Child fined with prosecution ticket by Thameslink

[Naikari]

My daughter, 16, entered East Croydon with her Oyster card. She had been invited to a bowling event in Crawley and had never been there before. When she arrived, she tried to exit the station using her Oyster card but there was an error and she needed assistance. She then learned then that she was a couple of stops out of the Oyster card zone. She explained that this was a genuine mistake and wanted to pay the difference but she was issued with a fine that said 'prosecution'.

We appealed by letter posted by Royal Mail the day after this happened. A copy of the challenge was emailed too as well as proof of her having entered East Croydon with her Oyster (and hence paid to travel) and having been unable to exit at Crawley. In short, we provided a full explanation of the situation and the proof that she'd been travelling with a ticket, she had just exceeded the Oyster zone by two stops out of ignorance.

No answer to the appeal was ever received. We tried phone calls and emails. We tried Twitter DMs. We were told that the slip or ticket number issued was not found anywhere. We persisted because we feared the worst happening at a later stage. Nobody could explain the situation or give us an update. Emails were forwarded by Thameslink to other employees that still didn't offer any clarification or didn't even know what was happening. Everybody was either totally clueless or totally unwilling to help.

Three and a half months later, a letter with an escalated fine and a threat to take legal action against a child has arrived. We still can't get in touch with anyone as Thameslink prosecution phones are never answered and their customer services assistants say we should write (even though we already did and never got an answer).

To summarise:
1) Child fined for not having entered East Croydon Station with a ticket - even though SHE HAD entered using her Oyster card
2) No explanation or answer to emails or calls or letter
3) No answer to appeal/challenge letter to say if this had been successful or unsuccesful even though proof of having a ticket was provided
4) First communication from Thameslink received three and a half months later is an escalation of the fine and a threat to take legal action
5) Still unable to get through to anyone

Also, a key unanswered question remains: why does a child get issued a prosecution slip at a station when she tried to use an Oyster card, a slip with only an email address and an address and no other info, but is told she has to pay a fine, yet nobody says how much the fine is or how to pay it. I think I have entered Kafka's "The Castle"...

What can anyone do at this point? We are losing faith in humanity and basic common sense and reason altogether.

 

[gray1404]

Could you upload a copy of the letter that has now been received with personal details missed out?

 

[6Gman]

The slip appears to be the one that's issued where somebody has forgotten their season ticket or railcard, and is asked to forward details.

It doesn't seem an appropriate thing to issue under the circumstances outlined.

 

[6Gman]

My daughter, 16, entered East Croydon with her Oyster card. She had been invited to a bowling event in Crawley and had never been there before. When she arrived, she tried to exit the station using her Oyster card but there was an error and she needed assistance. She then learned then that she was a couple of stops out of the Oyster card zone. She explained that this was a genuine mistake and wanted to pay the difference but she was issued with a fine that said 'prosecution'.

I don't quite understand what you mean here.

Do you mean she was issued with a slip of paper that said "prosecution"? Or that she paid some money at the time?

 

[StephenHunter]

I would suggest getting your local MP involved.

 

[some bloke]

I'm sorry that this has happened.

escalation of the fine and a threat to take legal action

Is this a threat of prosecution, or of civil action to recover a penalty fare? It may be that a letter about a penalty fare has got lost in the post, or there may have been an administrative mistake.

If it was a penalty fare and your daughter didn't pay it in full at the time, she should have been given written information on how to pay it.

she was issued with a fine that said 'prosecution'.

Technically only a court can issue a fine; the company can charge a penalty fare.

The slip says that failure to send a copy of a season ticket or Railcard "if fail to carry" may lead to prosecution. That part doesn't apply to your daughter unless the issue is that she failed to carry one of those. The slip seems inappropriate here, as @6Gman says above.

Although the company is free to allege an offence (you are also free to start a private prosecution against someone), it seems the slip itself wasn't threatening prosecution for anything your daughter did.

If you upload the latest letter as @gray1404 suggests (with identifying details removed), the position will hopefully become clearer.

 

[OxtedSignaller]

There must be a reason why an MG11 was issued and not a Penalty Fare though as usually they would simply issue a penalty fare for travelling outside of the Oyser card validity area. That slip is from the bottom of the pad containing the blank MG11s and usually given to authorise permission to travel in lieu of a confiscated ticket or to show where to send failed to carry documents such as railcard. It is a regular problem as a lot of folks living in London believe Oyster Cards can be used nationwide. I have known one person when challenged on a train down to Southampton Central believe they could use it to travel from London to Bournemouth. Crazy.

