Stupidly gave fake details

[Anoymous]

I’m really struggling to understand the thought process here.

You know an adult fare is more expensive than a child fare. You know that for the purposes of buying a train ticket you are an adult. I really can’t see how this stacks up with thinking you weren’t doing anything wrong

I honestly didn’t know it was fraud in buying a child ticket and whenever I have ever taken the train I’ve always gotten child tickets even when going to the office they’ve given me child tickets and no one has ever said anything about, it’s not really about the money if I had known it would’ve caused all this hassle I would’ve and will happily pay the extra couple of pounds

 

[skyhigh]

Do we? It's not at all unreasonable for someone unfamiliar with railway ticketing, and especially a child, to think that "child" means 0-17 years old, in the same way it does by default for every other part of the law, and really for most purposes for life in general. The OP doesn't state or suggest they knew they were in the wrong.

If you didn't know that being 17 required you to buy an adult ticket, surely when asked your age you'd say 17 as you thought it was right?

 

[Brissle Girl]

Do we? It's not at all unreasonable for someone unfamiliar with railway ticketing, and especially a child, to think that "child" means 0-17 years old, in the same way it does by default for every other part of the law, and really for most purposes for life in general. The OP doesn't state or suggest they knew they were in the wrong.

Every part of the law? I can think of at least one aspect of law which is often of great interest to teenagers which treats 16 year olds as adults. I'll leave you to work out which one that is...

 

[SteveM70]

Do we? It's not at all unreasonable for someone unfamiliar with railway ticketing, and especially a child, to think that "child" means 0-17 years old, in the same way it does by default for every other part of the law, and really for most purposes for life in general. The OP doesn't state or suggest they knew they were in the wrong.

Well he lied about his age when questioned

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

...but gave the age as 16, which still wouldn't make them eligible for a child ticket under the railway's rules. So I don't think much can be taken from this. I would simply see it as what it was, which was part of the false details that OP gave.

 

[DJ_K666]

A view from a RR bus driver*.

When I have done rail replacement jobs in the past (I am a bus driver and it's a great source of overtime) I actually make a point of not looking at tickets.
The logic behind this attitude is simple: As far as I am concerned it is not my job as I am effectively driving a replacement train rather than a bus, and you don't normally show your ticket to the train driver hence I won't check, hence it does not matter to me whether someone is travelling on the correct ticket as I have no recourse if they are.

If you had done that on my bus I would not have known given that the first time it would come to light would be at the gateline when you enter or leave the paid area of the station. Quite simply I regard it as someone else's problem. To be fair other drivers take a different view but in my opinion the bus driver ought not to have asked you your age unless he was railway staff. Also not being police we're not supposed to ask minors their age anyway as that can be viewed as "Grooming".

*When I do RR jobs, that is.

 

[Llanigraham]

A view from a RR bus driver*.

When I have done rail replacement jobs in the past (I am a bus driver and it's a great source of overtime) I actually make a point of not looking at tickets.
The logic behind this attitude is simple: As far as I am concerned it is not my job as I am effectively driving a replacement train rather than a bus, and you don't normally show your ticket to the train driver hence I won't check, hence it does not matter to me whether someone is travelling on the correct ticket as I have no recourse if they are.

If you had done that on my bus I would not have known given that the first time it would come to light would be at the gateline when you enter or leave the paid area of the station. Quite simply I regard it as someone else's problem. To be fair other drivers take a different view but in my opinion the bus driver ought not to have asked you your age unless he was railway staff. Also not being police we're not supposed to ask minors their age anyway as that can be viewed as "Grooming".

*When I do RR jobs, that is.

Except in this case it was not the bus driver that apprehended him, but a Revenue Protection Officer.

 

[MotCO]

I'm struggling to see why everyone is making such worrying remarks. I don't see that this is a matter within the purview of railway law at all. Although rail replacement bus services are provided so that train operators comply with their obligations to ticket-holders, they are not subject to the Railway Byelaws. Neither do Penalty Fares or the Regulation of Railways Act apply. These would be the three typical pieces of law under which fares offences are dealt with.

Would it make any difference if the journey the OP intended to make started off on a Rail Replacement Bus, but picked up the train further down the line? I know the OP was caught on the RRB, but in terms of the whole journey there could be a train element.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Would it make any difference if the journey the OP intended to make started off on a Rail Replacement Bus, but picked up the train further down the line? I know the OP was caught on the RRB, but in terms of the whole journey there could be a train element.

