Son inadvertently purchased child ticket

[Judym]

Yesterday my 18 year old son inadvertently purchased a child ticket from the ticket machine at Wokingham to travel to Reading. He didn't even realise he'd done it. He purchased a single as he was being picked up by me on this occasion, whereas he normally purchases a return, so was expecting the price to be less, so that didn't alert him. His ticket would not work in the barrier at Reading so he approached what he thought was a guard, but I think it must have been a revenue protection officer, who pointed out it was a child ticket and asked his age. He initially daid 15 - stupid I know- but told the truth when challenged and gave his correct name and address etc, showing ID. He was given the 'Anything you do say..' speech, then sent on his way. He said the officer gave him the impression he wasn't in too much trouble. I was concerned when he said about being cautioned, and started reading up about this, and of course have scared myself silly about the prospect of a criminal record etc. I do believe this was a genuine mistake as he was with a friend and probably not paining attention. He travels by train fairly regularly and has old tickets to prove he pays adult fare, and evidence on his bank statement that he purchased an adukt price return to Reading from the ticket machine less than a month ago. I appreciate no-one knows exactly wht will happen until we hear from the TOC, but am just seeking to put my mind at rest. Thank you

 

[yorkie]

Yesterday my 18 year old son inadvertently purchased a child ticket from the ticket machine at Wokingham to travel to Reading. He didn't even realise he'd done it. ,...

Sounds like it may be plausible, but then...

asked his age. He initially daid 15 - stupid I know-....

... oh dear.

You'll have to hope SWT are willing to settle the matter out of court then!

It's more likely than not that they will do, for a first offence.

 

[transportphoto]

Welcome to the forum.

I hate to point out that it isn't that easy to buy a child ticket instead of an adult one, given all ticket machines default to one adult and you have to physically press the buttons to reduce the amount of adults to zero and then increase the child count. Something isn't quite as meets the eye here I'm afraid.

As yorkie says, your son's attempt to pass his age as 15 isn't going to help him and could be taken as part of the mens rea (intent) of avoiding to pay the due fare and in the worse case scenario, this could form the base layers of a criminal prosecution. However this is unlikely if this is the first time and SWT may be willing to settle out of court as this is in their financial interests.

I know you're looking to have your mind put at rest, however sometimes I feel that knowing exactly what could happen is best, rather than pretending the worse case scenario doesn't exist.

TP

 

[222007]

Yesterday my 18 year old son inadvertently purchased a child ticket from the ticket machine at Wokingham to travel to Reading. He didn't even realise he'd done it. He purchased a single as he was being picked up by me on this occasion, whereas he normally purchases a return, so was expecting the price to be less, so that didn't alert him. His ticket would not work in the barrier at Reading so he approached what he thought was a guard, but I think it must have been a revenue protection officer, who pointed out it was a child ticket and asked his age. He initially daid 15 - stupid I know- but told the truth when challenged and gave his correct name and address etc, showing ID. He was given the 'Anything you do say..' speech, then sent on his way. He said the officer gave him the impression he wasn't in too much trouble. I was concerned when he said about being cautioned, and started reading up about this, and of course have scared myself silly about the prospect of a criminal record etc. I do believe this was a genuine mistake as he was with a friend and probably not paining attention. He travels by train fairly regularly and has old tickets to prove he pays adult fare, and evidence on his bank statement that he purchased an adukt price return to Reading from the ticket machine less than a month ago. I appreciate no-one knows exactly wht will happen until we hear from the TOC, but am just seeking to put my mind at rest. Thank you

If your son didnt realise he had purchased a childs ticket then why did he initially claim to be 15? This to me would be a blatant attempt at Travel fraud if this wasnt his intention then surely he would have said i am 18?

 

[richw]

Sounds like he did it purposely.

He didn't realise he had a childs ticket, but then told revenue protection he was 15.

It instantly discredits that he didn't know he had a child ticket, and also makes 2 false statements to the revenue protection that will be against him in any possible settlement.

 

[trentside]

I'd agree with previous posters that this was no accident and that your son has deliberately chosen to avoid paying the proper fare for his journey. This is a common problem with a lot of people his age so staff tend to be pretty hot on checking ages and asking dates of birth. I think you need to ask your son some questions about how he came to purchase the child ticket.