 

[some bloke]

If the slip was issued correctly for some reason, there still seems to be something (or more than one thing) odd.

We were told that the slip or ticket number issued was not found anywhere.

 

[30907]

Is there an issue here about child fare ages?
The passenger must have a Zip Oyster entitling her to half fare travel - but at 16 she should be paying full fare on NR beyond GTW.

Apologies if this is a red herring but I wonder if this might partly explain the MG11? Still seems odd!

 

[Naikari]

My daughter, 16, entered East Croydon with her Oyster card. She had been invited to a bowling event in Crawley and had never been there before. When she arrived, she tried to exit the station using her Oyster card but there was an error and she needed assistance. She then learned then that she was a couple of stops out of the Oyster card zone. She explained that this was a genuine mistake and wanted to pay the difference but she was issued with a fine that said 'prosecution'.

We appealed by letter posted by Royal Mail the day after this happened. A copy of the challenge was emailed too as well as proof of her having entered East Croydon with her Oyster (and hence paid to travel) and having been unable to exit at Crawley. In short, we provided a full explanation of the situation and the proof that she'd been travelling with a ticket, she had just exceeded the Oyster zone by two stops out of ignorance.

No answer to the appeal was ever received. We tried phone calls and emails. We tried Twitter DMs. We were told that the slip or ticket number issued was not found anywhere. We persisted because we feared the worst happening at a later stage. Nobody could explain the situation or give us an update. Emails were forwarded by Thameslink to other employees that still didn't offer any clarification or didn't even know what was happening. Everybody was either totally clueless or totally unwilling to help.

Three and a half months later, a letter with an escalated fine and a threat to take legal action against a child has arrived. We still can't get in touch with anyone as Thameslink prosecution phones are never answered and their customer services assistants say we should write (even though we already did and never got an answer).

To summarise:
1) Child fined for not having entered East Croydon Station with a ticket - even though SHE HAD entered using her Oyster card
2) No explanation or answer to emails or calls or letter
3) No answer to appeal/challenge letter to say if this had been successful or unsuccesful even though proof of having a ticket was provided
4) First communication from Thameslink received three and a half months later is an escalation of the fine and a threat to take legal action
5) Still unable to get through to anyone

Also, a key unanswered question remains: why does a child get issued a prosecution slip at a station when she tried to use an Oyster card, a slip with only an email address and an address and no other info, but is told she has to pay a fine, yet nobody says how much the fine is or how to pay it. I think I have entered Kafka's "The Castle"...

What can anyone do at this point? We are losing faith in humanity and basic common sense and reason altogether.

Could you upload a copy of the letter that has now been received with personal details missed out?

Hi, thanks for your reply. I have uploaded the letter. This is the only correspondence received since the little slip was issued at the beginning of November. They did not reply to my letter seeking clarification and challenging the prosecution slip issued.

The slip appears to be the one that's issued where somebody has forgotten their season ticket or railcard, and is asked to forward details
It doesn't seem an appropriate thing to issue under the circumstances outlined.

The slip appears to be the one that's issued where somebody has forgotten their season ticket or railcard, and is asked to forward details.

It doesn't seem an appropriate thing to issue under the circumstances outlined.

Hi, true. That's why we contacted Thameslink endless times by letter, email, Twitter and phone. Nobody could or would explain the odd slip and three and a half months later we know as much as we did back in November.

I don't quite understand what you mean here.

Do you mean she was issued with a slip of paper that said "prosecution"? Or that she paid some money at the time?

She was told she was getting a fine by the station attendant that she could challenge later (we did but never got a reply). She didn't pay any penalty on the spot. But the slip said prosecution (you can see the slip uploaded) and there were no details of how much the penalty was for or how to pay it. When I tried to get to the bottom of it, a person at Thameslink told me it was not a penalty ticket but a prosecution ticket and if we hadn't heard anything in December it was because it was not going to be pursued. Yet yesterday we received a letter informing us of the yet unpaid penalty and a threat to take legal action if not paid.

I'm sorry that this has happened.


Is this a threat of prosecution, or of civil action to recover a penalty fare? It may be that a letter about a penalty fare has got lost in the post, or there may have been an administrative mistake.