That may be. But as far as the law is concerned, railway law applies only in relation to railway assets. A bus or coach chartered by a train company is not such an asset, and accordingly the OP would only be committing an offence under railway law once they attempted to get on a train.

 

[6Gman]

A view from a RR bus driver*.

When I have done rail replacement jobs in the past (I am a bus driver and it's a great source of overtime) I actually make a point of not looking at tickets.
The logic behind this attitude is simple: As far as I am concerned it is not my job as I am effectively driving a replacement train rather than a bus, and you don't normally show your ticket to the train driver hence I won't check, hence it does not matter to me whether someone is travelling on the correct ticket as I have no recourse if they are.

If you had done that on my bus I would not have known given that the first time it would come to light would be at the gateline when you enter or leave the paid area of the station. Quite simply I regard it as someone else's problem. To be fair other drivers take a different view but in my opinion the bus driver ought not to have asked you your age unless he was railway staff. Also not being police we're not supposed to ask minors their age anyway as that can be viewed as "Grooming".

*When I do RR jobs, that is.

If I'm reading the OP correctly he wasn't challenged by the driver but by a member of the railway's revenue protection team.

 

[6Gman]

Well look at the law and decide for yourself, for example:

I'm no expert, but since you invite me to express a view I would suggest that a "railway asset" would include vehicles hired-in to provide a service to ticket holders on behalf of the railway.

Perhaps I'm wrong but pursuing this (possibly) fine point of law by a 17 year old seems ambitious.

 

[madjack]

(Deleted my question to avoid the OP being at risk of giving potentially damaging information on a public forum)

 

[Fawkes Cat]

Thank you for your contribution, my fear is that they’ll find my real identity however, given that all they know is where I work if they took that down do you know if this often happens to people ? And if I just ignore it what will happen ? I want to reply from the other address but I’m scared I’ll get myself in more trouble if I do

Sorry about not coming back on this point previously. Specifically, in answer to your query, the railway will not come searching for you at your employers. What you have done is dodged a train fare: unless it was for a much longer journey than I think, you have deprived the railway of a few pounds of income, and the worst that will happen will be that the courts charge you a fine (etc.) of some hundreds of pounds. That might seem like a lot, but putting people out to search for you would also cost hundreds of pounds. To be blunt, you're just not worth it - the railway will want to concentrate their limited resources against fare dodgers on people who cheat every day on their commute and should have paid thousands of pounds more in fares.

But more generally, I think (and this is rather tougher than what I suggested earlier in the thread) that the best advice is 'when you're in a hole, stop digging'. It's obviously worrying you that you gave false information and that this might have dreadful consequences. You can't at this point avoid the consequences of having given a false name - but you can stop the consequences getting worse by letting the railway know what your real name, address and age is. Write to them, telling them what your real details are (and of course telling them what the false details were as otherwise they'll never be able to tie the new information to what you originally told them). Since you are writing to them it would also be good to apologise for buying the wrong ticket, and explaining that you have learnt from your mistake and will not do it again - because that's what the railways want to happen: they don't want to keep chasing people for the right money, but for people to make sure that they have the right ticket at the right time without the railway having to force them.

 

[DJ_K666]

Except in this case it was not the bus driver that apprehended him, but a Revenue Protection Officer.

Ah ok I wasn't clear on that bit. I only looked quickly and posted later.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Sorry about not coming back on this point previously. Specifically, in answer to your query, the railway will not come searching for you at your employers. What you have done is dodged a train fare: unless it was for a much longer journey than I think, you have deprived the railway of a few pounds of income, and the worst that will happen will be that the courts charge you a fine (etc.) of some hundreds of pounds. That might seem like a lot, but putting people out to search for you would also cost hundreds of pounds. To be blunt, you're just not worth it - the railway will want to concentrate their limited resources against fare dodgers on people who cheat every day on their commute and should have paid thousands of pounds more in fares.

