After advise my daughter who is 16 has had a letter from transport investigations with a fine for travelling on a Child fare. I have wrote a letter to apeal the fine as I felt it was a bit harsh as after being interrogated by a officer made to feel like she was getting arrested had her ticket taken of her and brought a adult fare I think that was enough of a lesson as in my eyes she is a child ? I have received reply saying that my daughter had admitted to buying a child ticket and being dishonest and took responsibility and that if she doesn’t pay the fine offered they will take her to court I’m really cross as this has really upset and panicked her but I feel like she has already paid enough if she had no ticket at all I would be paying a fine. Has anybody else been in this situation do I pay or fight it ?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Child prosecution?
- Thread starter Lisa80
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
NSB2017
Member
- Joined
- 12 Jun 2018
- Messages
- 49
I assume it’s an offer of an out of court settlement rather than a fine, as the latter can only be imposed by courts. That said, as harsh as this may sound I’d suggest paying that settlement to avoid court and a potential criminal record.
If the only “punishment” for being caught without a valid ticket was being made to buy a valid ticket, how many people would merely only pay the right amount when challenged? Could make fare evasion even more widespread than it undoubtedly is in places.
If the only “punishment” for being caught without a valid ticket was being made to buy a valid ticket, how many people would merely only pay the right amount when challenged? Could make fare evasion even more widespread than it undoubtedly is in places.
ForTheLoveOf
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 6,416
I would be slightly surprised if they are seriously considering a prosecution in relation to someone who's under 18. It's not in line with what their process of banging out tens or hundreds of cases in a couple of hours requires.
Have you checked whether your daughter would be eligible for legal aid in view of her age?
Thanks for your reply I see your point with the “ punishment “ statement I perhaps should of worded it better I feel that as a child the interrogation process she went through was enough of a punishment I don’t think she will get on a train again and if she did she would probably purchase 2 tickets to double protect herself from getting it wrong.
Thanks for you reply worth looking into ?
trainmania100
Established Member
Apologies if it's been said earlier but I can't find it, what is the max age to be classed as a child? Seeing as I don't know, it's not made very clear anywhere when buying a ticket
ForTheLoveOf
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 6,416
The railway requires accompanied children under 5 to have no ticket at all. Children aged 5-15 inclusive must have a child rate ticket. Children aged 16 and 17 must have an adult rate ticket.
The railways are far from the only area of transport that requires some who are aged under 18 (who are thus legally still children) to have to pay the full adult rate (subject to Railcard discounts), but it is not ideal that the age requirements aren't universally published. Indeed, the mooted 16-18 Railcard could solve this issue partially.
With some exceptions - on Merseyside 16-18 year olds can usually buy a child ticket.
https://www.merseyrail.org/news/young-person-tickets.aspx
ForTheLoveOf
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 6,416
Well indeed, there are exceptions to the general rule throughout the country, as for example TfL offer discounted tickets to certain categories of 16-17 year olds... And so on and so on.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 20,011
Poorly worded. The railway does not require children under the age of 5 to have a ticket, but there are circumstances where it may be advantageous to their parents for them to have a ticket. And if they require to have a seat on particularly busy trains they will need a ticket in order to make a reservation.
None of us were present so we cannot judge whether her questioning was an "interrogation" or not. Presumably she was asked to show her ticket; a child ticket was produced; the person checking the ticket then sought out the information needed to take the matter forward.
She is 16 - well above the age of criminal responsibility. So what action do you feel would have been reasonable under the circumstances?
Surreytraveller
On Moderation
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 2,810
If 16 and 17 year olds require an adult ticket, and 16 and 17 year olds are legally children, then child tickets shouldn't be called child tickets. They need to be called '15 and under' or something like that.
To say a child cannot have a child ticket is somewhat misleading
To say a child cannot have a child ticket is somewhat misleading
Xenophon PCDGS
Veteran Member
Has there been any recent occasions when this specific matter has been discussed in a Court of Law and if so, what ruling was made?
Surreytraveller
On Moderation
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 2,810
No idea
However harsh it might feel OP's daughter committed a criminal offence. Pay what they're asking to keep the matter out of court and to stop it escalating, it will be far more of an ordeal if it ended up in court. Chalk it up as one of those things, however wrong it might feel.
Once settled you might want to contact the Customer Relations department about the harsh interrogation.
Once settled you might want to contact the Customer Relations department about the harsh interrogation.
So if they took the child to court, it would be a case of a child being prosecuted in a Youth Court for initially buying a child ticket instead of an adult ticket because she should have known that TOC didn't sell child tickets to some children. Oh and she did buy an adult ticket when ticket checked i.e. no financial loss to the railway and possibly extra revenue since the child paid for two tickets.
When are they claiming she admitted this? When questioned about her ticket? Was she cautioned and was an Appropriate Adult present. If not are those admissions even admissible in court? Was the child ticket sold to by a ticket office or a machine, and is there any evidence that she misrepresented her age when buying the ticket.
I'm not saying the OP should not follow the advice given by others, but I can fully understand the OPs reaction and the effect its had on her daughter and I don't think a prosecution is as appropriate nor as clear cut as some may think, particularly if this is the first incident.
When are they claiming she admitted this? When questioned about her ticket? Was she cautioned and was an Appropriate Adult present. If not are those admissions even admissible in court? Was the child ticket sold to by a ticket office or a machine, and is there any evidence that she misrepresented her age when buying the ticket.
