My daughter fined for no ticket - help?!

[SargeNpton]

@island’s post is the most helpful one in the thread. I would be inclined to pop the correspondence from Merseyrail in the big round file in the corner of the room.

Absolutely the worst thing you can do. Ignoring the problem does not make it go away.

 

[Egg Centric]

Absolutely the worst thing you can do. Ignoring the problem does not make it go away.

With a 14 year old it just might.

Even if she is prosecuted it's wiped clean when she's 18.

OTOH, as a matter of decent parenting - what message does that send?

 

[Mak1981]

With a 14 year old it just might.

Even if she is prosecuted it's wiped clean when she's 18.

OTOH, as a matter of decent parenting - what message does that send?

Convictions are not wiped clean when 18

Unless It's a specified offence or a custodial sentence which will stay forever, then for under 18s it stays on their record for 5 and half years

 

[Bletchleyite]

Either way it's worth £80 not to have had a criminal conviction, even a Byelaw one.

 

[Egg Centric]

Either way it's worth £80 not to have had a criminal conviction, even a Byelaw one.

I don't want to argue this point further because my view is as a matter of good parenting the daughter should have to pay off the ticket, so let's agree to disagree

 

[AlterEgo]

Absolutely the worst thing you can do. Ignoring the problem does not make it go away.

As there is no civil recourse whatsoever, and the chance of being prosecuted is as close to nil as a very round number is, it wouldn’t be at all the worst thing to do. The problem will go away; sometimes, just sometimes, this is the best solution.
The TOC is not going to prosecute a minor in the youth court for a strict liability offence of failing to show a ticket. Happy to retract and offer different advice if anyone can demonstrate ANY example of this crossing the doors of this forum. I’ve been here years and not seen a prosecution of a minor even once.

 

[SargeNpton]

As there is no civil recourse whatsoever, and the chance of being prosecuted is as close to nil as a very round number is, it wouldn’t be at all the worst thing to do. The problem will go away; sometimes, just sometimes, this is the best solution.
The TOC is not going to prosecute a minor in the youth court for a strict liability offence of failing to show a ticket. Happy to retract and offer different advice if anyone can demonstrate ANY example of this crossing the doors of this forum. I’ve been here years and not seen a prosecution of a minor even once.

Going back to the original post...

"Then last week I received a letter, from their solicitors ( Daniels Silverman) stating the fine was now over £80 and to avoid further action to pay now?!

The letter was sent to my first name (spelt incorrectly) then “parent of xxxxx xxxxx (my daughters name)”."

As the solicitors' are in contact directly with the parent I'm of the opinion that this is not going to go away, and in such cases ignoring any correspondence does you no favours.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Going back to the original post...

"Then last week I received a letter, from their solicitors ( Daniels Silverman) stating the fine was now over £80 and to avoid further action to pay now?!

The letter was sent to my first name (spelt incorrectly) then “parent of xxxxx xxxxx (my daughters name)”."

As the solicitors' are in contact directly with the parent I'm of the opinion that this is not going to go away, and in such cases ignoring any correspondence does you no favours.

I agree that ignoring it would not be sensible, and the best course of action would be to pay the £80 (making the child pay it back out of their pocket money if appropriate, as some have suggested) and take it as a lesson not to let these things drift, however while the solicitors have contacted the parent it doesn't mean the parent is liable, either civilly or criminally, for their teenager's action. Many take the view that they should be, and I can be sold on that in some cases, but it isn't generally the case.

Once paid, they can always appeal to the better nature of customer services to see if they will consider refunding it back to the £20 PF that was originally due given the circumstances.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I would also fall on the side of 'pay it now'. Without getting into any moral arguments about whether it's right to pay the £80, it's the only route with a guaranteed positive outcome - although the OP will be down by £80, they and their daughter will have certainty that the matter has been resolved. Given that there is no dispute that the OP's daughter travelled in breach of the rules by not having her ticket available for inspection at the appropriate time, any other option relies on the railway not enforcing their legal rights - and while it is unlikely (even highly unlikely to the point of almost impossible) that the railway would seek to pursue a minor through the courts it is not absolutely impossible. Without conceding and paying the £80, then until the dates for prosecution or civil action have passed the OP will not be certain that this time the railway will do what they normally do.