But more generally, I think (and this is rather tougher than what I suggested earlier in the thread) that the best advice is 'when you're in a hole, stop digging'. It's obviously worrying you that you gave false information and that this might have dreadful consequences. You can't at this point avoid the consequences of having given a false name - but you can stop the consequences getting worse by letting the railway know what your real name, address and age is. Write to them, telling them what your real details are (and of course telling them what the false details were as otherwise they'll never be able to tie the new information to what you originally told them). Since you are writing to them it would also be good to apologise for buying the wrong ticket, and explaining that you have learnt from your mistake and will not do it again - because that's what the railways want to happen: they don't want to keep chasing people for the right money, but for people to make sure that they have the right ticket at the right time without the railway having to force them.

At the moment the TOC doesn't even necessarily know that the OP gave incorrect details. They are unlikely to be treated more favourably for disclosing it now, vs say a month down the line, and there is a chance the TOC might never know. Either way, if the TOC finds out, which they quite possibly might already have done thanks to this thread staying visible, the OP will be in a certain degree of trouble.

 

[30907]

Do we? It's not at all unreasonable for someone unfamiliar with railway ticketing, and especially a child, to think that "child" means 0-17 years old, in the same way it does by default for every other part of the law, and really for most purposes for life in general. The OP doesn't state or suggest they knew they were in the wrong.

The TVMs and websites I am familiar with are quite specific. And the OP's words "everyone I know buys child tickets" suggests they went by common practice rather than their status as a minor. A bit like under age drinking in the days before ID...

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

The TVMs and websites I am familiar with are quite specific. And the OP's words "everyone I know buys child tickets" suggests they went by common practice rather than their status as a minor. A bit like under age drinking in the days before ID...

Would you read the definition of "adult" before selecting an "adult" ticket? It's might seem so obvious that you would have no reason to read the description.

 

[alistairlees]

Would you read the definition of "adult" before selecting an "adult" ticket? It's might seem so obvious that you would have no reason to read the description.

Is ignorance a defence?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

Is ignorance a defence?

It is to a charge of fare evasion under RoRA or of fraud under the Fraud Act. As discussed elsewhere, the former is irrelevant anyway since railway law doesn't apply to buses. The PSVR don't make attempted fare evasion an offence either.

 

[WesternLancer]

A view from a RR bus driver*.

When I have done rail replacement jobs in the past (I am a bus driver and it's a great source of overtime) I actually make a point of not looking at tickets.
The logic behind this attitude is simple: As far as I am concerned it is not my job as I am effectively driving a replacement train rather than a bus, and you don't normally show your ticket to the train driver hence I won't check, hence it does not matter to me whether someone is travelling on the correct ticket as I have no recourse if they are.

If you had done that on my bus I would not have known given that the first time it would come to light would be at the gateline when you enter or leave the paid area of the station. Quite simply I regard it as someone else's problem. To be fair other drivers take a different view but in my opinion the bus driver ought not to have asked you your age unless he was railway staff. Also not being police we're not supposed to ask minors their age anyway as that can be viewed as "Grooming".

*When I do RR jobs, that is.

A post on this thread that I thought was well made and one I very much agree with. Reminds me of a late night RRB I took last year with 2 other passengers and the driver insisted on checking the tickets. I had no problem with that but as he was chatty I asked, given the complexity of train tickets how he would know if they were really valid anyway. He said he would not but the TOC staff insisted he did it (so I assume any ticket would have worked...).

I then became rather horrified when he told me that he had refused entry to the RR Bus on at least one occasion and he mentioned a RRB call on another occasion at a station that I knew was unstaffed and had no TVM. He refused to pick up the passengers who had no tickets and told them to go 'back to the ticket office and get a ticket and they would have to wait for the next bus' (rural route so at least 1 or 2 hours later) - this on a route where the passenger would fully expect to buy their ticket on board the train. I pointed out to the bus driver that the ticket office probably closed in about 1966!
Shocking consequences of poor training / briefing by the railway to the RR Bus drivers used under the TOCs contract.

 

[Brissle Girl]

Would you read the definition of "adult" before selecting an "adult" ticket? It's might seem so obvious that you would have no reason to read the description.

That’s a spurious argument. the question here is what warning information is given when buying a discounted (ie child) ticket to ensure that the purchaser is aware of its restrictions.

Anyone buying a full price adult ticket has no need to be aware of any such warnings, as they cannot underpay based on age.

However, warnings do exist on adult tickets purchased at TVMs as to the time availability of cheaper tickets,(eg not valid between 1631 and 1830), to ensure that purchasers do not buy the wrong ticket. That’s absolutely right and proper.