If it was a penalty fare and your daughter didn't pay it in full at the time, she should have been given written information on how to pay it.

Technically only a court can issue a fine; the company can charge a penalty fare.

The slip says that failure to send a copy of a season ticket or Railcard "if fail to carry" may lead to prosecution. That part doesn't apply to your daughter unless the issue is that she failed to carry one of those. The slip seems inappropriate here, as @6Gman says above.

Although the company is free to allege an offence (you are also free to start a private prosecution against someone), it seems the slip itself wasn't threatening prosecution for anything your daughter did.

If you upload the latest letter as @gray1404 suggests (with identifying details removed), the position will hopefully become clearer.

Hi, thanks for your response. I have uploaded the letter. I can't make head or tails of the whole thing and neither can Thameslink. The problem is that under no circumstances can we afford for my daughter to end up with a criminal record or some court order attached to her name (unfair as the fine or prosecution actually is) as she will be soon applying at Universities, jobs, etc.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Though if the offence was committed and as you've been offered a settlement which while a substantial sum isn't unaffordably high, you may be best advised to pay it as this will make the matter go away.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

What I put here may sound harsh, so I'm sorry if it makes uncomfortable reading.

As far as I can see, while the railway may be in a bit of a procedural mess, they haven't legally done anything wrong.

Your daughter travelled without having a valid ticket. This is, under the railway byelaw 18*, an offence:

18. Ticketless travel in non-compulsory ticket areas

1. in any area not designated as a compulsory ticket area, no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel

This is a strict liability offence - that is, there's no need for the person who commits the offence to intend to do so. So even though your daughter didn't know that she couldn't use an Oyster out to Crawley, she still broke the law.

Because your daughter broke the law, in law it's open to the railway to take her to court. They're not obliged to negotiate with you or your daughter first - they would be within their rights if the first you heard was a summons arriving at your door.

But that's not what they've done. Instead, they've offered a chance to settle for £63.30. Given that the adult single# from East Croydon to Crawley is (as of January 2020) £8.50, I suspect that back in November the fare was £8.30, and the suggested settlement is £8.30 fare + £55 administrative costs.

Procedurally, I'm not happy that the railway has not managed to respond to your approaches. Some posters here have queried why your daughter was issued with the particular slip that she got, and I suspect that for some reason the ticket inspector filled out the wrong form. From the railway's point of view, they've managed to resolve the confusion in that as I understand it there's nothing wrong with the course of events that they report in the letter to you of 18 February. But they have not managed to work with you to resolve this matter as soon as possible, despite your best efforts.

As I've said earlier, in law the railway have done nothing wrong. So if you appeal against the offered £63.30, you can't successfully argue that the railway are wrong in law - you have to rely on them accepting that they made a mess of how they were doing things, and that this isn't fair on you and your daughter.

My advice in this position is as follows (and please remember that I am not a lawyer - I'm just someone on an internet forum): Pay the £63.30 to make sure that the railway will not pursue you or your daughter to the courts, so giving you peace of mind. But also complain to them about the mess they made of keeping in touch - quote the occasions you wrote, emailed, phoned etc, and suggest that they refund the administrative costs as you have tried hard to co-operate.


* For completeness, please note that (1) Byelaw 18 does contain some exemptions - but I don't see that they apply in this case, and (2) there is an argument put forward here from time to time that Byelaw 18 goes further than a byelaw is allowed to go - but to run that challenge would certainly involve going to court, and a detailed knowledge of the law that you could probably only get by employing very high-powered (and expensive) lawyers so for this purpose I am discounting it.

# Your daughter is 16. So while for many purposes she's still a child (which is why the railway wrote to you), for railway ticketing purposes she pays full fare.

 

[Islineclear3_1]

I understand this is a horrible experience for what seems like an oversight from your daughter but I would pay the £63 now which will end the matter and your daughter won't get a criminal record

Also, perhaps a polite word to the effect that she should check before travelling in future as Oyster is not a "go anywhere" card outside of London

 

[Any_Permitted]

My advice echos the posters above. The first thing you should do is get the £63.30 paid. Technically your daughter has committed a Byelaw 18 offence of not having a valid ticket, even if it was an honest mistake. By paying the money there is ZERO chance that the matter will be taken to court and ZERO chance that your daughter will get any criminal record. I appreciate 63.30 is a lot of money to pay but compared to a fine from court it is actually very reasonable.