I'm not saying the OP should not follow the advice given by others, but I can fully understand the OPs reaction and the effect its had on her daughter and I don't think a prosecution is as appropriate nor as clear cut as some may think, particularly if this is the first incident.
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
What if a person is aged 16 - 17 and still in further education? In the railway's eyes, is this person a child or an adult?
Nice try, but the age of universal suffrage and the age at which a private company chooses to allow discounted fares have absolutely nothing to do with each other.
Depends by TOC and area it seems.
According to TFL you don't even need to be in education or live in London for some of the discounts.
(https://tfl.gov.uk/fares/free-and-discounted-travel/16-plus-zip-oyster-photocard?intcmp=55578)
"Children aged 16-17 can get free and discounted travel on all our transport services with a Zip Oyster photocard.
Benefits
- 50% off adult fares on bus, Tube, DLR, London Overground, TfL Rail and most National Rail services
- If you live in London, you get free travel on buses and trams
- Child rate 7 Day, Monthly or longer period Travelcard and Bus & Tram Pass
Children aged 16 and 17 can get a 16+ Zip Oyster photocard."
In my day, aged 14/15 it was much more complicated and many of us got caught out.
Last edited:
Surreytraveller
On Moderation
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2009
- Messages
- 2,810
I know, and I don't disagree, but maybe it is not obvious to everyone that child fares do not apply to all children? Bear in mind, that years ago, not many kids would go into further education, and would be out earning a wage at 16 (or younger), so adult fares in those days would be more appropriate from 16. But these days, child fares would seem to be more appropriate for 16 and 17 year olds, and as 16 and 17 year olds aren't allowed to work the same hours as those aged 18 and older, cannot claim benefits such as unemployment etc, they are of an age that have slipped through the net - half child, half adult.
ForTheLoveOf
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 6,416
It's got nothing to do with suffrage. It's to do with the rights (and obligations) that change at 18. People under 18 are considered children in almost all aspects of their life. For the rail industry then to choose to say that they have a different definition of "child" to almost every other part of people's lives, is simply silly. I think the ultimate solution is to do away with the term "child" and instead to directly use the age range - "5-15" instead of "16-25" for example.
Uhm, that's the very definition of universal suffrage - you gain the rights and responsibilities that accord with being an adult at the age of majority. Prior to that birthday you are a minor.
But that still has nothing to do with a private company choosing to offer discounted tickets to people under a certain (and in this case different) age.
Is there anything written on a child ticket informIng prospective passengers that they are only valid for children 15 years & younger?
Not that I've seen, no.
ForTheLoveOf
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 6,416
I'm not sure which part of the OED definition of a child as someone under the age of majority is not relevant. It is thoroughly confusing, if not worse, for a private company to use their own definition for that term - being something with an unalienable meaning - and then not explaining what they want 100% clearly. Like I say - what is so difficult about writing "5-15" on a child-rate ticket, rather than the confusing term "child"? And why can't they just eradicate the term 'child' and replace it with '5-15'?
It's a clear case of the railway thinking that because they've "always done it this way", that makes it OK.
ForTheLoveOf
Established Member
- Joined
- 7 Oct 2017
- Messages
- 6,416
Yes, and exactly how often does someone go on a flight or to a theme park?!
For many people as often as they get a train. Not sure what the point is though.
With respect, the term child has many different interpretations. As noted above airlines consider it to be 2-12 years, many theme parks and tourist attractions go with 5-10, buses can be anything from 4-16 through 5-18, in law you can be prosecuted as an adult before you reach 18...
Inalienable. Right.
Fawkes Cat
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 May 2017
- Messages
- 3,940
If the OP is still out there, we seem to have drifted a little from your original request for advice - sorry.
The straightforward answer is as given by Hadders above:
As I understand the law, your daughter could face prosecution - there's nothing in the law that says that people under 18 can't be taken to court. Whether the railway company would prosecute your daughter is a different matter, and not one that we can give you a straight answer to - we simply haven't seen enough examples to know what 'normally' happens. So accepting the penalty and paying it now is the simple way out. You and your daughter will know where you stand. The drawback, of course, is that it will mean giving money to the railway company.
The alternative is to get involved with arguing your daughter's case. It may be that the railway company will choose not to prosecute a minor, or that they will accept some of the arguments suggested above. But there's no guarantee of any of these. If you win, you and your daughter will be better off than accepting the penalty now. If you lose, you will be worse off, both financially and quite probably in terms of the stress of fighting your corner.
The straightforward answer is as given by Hadders above:
As I understand the law, your daughter could face prosecution - there's nothing in the law that says that people under 18 can't be taken to court. Whether the railway company would prosecute your daughter is a different matter, and not one that we can give you a straight answer to - we simply haven't seen enough examples to know what 'normally' happens. So accepting the penalty and paying it now is the simple way out. You and your daughter will know where you stand. The drawback, of course, is that it will mean giving money to the railway company.
The alternative is to get involved with arguing your daughter's case. It may be that the railway company will choose not to prosecute a minor, or that they will accept some of the arguments suggested above. But there's no guarantee of any of these. If you win, you and your daughter will be better off than accepting the penalty now. If you lose, you will be worse off, both financially and quite probably in terms of the stress of fighting your corner.
- Status