I'd also agree with Yorkie that an out of court settlement would likely be possible in this case. I'd expect the next step is that the train operating company (TOC) will contact your son asking for his version of events. I'd imagine it would help for him to write this with you, making a grovelling apology to the TOC and offering an amount of money to close the matter (enough to cover the fare owing, plus their costs - likely a few hundred pounds). As a parent, it'll be up to you how you deal with the money issue of course.

 

[Chapeltom]

This isn't going to go down well with many people and I'm not proud of it but when I was 16/17 I used to very deliberately buy child tickets from ticket machines. You have to make a conscious decision to buy a child ticket from a machine rather than an adult one.

I looked young enough to get away with it but luckily one particularly aggressive RPI at Manchester Picc demanded my age one day (and I of course (albeit nervously) gave a false one) and it put me off doing it anymore, couldn't be bothered with the hassle and invested in a railcard. I await the mob but having done bought a childs ticket myself when not entitled to do, I know you have to deliberately chose to buy a child ticket from a machine. It isn't something you do by accident. Luckily for me I was never caught, and would have never I.D on me for them to check anyway, completely wrong but I'm being honest about it.

 

[najaB]

This isn't going to go down well with many people and I'm not proud of it ...

You're not the only one to try it, I'm sure, and definitely won't be the last. Good thing that you came (or got scared) to your senses before it ended up costing you hundreds of pounds! Hopefully the OP's son will be able to learn his lesson while avoiding a trip to court.

 

[DaleCooper]

This isn't going to go down well with many people and I'm not proud of it but when I was 16/17 I used to very deliberately buy child tickets from ticket machines. You have to make a conscious decision to buy a child ticket from a machine rather than an adult one.

I looked young enough to get away with it but luckily one particularly aggressive RPI at Manchester Picc demanded my age one day (and I of course (albeit nervously) gave a false one) and it put me off doing it anymore, couldn't be bothered with the hassle and invested in a railcard. I await the mob but having done bought a childs ticket myself when not entitled to do, I know you have to deliberately chose to buy a child ticket from a machine. It isn't something you do by accident. Luckily for me I was never caught, and would have never I.D on me for them to check anyway, completely wrong but I'm being honest about it.

We've all done things when young which we're not particularly proud of, there's nothing wrong with admitting it as long as you've changed your ways.

 

[dakta]

Well that's it, may the person who's comitted no sin cast the first stone and all that. Being bad and doing something bad are two things entirely I suppose.

I think the OP needs to sit down with her son and establish the facts, because if the son is claiming it's a mistake when it isn't (and I'll be honest from what's been said this is 99.99% the case!) then going down this avenue might not be the most constructive way out for the son, you know the old saying about digging yourself out of a hole.

Once he starts wearing his honesty hat I'm sure you'll be able to get through this.

 

[thenorthern]

I agree with the others that you should wait till South West Trains write to your son asking for his version of events and they you should offer an out of court settlement normally around £600-£800 is a figure I often hear.

As the others say though you have to specifically ask for a child ticket at a machine and say no adults are travelling, surely as well he would have noticed CHILD written on it as well. It does seem like an easy prosecution for South West Trains though and they may simply opt for that which after all they are entitled to do so.

 

[PauloDavesi]

How can a TOC honestly come to a figure of £600-£800 for their costs?

There actual loss is the unpaid rail fare, probably less than £10 in this case, plus the costs incurred in sending a couple of letters and processing some paperwork by a minimum wage administration operative, so probably £30-40 at most.

It appears that demanding a settlement figure of several hundreds of pounds is just extortion by the TOC.

 

[najaB]

It appears that demanding a settlement figure of several hundreds of pounds is just extortion by the TOC.

There is no obligation on the passenger to accept any settlement amount. If they find the amount excessive, they can have their day in court. However, the amount that the TOC will accept by way of settlement is usually similar to the amount of any fine that would be imposed by the courts.

 

[furlong]

South West Trains write to your son

Or First Great Western which controls the barriers at Reading station.

evidence on his bank statement that he purchased an adult price return to Reading from the ticket machine less than a month ago.

If he paid by card, they might check the details of any previous purchases using the same card, looking for any evidence that the railway's loss might be larger than just this one ticket.

To achieve a settlement out-of-court, it's generally necessary to offer to make good the financial loss identified and reimburse the full costs of dealing with the particular incident. In simple cases this is more likely to be tens of pounds than hundreds (the company will tell you the actual figure if they are open to this).