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

That’s a spurious argument. the question here is what warning information is given when buying a discounted (ie child) ticket to ensure that the purchaser is aware of its restrictions.

Anyone buying a full price adult ticket has no need to be aware of any such warnings, as they cannot underpay based on age.

However, warnings do exist on adult tickets purchased at TVMs as to the time availability of cheaper tickets,(eg not valid between 1631 and 1830), to ensure that purchasers do not buy the wrong ticket. That’s absolutely right and proper.

That would be the relevant question in determining what contractual rights exist - if the railway's definition of "child" wasn't given at all prior to purchase then it would simply take its ordinary day-to-day meaning of 0-17 years of age.

However here the only relevant offence is fraud, e.g. by false representation. It is already an offence typically reserved by the railway for premeditated and long-standing schemes such as commuters doing 'donutting'.

nd the likelihood of prosecution, or at least conviction, is lowered even further by the fact that the OP has explained that they simply thought "I'm a child, so of course I buy a child ticket". It did not occur to them to read what the description of "child" was, and there was no intention to defraud in selecting "child", merely a mistaken understanding. That is the crucial difference.

It's no different to TOCs incorrectly accusing someone of an offence, therefore demanding money, when in fact they haven't and the TOC is just mistaken. Some might see that as fraud but there is a rightfully high bar to reach before fraud is considered proven, and mistake can often be an acceptable defence to any such allegation.

 

[30907]

That would be the relevant question in determining what contractual rights exist - if the railway's definition of "child" wasn't given at all prior to purchase then it would simply take its ordinary day-to-day meaning of 0-17 years of age.

It did not occur to them to read what the description of "child" was, and there was no intention to defraud in selecting "child", merely a mistaken understanding. That is the crucial difference.

A random check on a TOC website gives me the option of "Child(5-15)" or "Adult."
Are there websites/TVMs that do NOT specify the child age?

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

A random check on a TOC website gives me the option of "Child(5-15)" or "Adult."
Are there websites/TVMs that do NOT specify the child age?

I doubt so. But that is not the point. See for example the app used by Avanti, CrossCountry and many other TOCs. It says "adult" and "child" in large font. The age range is then in small font.



If you were a child, would you read the bit that defined child? There's no need to, you know you're a child.

This is the fundamental problem with having a system that treats 16-17 year olds as adults even though they are in most cases quite incapable of the independence that being an adult normally implies. The 16-17 Saver scheme demonstrates that the government considers it acceptable for such people to pay child rate.

So why doesn't the railway just let all 16-17 year olds pay child fare, with proof of age mandatory if you appear to be of that age group? Bear in mind that proof of age is not required for a 15 year old wanting to buy a child ticket.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

See for example the app used by Avanti, CrossCountry and many other TOCs. It says "adult" and "child" in large font. The age range is then in small font.

If you were a child, would you read the bit that defined child? There's no need to, you know you're a child.

I would be interested to hear of cases where this argument has been used successfully.

 

[Brissle Girl]

I agree wholeheartedly. It's perfectly clear, and immediately below the word Child. It couldn't be any closer. If you are of an age where there might be some uncertainty then I don't think there would be any case to answer that the definition of child was so obscure/buried in small print that it was reasonable that it was missed.

 

[Peter Sarf]

Do we? It's not at all unreasonable for someone unfamiliar with railway ticketing, and especially a child, to think that "child" means 0-17 years old, in the same way it does by default for every other part of the law, and really for most purposes for life in general. The OP doesn't state or suggest they knew they were in the wrong.

It seems logical that the OP thought they were entitled to a child ticket. Otherwise why did the OP admit to being 17. After all the OP would have lied about their age, if they thought it necessary, as the OP was prepared to give other false details.

If you didn't know that being 17 required you to buy an adult ticket, surely when asked your age you'd say 17 as you thought it was right?

Cynic in me wonders did they fail to see it as fraud or did not want to see it as fraud ?.

A post on this thread that I thought was well made and one I very much agree with. Reminds me of a late night RRB I took last year with 2 other passengers and the driver insisted on checking the tickets. I had no problem with that but as he was chatty I asked, given the complexity of train tickets how he would know if they were really valid anyway. He said he would not but the TOC staff insisted he did it (so I assume any ticket would have worked...).