With the money paid, you can relax and continue to contact Thameslink customer services if you feel the treatment you received was unfair / confusing.

 

[Naikari]

Though if the offence was committed and as you've been offered a settlement which while a substantial sum isn't unaffordably high, you may be best advised to pay it as this will make the matter go away.

What I put here may sound harsh, so I'm sorry if it makes uncomfortable reading.

As far as I can see, while the railway may be in a bit of a procedural mess, they haven't legally done anything wrong.

Your daughter travelled without having a valid ticket. This is, under the railway byelaw 18*, an offence:

This is a strict liability offence - that is, there's no need for the person who commits the offence to intend to do so. So even though your daughter didn't know that she couldn't use an Oyster out to Crawley, she still broke the law.

Because your daughter broke the law, in law it's open to the railway to take her to court. They're not obliged to negotiate with you or your daughter first - they would be within their rights if the first you heard was a summons arriving at your door.

But that's not what they've done. Instead, they've offered a chance to settle for £63.30. Given that the adult single# from East Croydon to Crawley is (as of January 2020) £8.50, I suspect that back in November the fare was £8.30, and the suggested settlement is £8.30 fare + £55 administrative costs.

Procedurally, I'm not happy that the railway has not managed to respond to your approaches. Some posters here have queried why your daughter was issued with the particular slip that she got, and I suspect that for some reason the ticket inspector filled out the wrong form. From the railway's point of view, they've managed to resolve the confusion in that as I understand it there's nothing wrong with the course of events that they report in the letter to you of 18 February. But they have not managed to work with you to resolve this matter as soon as possible, despite your best efforts.

As I've said earlier, in law the railway have done nothing wrong. So if you appeal against the offered £63.30, you can't successfully argue that the railway are wrong in law - you have to rely on them accepting that they made a mess of how they were doing things, and that this isn't fair on you and your daughter.

My advice in this position is as follows (and please remember that I am not a lawyer - I'm just someone on an internet forum): Pay the £63.30 to make sure that the railway will not pursue you or your daughter to the courts, so giving you peace of mind. But also complain to them about the mess they made of keeping in touch - quote the occasions you wrote, emailed, phoned etc, and suggest that they refund the administrative costs as you have tried hard to co-operate.


* For completeness, please note that (1) Byelaw 18 does contain some exemptions - but I don't see that they apply in this case, and (2) there is an argument put forward here from time to time that Byelaw 18 goes further than a byelaw is allowed to go - but to run that challenge would certainly involve going to court, and a detailed knowledge of the law that you could probably only get by employing very high-powered (and expensive) lawyers so for this purpose I am discounting it.

# Your daughter is 16. So while for many purposes she's still a child (which is why the railway wrote to you), for railway ticketing purposes she pays full fare.

Hi, thanks for your post. I understand where you are coming from and we were intending to pay and free an anxious teen (understatement) from this dark cloud. However, you can travel with Oyster on Thameslink with a 16 + discounted Zip card and she was only 4 minutes out of the Oyster zone when she tried to exit at Crawley. In fact, a train inspector was on the train itself and he inspected her Oyster card and approved it, it was only at the station that the problem occurred. This situation was not a travel-around-the-country-with-your-Oyster thing, it was a mistake that a reasonable person would be sympathetic to. In addition, she owns a 16-17 Saver Railcard that she carries with her and also entitles her to discounts as a teen and, had she known she had gone two stops beyond the Oyster boundary, she could have bought a discounted ticket, not adult priced, for the rest of the journey or its entirety even. May I ask how £55 are costed from administrative fees? Is this information somewhere officially published by Thameslink?

The procedural errors are still there, we have spent entire days trying to solve this just by trying to talk to people at Thameslink and they have avoided and evaded the situation. At this point we regard the 'procedural mistakes' as intentional gaps in information and assistance to generate revenue. We, as commuters, can't be complaisant or compliant as this system is totally open to the abuse of law-abiding commuters that occasionally may make innocent mistakes.

Still, I fully appreciate your honest opinion and comprehensive advice.​

 

[Hadders]

For the sake of £63 I would pay to make the matter go away and stop it escalating.

 

[MikeWh]

However, you can travel with Oyster on Thameslink with a 16 + discounted Zip card and she was only 4 minutes out of the Oyster zone when she tried to exit at Crawley. In fact, a train inspector was on the train itself and he inspected her Oyster card and approved it, it was only at the station that the problem occurred.