 

[jon0844]

I suspect the son is lying to his dad. Saying he was 15 proves intent and that it wasn't a mistake.

 

[scott118]

How can a TOC honestly come to a figure of £600-£800 for their costs?

There would be no need, if the correct ticket was purchased in the first instance. Perhaps it would/will act as a deterrent to travel fraudulently in the future?

 

[Darandio]

How can a TOC honestly come to a figure of £600-£800 for their costs?

There actual loss is the unpaid rail fare, probably less than £10 in this case, plus the costs incurred in sending a couple of letters and processing some paperwork by a minimum wage administration operative, so probably £30-40 at most.

It appears that demanding a settlement figure of several hundreds of pounds is just extortion by the TOC.

Quite simple, it's a deterrent., that should surely be obvious?

Your figures are more of an incentive, serial fare evaders could simply keep doing what has been done in this thread, knowing full well that if they eventually get caught, it will cost them next to nothing to make it all go away.

It's always amazing to see TOC's called extortionate in threads such as this, quite frankly I don't think even £600-£800 is enough.

 

[CC 72100]

How can a TOC honestly come to a figure of £600-£800 for their costs?

There actual loss is the unpaid rail fare, probably less than £10 in this case, plus the costs incurred in sending a couple of letters and processing some paperwork by a minimum wage administration operative, so probably £30-40 at most.

It appears that demanding a settlement figure of several hundreds of pounds is just extortion by the TOC.

So what else do you propose to act as a deterrent against fare evasion?

I don't feel that I've ever been 'extorted' by a TOC, but then again, I've never fare evaded. Behave and you never have to face such 'extortion'.

 

[furlong]

However, the amount that the TOC will accept by way of settlement is usually similar to the amount of any fine that would be imposed by the courts.

I don't think there's any direct connection - a railway company cannot charge its own "fine".

In court, there could be the unpaid cost of the ticket plus a fine (and victim surcharge) plus the railway's (and the court's) costs. Out of court, the unpaid cost of the ticket plus the railway's costs.

 

[najaB]

I don't think there's any direct connection - a railway company cannot charge its own "fine".

I agree there is no direct connection, hence why I said 'similar to'.

There would be little advantage to the passenger to pay an out of court settlement that was several multiples higher than what the court-imposed fine would be*. Similarly, the TOC would be ill served to accept an amount significantly less than what would be imposed by the court as a fine, if the intent is for it to serve as a deterrent.

*Presuming that we are talking about a non-recordable Byelaws offence.

 

[furlong]

Similarly, the TOC would be ill served to accept an amount significantly less than what would be imposed by the court as a fine, if the intent is for it to serve as a deterrent.

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how deterrence or the level of any potential fine has this sort of role in a settlement. While the calculation of costs might sometimes be considered by some to be rather 'creative', they are still just costs for which the company should believe it can account.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

There would be little advantage to the passenger to pay an out of court settlement that was several multiples higher than what the court-imposed fine would be

Any court-imposed fine would be in addition to these costs. You would expect the costs the company applies for to go up, not down if the case proceeded to court, as the train company would be doing further work.

 

[island]

I too find it very difficult to believe that this was a mistake. However, as long as your son hasn't come to the attention of the train companies in question before, it is likely they will be prepared to settle the matter with a warning on receipt of a payment of a sum of money. The payment is usually in the region of £100 (and not £600-800 as has been quoted above) and is a contribution towards the substantial cost of dealing with criminals such as your son who travel on the railway without paying the proper fare.

There is nothing that can be done right now until your son (who I hope gave accurate and correct name and address details) receives a letter from First Great Western explaining their proposed course of action.

 

[thenorthern]

How can a TOC honestly come to a figure of £600-£800 for their costs?

There actual loss is the unpaid rail fare, probably less than £10 in this case, plus the costs incurred in sending a couple of letters and processing some paperwork by a minimum wage administration operative, so probably £30-40 at most.

It appears that demanding a settlement figure of several hundreds of pounds is just extortion by the TOC.

They don't demand it the person caught offers it as a means of avoiding a conviction and thus a potential criminal record. The £6-800 figure is just the normal amount that I hear that most companies accept although I have heard some companies accepting out of court settlements for much less or refusing any out of court settlements and choosing to take the case to court.

