17 Year Old Questioned without parent or approprate adult

[Gareth Marston]

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:



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.

My interpretation of the OP first post to. The problem we have in this part of the forum is that too many people approach the requests to help from a pre determined standpoint that there is bound to be a loop hole, a get out of jail card and we can get one over on the TOC's. They don't look at the evidence and understand what is actually being presented as their too busy going off on tangents to achieve their pre determined agenda and a lot of potentially bad advice is being given which doesn't help the OP.

There are long standing procedures regarding forgotten season tickets the OP's daughter and her friend made a bad decision rather than approaching staff and being honest. Whilst the season ticket was not lost and the OP has paid for it and maybe doesn't think they were trying to defraud the railway we have to bear in mind what would happen on the railway if everybody who said they had left their season ticket at home were just waived through at the barriers. Hundreds of £ Millions of revenue would be lost as everybody would be at it.

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

I note none of the "Safeguarding" get of out of jail posters have come up with any appropriate ruling on what point must a persons age must be ascertained.

 

[robbeech]

We get complaints when we hear of people being asked for date of birth and claim it to be not required and consider it sensitive personal data, (see a recent thread on Northern RPIs that I can’t find at the moment) and then we get complaints when people are not asked it and are interviewed under the wrong conditions due to their age.

I suppose a happy medium would be to simply ask if a person is 18 or over.

 

[thejuggler]

I note none of the "Safeguarding" get of out of jail posters have come up with any appropriate ruling on what point must a persons age must be ascertained.

Its not difficult. Any doubts as to age and the person is dealt with as a child until such time as age is ascertained, which should be as soon as is possible and before deciding to take the person into a room for questioning. This is basic safeguarding.

I think too many people are seeing this as the trying to work loopholes - it isn't. Safeguarding is there for all parties. A seemingly innocent situation can escalate very quickly, putting railway employees at risk.

 

[Gareth Marston]

Its not difficult. Any doubts as to age and the person is dealt with as a child until such time as age is ascertained, which should be as soon as is possible and before deciding to take the person into a room for questioning. This is basic safeguarding.

At what point is there "doubt" ? The individual could look over 18 to you and so therefore you initially have no doubt and only when under questioning did the doubt emerge due to the answers given.

Stick a collection of older teenagers in a line up and then get a hundred members of the public to look at them and guess there age. I wonder what the accuracy rate would be? Less than 50%?

If the TOC in question has a specific policy of asking age first before you do anything else then fair enough it would appear from the OP that this wasn't followed but if they don't have such a policy and the staff member in question initially had no doubts to the age of the OP Daughters.......

Are railway staff trained in "Safeguarding" is there any legal requirement for them to be?

Posting a link to evidence things such as a policy or guidance would help move this debate on-

 

[pdy]

Grateful for all the replies and comments.

I guess I was just disappointed that I was not called at the time of the incident when I could have tried to help clear matters up rather than getting a letter nearly five months after. It is/was probably unreasonable for me to expect busy station staff to have time to deal with it in that way. With hindsight I should have explained to my children the serious (criminal) nature of fare dodging rather than just expect season tickets to make the problem go away. It has certainly taught my daughter a lesson and she always checks for her ticket before leaving home now. At the end of the day we all make mistakes in life and with all the terrible things such as gangs, drugs and knife crime other parents have to deal with I am happy if this is the worst scrape I have to deal with.

We are where we are so as previously stated I have submitted a written apology/appeal within the 21 days stated on the letter. I hope if that fails I can still pay the £80.80 to settle the matter without a court case?

Thanks again to all on here for helping.

 

[retsim]

Regarding the safeguarding discussion, this should be a standard part of staff training. If not, it raises serious issues.

To me, with a load of students commuting to college, it should be obvious to staff that their age range will be 16 to 18 (and, 5 months ago, few of them would have turned 18 yet). So yes, establishing the age should have been done first.

The young people did something foolish and shouldn't get off on a technicality, but to me the safeguarding issue is most important. The college will be well briefed on this and may be in a position to help.

 

[island]

It is worth noting that safeguarding rules don’t apply across the board. They are principally aimed at organisations which care for/supervise children, rather than organisations who may from time to time have children (and lots of other people) on the premises.