Whilst understandably frustrating, you need to let go of the fact that it's only 4 minutes out of the Oyster zone. It's out of the Oyster zone and that really is all that matters. Can your daughter remember where the inspector checked her card? I'm presuming it was before Gatwick Airport, which is the last station where Oyster is accepted. It's a shame GTR don't put messages on the PIS screens that Oyster isn't valid beyond Gatwick Airport. Many of the other London operators do show this warning on trains leaving the Oyster zone. However, whilst not very helpful, this doesn't change the fact that your daughter was still in the wrong.

May I ask how £55 are costed from administrative fees? Is this information somewhere officially published by Thameslink?

It's largely down to staff time investigating the matter. This starts with the inspector who issues the notice at the station. It really is a very reasonable amount for this sort of situation. £80 is another common amount, while 3-figure sums are not uncommon. It's not publicly available how they work this out, but in this instance I really wouldn't question it.

 

[Snow1964]

I am with others on this, pay the £63 and any further action is killed off.

But I do feel the Administration fee is unacceptable, as you tried multiple times to get this resolved and they wouldn't respond, thus leading to the administration fee. It smacks of the railway can't be bothered to be organised because they can make money out of it. Sadly I think putting more time into trying to recover admin fee might be futile, unless you go sledgehammer approach of writing to your MP listing all points above.

I also find it disappointing that the ticket was checked on the train, but the ticket inspector didn't ask for her destination knowing the train was heading beyond valid oyster boundary. Had he/she asked could have advised accordingly (but sounds like a lazy inspector that didn't want to do job they are paid for, and probably wouldn't have made the effort to sell the add on ticket)

 

[ashkeba]

I agree with @Snow1964. Pay it and write to your MP. GTR deserve all the legitimate bad rep they can get.

 

[some bloke]

Child fined for not having entered East Croydon Station with a ticket - even though SHE HAD entered using her Oyster card

It's understandable that the situation has been confusing. Perhaps this will help explain a little.

For completeness, please note that ...there is an argument put forward here from time to time that Byelaw 18 goes further than a byelaw is allowed to go - but to run that challenge would certainly involve going to court, and...lawyers so for this purpose I am discounting it.

To add to what @Fawkes Cat says, a court might say your daughter isn't guilty of the offence as charged. There isn't just one way of reading the byelaw, and it would take a test case in a higher court to establish which is "correct".

The byelaw doesn't actually spell out, and nor does GTR's letter, that people have to have a ticket valid for the *whole journey* when they board.

Byelaw 18 says,

"no person shall enter any train for the purpose of travelling on the railway unless he has with him a valid ticket entitling him to travel"

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/railway-byelaws/railway-byelaws

However, although your daughter might win the case on that legal point (perhaps after an appeal), turning down this offer is likely to mean a load of hassle. So especially if she is already worried, paying now is sensible.

It might be seen as reasonable for a conductor to treat a passenger as if they know what they're doing. Some passengers, in some circumstances, might think that if the conductor does point out Oyster isn't valid past Gatwick, they're being patronising!

 

[WesternLancer]

Hi, thanks for your post. I understand where you are coming from and we were intending to pay and free an anxious teen (understatement) from this dark cloud. However, you can travel with Oyster on Thameslink with a 16 + discounted Zip card and she was only 4 minutes out of the Oyster zone when she tried to exit at Crawley. In fact, a train inspector was on the train itself and he inspected her Oyster card and approved it, it was only at the station that the problem occurred. This situation was not a travel-around-the-country-with-your-Oyster thing, it was a mistake that a reasonable person would be sympathetic to. In addition, she owns a 16-17 Saver Railcard that she carries with her and also entitles her to discounts as a teen and, had she known she had gone two stops beyond the Oyster boundary, she could have bought a discounted ticket, not adult priced, for the rest of the journey or its entirety even. May I ask how £55 are costed from administrative fees? Is this information somewhere officially published by Thameslink?

The procedural errors are still there, we have spent entire days trying to solve this just by trying to talk to people at Thameslink and they have avoided and evaded the situation. At this point we regard the 'procedural mistakes' as intentional gaps in information and assistance to generate revenue. We, as commuters, can't be complaisant or compliant as this system is totally open to the abuse of law-abiding commuters that occasionally may make innocent mistakes.