 

[Western Sunset]

Pay up.

In my opinion, the error made by the OP was in not paying (or getting their daughter to pay) the original £20.

In cases like this, pay up ASAP, then you can argue the toss with the TOC.

 

[Watershed]

As the solicitors' are in contact directly with the parent I'm of the opinion that this is not going to go away, and in such cases ignoring any correspondence does you no favours.

The fact that solicitors are 'involved' doesn't change the facts of the situation. As it happens, Daniels Silverman aren't solicitors in the traditional sense - most of their business is simply pestering people into paying alleged debts. I really wouldn't read too much into it.

I would concur with the motion for depositing the letters in 'file 13'.

 

[Gloster]

Failing to pay the £80 might mean that the whole matter fades away, but if it doesn’t it could become - in the eyes of a teenager - nasty. Has anyone considered what might happen if the fine is not paid and at some time in the future the daughter inadvertently commits another infraction?

I would say pay the £80 and then have a go getting at least some of it back as a matter of goodwill.

I must make it clear that I am no legal or ticketing expert.

 

[Bletchleyite]

Failing to pay the £80 might mean that the whole matter fades away, but if it doesn’t it could become - in the eyes of a teenager - nasty. Has anyone considered what might happen if the fine is not paid and at some time in the future the daughter inadvertently commits another infraction?

Or indeed decides she wants to work for them? The unresolved offence could itself be a bar.

Definitely don't leave something like this hanging. It's nothing like parking shysters, who I wouldn't work for if it was the only job in the world.

 

[reb0118]

With regard to the lack of civil recourse in pursuing the debt against the daughter - is vicarious liability still a thing? Where a parent is liable for the actions of their offspring.

 

[Smethwickian]

Can't answer Reb0118's question about parents' legal liability but my view is that parents have a moral responsibility to teach children right from wrong and that breaking laws carries consequences - not to teach a child that you can pick and choose which to ignore.
As far as I know, the conditions of carriage of every form of public transport in Britain state that having purchased a ticket, it must be retained and produced for inspection on demand. If the OP's child cannot grasp this, and is not to be educated on behaving responsibly when using trains, perhaps the child should not be travelling without an accompanying adult.
It is clear Merseyrail was entitled to issue the penalty fare and the penalty notice makes perfectly clear what the payment procedure is and the higher costs for failing to do so.
It is not Merseyrail's fault the OP did not comply and not Merseyrail's fault the OP was 'away' and did not read a subsequent letter sooner.
The OP should pay up and stop trying to find excuses while blaming everyone but the child for the situation they are now in.

 

[Watershed]

the penalty notice makes perfectly clear what the payment procedure is and the higher costs for failing to do so

The notice refers to "higher costs" that have no basis in the Penalty Fares Regulations. Since a child will not realistically be prosecuted, this is all bark and no bite.

It doesn't matter how clear the notice is - it's referring to something that the TOC has made up for their own benefit.

The OP should pay up and stop trying to find excuses

I hardly think asking about a Penalty Fare imposed on a child constitutes "trying to find excuses".

 

[SteveM70]

As far as I know, the conditions of carriage of every form of public transport in Britain state that having purchased a ticket, it must be retained and produced for inspection on demand. If the OP's child cannot grasp this, and is not to be educated on behaving responsibly when using trains, perhaps the child should not be travelling without an accompanying adult.

Ever thought how sanctimonious that sounds? Never mislaid anything that you subsequently needed? If you’re a parent, has a child of yours ever made a mistake? This reads like you believe the OP’s daughter deliberately got rid of their ticket

 

[Bletchleyite]

The notice refers to "higher costs" that have no basis in the Penalty Fares Regulations. Since a child will not realistically be prosecuted, this is all bark and no bite.

It doesn't matter how clear the notice is - it's referring to something that the TOC has made up for their own benefit.

Have they not moved on to an out of court settlement having cancelled the PF?

 

[WesternLancer]

Seems a long time since the OP posted / updated. Unsure how helpful to them some of this is going to be.....