 

[pdy]

It is worth noting that safeguarding rules don’t apply across the board. They are principally aimed at organisations which care for/supervise children, rather than organisations who may from time to time have children (and lots of other people) on the premises.

I am a trained lead safeguarding officer in my workplace and as previously stated I don't see any issues under safeguarding with this case.

 

[Llanigraham]

I am a trained lead safeguarding officer in my workplace and as previously stated I don't see any issues under safeguarding with this case.

Ditto. I'm one of the trained Safeguarding Officers for one of the largest Motor Clubs in the UK, and I see no issues here.
However what I do see is people not understanding safeguarding issues and trying to use that as an excuse or a "get-off".

 

[falcon]

Where are / is there a copy of these "safeguarding" rules?

 

[Llanigraham]

Where are / is there a copy of these "safeguarding" rules?

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...dance-for-professionals-working-with-children

 

[island]

Grateful for all the replies and comments.

I guess I was just disappointed that I was not called at the time of the incident when I could have tried to help clear matters up rather than getting a letter nearly five months after. It is/was probably unreasonable for me to expect busy station staff to have time to deal with it in that way. With hindsight I should have explained to my children the serious (criminal) nature of fare dodging rather than just expect season tickets to make the problem go away. It has certainly taught my daughter a lesson and she always checks for her ticket before leaving home now. At the end of the day we all make mistakes in life and with all the terrible things such as gangs, drugs and knife crime other parents have to deal with I am happy if this is the worst scrape I have to deal with.

We are where we are so as previously stated I have submitted a written apology/appeal within the 21 days stated on the letter. I hope if that fails I can still pay the £80.80 to settle the matter without a court case?

Thanks again to all on here for helping.

In general, a sum payable in respect of a railway contravention or unpaid fare remains so payable independently of any appeal that the passenger may wish to pursue and will be returned should such an appeal be upheld.

It should be borne in mind that the offender in this instance is a minor and will remain so until after the expiry of the time limit for prosecuting a summary offence. Train companies have typically shown a marked reluctance to bring cases in the youth courts.

 

[bb21]

Highly likely that no further action will be taken if a copy of the existing valid season ticket is produced, with an apologetic letter and suitable mention of the offender's age.

The name may be noted and repeat offences after turning 18 may be dealt with accordingly.

No guarantees however but the fact the offender cannot be prosecuted as per adult offenders will play massively to your advantage.

 

[falcon]

Wrong quote. WD.

 

[falcon]

https://www.gov.uk/government/news/...dance-for-professionals-working-with-children

Thanks. I think that is aimed specifically at "organisations that work with children" I don't think it is amid at railway staff or other organisations. A useful guide though to enhance any complaint.Thanks again.

 

[falcon]

Grateful for all the replies and comments.

I guess I was just disappointed that I was not called at the time of the incident when I could have tried to help clear matters up rather than getting a letter nearly five months after. It is/was probably unreasonable for me to expect busy station staff to have time to deal with it in that way. With hindsight I should have explained to my children the serious (criminal) nature of fare dodging rather than just expect season tickets to make the problem go away. It has certainly taught my daughter a lesson and she always checks for her ticket before leaving home now. At the end of the day we all make mistakes in life and with all the terrible things such as gangs, drugs and knife crime other parents have to deal with I am happy if this is the worst scrape I have to deal with.

We are where we are so as previously stated I have submitted a written apology/appeal within the 21 days stated on the letter. I hope if that fails I can still pay the £80.80 to settle the matter without a court case?

Thanks again to all on here for helping.

If the matter goes to court let the forum know.

There are defences that should be considered as regards to how the evidence of 'intent' was obtained and the fact an appropriate adult was not present as in accordance with PACE and the appeal court ruling R v Fuller 1987 regarding appropriate adult being present and the proper use of caution.

 

[Stigy]

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

This is the case now, however it hasn't always been the case (it used to be 17 and 9 months or something?). Most TOCs would never have Q&A'd under caution under 18 as a rule, but PACE did used to allow it.

Were these two questioned under caution though, or just reported? I might have missed that bit.