Still, I fully appreciate your honest opinion and comprehensive advice.​

These are things you can take up with TSGN/Thameslink customer services AFTER you have paid the sum demanded. Given their poor attempt to resolve this when you tried to engage with them you should probably ask for a refund of the admin fee as a goodwill gesture.

If the outcome of that is unsatisfactory take it to the Rail Ombudsman and ask them to adjudicate (copy that to your MP) - focus not on the reason for the fine (misunderstood the validity of the ticket destination to which there is not really much defence - think 'would you get off a speeding fine if you failed to notice a road sign that changed the national speed limit to 50MPH and got fined for continuing at 70mph - I don't believe you would -apols if this is not the best of analogies but you will know what I mean), but focus on their failure to engage with your attempts to resolve this promptly - which would have resulted in less admin for THEM - and that, in the light of that - their admin fee sum request is unreasonable. I think that is genuinely worth a try.

 

[hkstudent]

These are things you can take up with TSGN/Thameslink customer services AFTER you have paid the sum demanded. Given their poor attempt to resolve this when you tried to engage with them you should probably ask for a refund of the admin fee as a goodwill gesture.

If the outcome of that is unsatisfactory take it to the Rail Ombudsman and ask them to adjudicate (copy that to your MP) - focus not on the reason for the fine (misunderstood the validity of the ticket destination to which there is not really much defence - think 'would you get off a speeding fine if you failed to notice a road sign that changed the national speed limit to 50MPH and got fined for continuing at 70mph - I don't believe you would -apols if this is not the best of analogies but you will know what I mean), but focus on their failure to engage with your attempts to resolve this promptly - which would have resulted in less admin for THEM - and that, in the light of that - their admin fee sum request is unreasonable. I think that is genuinely worth a try.

Since the travel was originated from London and involved Oyster Card, would London Travelwatch has jurisdiction on this case, despite the southmost boundary of the institution is Gatwick Airport.

 

[najaB]

However, you can travel with Oyster on Thameslink with a 16 + discounted Zip card and she was only 4 minutes out of the Oyster zone when she tried to exit at Crawley.

Four minutes or forty - out of the zone is out of the zone.

 

[gray1404]

It is interesting that they are writing to the Parent rather then the passenger directly. I wonder if it is GTR policy not to issue proceedings against minors. There have been cases of Parents receiving similar letters offering an Out of Court Settlement and the Parent then getting in touch with the train company and paying a smaller amount (even just the outstanding fare). However, this is not been with GTR.

 

[some bloke]

we have spent entire days trying to solve this just by trying to talk to people at Thameslink and they have avoided and evaded the situation.

After your daughter pays, she and you might ask compensation for your own admin time, which you can itemise at a reasonable hourly rate - or include those details in a request for a goodwill payment.

 

[ashkeba]

think 'would you get off a speeding fine if you failed to notice a road sign that changed the national speed limit to 50MPH and got fined for continuing at 70mph - I don't believe you would

If the signs were not legally correct (like how this case does not seem to have been handled correctly by GTR), then you would get off and people have, even when someone had died when they are more likely to have survived a collision with a driver under the speed limit - but would you want the stress of a court case to prove it or would you take the cheaper route of paying the fine and then complain about the defective signs?

 

[WesternLancer]

Since the travel was originated from London and involved Oyster Card, would London Travelwatch has jurisdiction on this case, despite the southmost boundary of the institution is Gatwick Airport.

Unsure - but suspect not given that the 'offence' was technically over riding by staying on after Gatwick - even through ignorance.

Of course OP and child presumably need to get correct fare registered to the Oyster for the bit of travel concerned given they could not touch out.

 

[WesternLancer]

If the signs were not legally correct (like how this case does not seem to have been handled correctly by GTR), then you would get off and people have, even when someone had died when they are more likely to have survived a collision with a driver under the speed limit - but would you want the stress of a court case to prove it or would you take the cheaper route of paying the fine and then complain about the defective signs?

Am not going to respond simply because my analogy takes things off topic if I do and that is no help to the OP.

 

[jumble]

Is there an issue here about child fare ages?
The passenger must have a Zip Oyster entitling her to half fare travel - but at 16 she should be paying full fare on NR beyond GTW.

Apologies if this is a red herring but I wonder if this might partly explain the MG11? Still seems odd!

Hmm
My understanding is that It depends if the Oyster an 11-15 still being used up to the expiry date by someone who has just turned 16 or is it an 16+ ?