 

[najaB]

I'm sorry, but I fail to see how deterrence or the level of any potential fine has this sort of role in a settlement...

You're making the assumption that the purpose of an out of court settlement is to recover costs.

The way I see it, the amount of a settlement agreement isn't primarily driven by the costs that the company has incurred. The company intends to take the passenger to court and the passenger doesn't want the matter to reach the courts. The settlement is effectively the passenger saying "How much would it take to make this go away?"

 

[PauloDavesi]

Which leads to the question

In a simple case, like described in this thread, what are the actual costs incurred by the TOC if the matter is settled before court papers are filed?

One would assume that standard 'pro forma' letters with space for relevant details to be inserted are used, so the time & cost of the preparation of any letter is minimal.

I am not, in any way whatsoever supporting or condoning the act of fair evasion, just asking legitimate questions about a relevant topic

 

[LowLevel]

I don't know of any administration 'operatives'/human beings on minimum wage at a TOC, they don't tend to go in for slave labour. However you're quite correct I think that all organisations seem to overestimate their costs in these kind of matters.

 

[Fare-Cop]

I know that some people will be likely to take offence at my post, but it is clear that this seems to have been a deliberate attempt to avoid the correct fare.

This is one of the commonest opportunistic fare evasion ploys across the entire network

1. The user has to make a minimum of two deliberate push-button, or screen tap choices to get a child ticket from a self-service machine.

2. If you are 18, why would you tell an inspector you were only 15 if you did not already know that you had purchased a child rate ticket intending to try to convince an inspector you were entitled the lesser fare?

Talk of out-of-court settlement in the order of £600-£800 is both excessive and premature in my view.

The reality here is that it is likely to result in a summons alleging deliberate fare evasion contrary Section 5(3)(a) Regulation of Railways Act (1889).

It is possible that the op's son might be able to reach settlement, but I'd say it's a little more likely that he will be prosecuted, though could go either way.

If prosecuted, this is likely to result in a fine. As we all know, the maximum possible for a first offence is £1000. The reality is that if the OPs son does nothing and does not respond to summons he would be found guilty in absentia. In addition to the criminal conviction, the Magistrates would impose a fine of around £400 at 'Level B' on their current guidelines, starting at what is known as the 'entry level equal to the assessed average weekly wage', hence £400. Added to that the Magistrates may order the defendant to pay the compensation of fare due, plus the prosecutor's costs claim and a victim surcharge of 10% of the fine. If the defendant pleads guilty at the first opportunity, then the fine will be reduced by about a third
so down to £265 plus any other awards.

In my opinion, the deterrent value lies in detecting and dealing robustly with such actions.

 

[dakta]

Forgive me if I'm being shortsighted, but are costs even relevant?

The TOC has found somebody comitting an offence, and to solve this it goes to court.

If the person involved wants to wave some money to the TOC, the toc can chose what it considers acceptable to resolve the issue, if at all.

But otherwise, its to court.

I don't see how a TOC really has to justify the price of an out of court settlement. It's not a fine. If you're against paying this sort of money to stay out of court then don't pay and go to court.

And if you don't want to suffer any of this hassle from the beginning, travel with a valid ticket

The point I'm trying to make, is by travelling without a valid ticket, your basically inviting two situations - 1) to get away with it at the toc's cost or 2) get caught and find yourself at their mercy.

If someone then lands, skidding across the floor at the toc's mercy, they are not really in a position to begin a lecture on the price of fish.

Bottom line is, I don't think costs really have to come into it unless payment was obligatory - which it isn't. If one thinks its bad value for money then take the day in court

 

[island]

Which leads to the question

In a simple case, like described in this thread, what are the actual costs incurred by the TOC if the matter is settled before court papers are filed?

One would assume that standard 'pro forma' letters with space for relevant details to be inserted are used, so the time & cost of the preparation of any letter is minimal.

I am not, in any way whatsoever supporting or condoning the act of fair evasion, just asking legitimate questions about a relevant topic

But your line of questioning appears to be born of the presupposition that an amount which a TOC may accept in lieu of prosecuting a person for an alleged offence has in some way to bear relevance to the costs involved. It does not.

 

[jon0844]

Given it sounds like a safe prosecution with a criminal record, I'd say the TOC can ask for whatever it likes. It holds the cards. Pay or go to court and get a record.