show to get child fare bus/train tickets. Don't think it was compulsory, but I'm talking about something that happened 15 years ago! Proved quite useful when Guards didn't believe our age on the local trains

 

[WelshBluebird]

A free-of-charge photocard issued at a station on presentation of valid ID such as a passport would be fine (in addition to any ID issued by a Local Authority, Citizencards etc).

That said, I don't think it should be compulsory - it would just make things easier.

Of course, that would involve the railway actually doing something. Not going to happen.
As for citzencards etc, as I already mentioned, many places refuse to accept them on the basis that they are easy to fake or modify. Why would the railway be any different?

Welsh Bluebird, when I was of that age (yikes!), Brum Council did a card that we could show to get child fare bus/train tickets. Don't think it was compulsory, but I'm talking about something that happened 15 years ago! Proved quite useful when Guards didn't believe our age on the local trains

Of course, but that is assuming your local council have such a scheme!