I then became rather horrified when he told me that he had refused entry to the RR Bus on at least one occasion and he mentioned a RRB call on another occasion at a station that I knew was unstaffed and had no TVM. He refused to pick up the passengers who had no tickets and told them to go 'back to the ticket office and get a ticket and they would have to wait for the next bus' (rural route so at least 1 or 2 hours later) - this on a route where the passenger would fully expect to buy their ticket on board the train. I pointed out to the bus driver that the ticket office probably closed in about 1966!
Shocking consequences of poor training / briefing by the railway to the RR Bus drivers used under the TOCs contract.

My experience of Rail Replacement Buses is varied but not very good.

We were on a coach from Doncaster to Kings cross as a failure in Edinburgh combined with diversion via Carlisle meant the ECML was shut South of Doncaster. The coach deposited us on the Euston road opposite St Pancras with no one there to provide support for onward journeys. The passengers were beginning to disperse and, as a rail enthusiast, I marched the coach load of passengers to Kings Cross and dug a staff member out. Taxis were demanded and supplied.

I have been on a bus where water was coming down the stairs from the top deck. It was a very humid day and all the condensation had collected on the floor of the top deck. It was obvious that the drain holes from the top deck must be blocked. I looked upstairs and as the bus pulled the water went to the back of the bus - two - three inches deep !.

So I have a very dim view of RRB services.

Point is - can the railways really justify full fare for a very inferior alternative ?.

 

[SteveM70]

It seems logical that the OP thought they were entitled to a child ticket. Otherwise why did the OP admit to being 17. After all the OP would have lied about their age, if they thought it necessary, as the OP was prepared to give other false details.

I panicked and said 16.

the OP did lie, but perhaps unwittingly told a lie that made no difference

 

[Tom Quinne]

So yesterday I was going to get on a replacement bus and had a child ticket, I’m only 17 and everyone I know buys child tickets(teachers have even told us to do so on school trips) so I honestly didn’t think anything of it. I was wearing my work uniform at the time and the man asked me my age, I panicked and said 16.

He then took me inside the station and asked my details, I gave him a fake name and d.o.b and an old address, I have access to the old address and intend to pay the fine no matter the price.

Does anyone know if they will send the fine to the address ? moreover, as I was wearing my work uniform will they contact my employer and figure it I gave a fake name ?

I’m aware a criminal record is the outcome if I’m caught but in the moment I was hysterical and crying out of pure shock. The man was not a typical ticket inspector and didn’t have one the electric machines he just wrote it down in a little note book and he didn’t give me any paperwork when he let me go.

Does anyone have any idea what the usual course of action is and if so could you please advise me. I’m aware what I’ve done is wrong and want to pay the fine I’m honestly just fearful my entire life will be ruined over a couple of pounds

I would say “no face, no case” to be honest - if you have incorrect details, and DOB the chances of them actually tracking you down is minimal.

They won’t approach your employer, your employer can’t give them any information about you anyway.

I’d say you’ve been very lucky, and don’t be a numpty again buy a ticket!

 

[DJ_K666]

A post on this thread that I thought was well made and one I very much agree with. Reminds me of a late night RRB I took last year with 2 other passengers and the driver insisted on checking the tickets. I had no problem with that but as he was chatty I asked, given the complexity of train tickets how he would know if they were really valid anyway. He said he would not but the TOC staff insisted he did it (so I assume any ticket would have worked...).

I then became rather horrified when he told me that he had refused entry to the RR Bus on at least one occasion and he mentioned a RRB call on another occasion at a station that I knew was unstaffed and had no TVM. He refused to pick up the passengers who had no tickets and told them to go 'back to the ticket office and get a ticket and they would have to wait for the next bus' (rural route so at least 1 or 2 hours later) - this on a route where the passenger would fully expect to buy their ticket on board the train. I pointed out to the bus driver that the ticket office probably closed in about 1966!
Shocking consequences of poor training / briefing by the railway to the RR Bus drivers used under the TOCs contract.

Thanks

Last RRB job I did was about a year ago and I was sitting spare at Ore near Hastings (A much improved area these days tbh) just watching TV on my phone lol
But yes that driver should have just let them board and find the first available ticket machine if they wanted to buy a ticket.
To be fair most pax when they get on they do show one but I just see orange and that's fine by me, especially given the varying layout of tickets these days depending on how they are issued, not to mention the small typeface. I would not be able to read them at a glance anyway.