Unpaid fare notice Help

[221129]

Hello
I was travelling to Tiverton Parkway from Plymouth when shortly after leaving plymouth and when asked for my ticket i realised i had lost it.
I was then given an UPFN. What does it mean and any advice on how to deal with it.

 

[MikeWh]

It's basically an invoice to pay your fare later. Presumably you didn't have the means to pay again at the time. The TM obviously believed that you had genuinely lost your ticket. It should have details of how and where to pay on it.

The fact that you've been issued one will have been noted, so it would be a good idea to take more care in future, especially on FGW (or whoever you were using today). They may not be so inclined to treat you so leniently in future.

 

[221129]

It was XC and it was a child devon Ranger

 

[MikeWh]

It was XC and it was a child devon Ranger

Ah, Ok. I did that many years ago with a 7-day Southern Region Rover. I lost it on about day 5. It's an expensive lesson, but slightly better to be learnt when a child as the fares are that much cheaper.

 

[221129]

yeah i just feel so stupid as i must have lost it from the barriers to the train

 

[bnm]

What's the deal with issuing UPFNs to a child? Can you legally invoice a child? If it's subsequently not paid can you enforce what would be a civil debt?

 

[Ferret]

What's the deal with issuing UPFNs to a child? Can you legally invoice a child? If it's subsequently not paid can you enforce what would be a civil debt?

Well, the UFN has a specific box for 'name of parent or guardian if under 18'.

 

[221129]

Yes it does and i gave it

 

[island]

Advice on how to deal with it: Pay the amount indicated and that will be the end of the matter!

 

[221129]

Ok thannkyou so it goes no further ???

 

[Ferret]

Ok thannkyou so it goes no further ???

No, once it's done then it's done.

 

[221129]

Ok thankyou so i dont get a record or anything

 

[sonic2009]

Ok thankyou so i dont get a record or anything

no as long as you pay it on time you get no record.

 

[Ferret]

Ok thankyou so i dont get a record or anything

No - it's a civil matter, not a criminal one.

 

[221129]

Ok thankyou

 

[yorkie]

Indeed, just make sure you pay it within the time specified (I'd send it on Monday if you can, to get it out of the way).

Was this on your final leg? If so, it could have been worse! It happens to us all, and if it's going to happen it's better that it happens with a short journey than a longer one (if I'd lost my ticket on my last journey today it would have been £124.50 (London-York with no intermediate stops). I'm sure the guard was nice about it, again you can be grateful it didn't happen on one of the less reasonable TOCs (that I won't mention so as to avoid going off-topic!). Sorry, I know that being told it could have been worse is not going to be much consolation to you.

 

[michael769]

Just to be clear for the OP a UPFN is not a fine or penalty, nor is there any suggestion that they though you were fare dodging.

They are intended to be issued in cases where the train crew recognise that there was no intent to travel without paying a fare but the passenger lacks a valid ticket or the means to pay at the time, so the passenger is issued with a bill for them to pay the fare back at a later date.

Once the bill is paid the matter is, in effect forgotten.

 

[221129]

Ahhh Ok the XC TM was understanding about it Baring in mind i got through the barriers and it was only an £8.55 fare so not too bad

 

[tony_mac]

Can you legally invoice a child? If it's subsequently not paid can you enforce what would be a civil debt?

http://www.oup.com/uk/orc/bin/9780199570058/01student/01chapters/chenwishart3e_webchapters.pdf

Contracts for necessaries are binding if, on the whole, they are beneficial to the child.....
in Flower v London and North Western Railway Co (1894), a contract of carriage, necessary in the circumstances, was void against the child because it contained an exemption of liability for injury caused by negligence.

So, hence a railway ticket may possibly be considered necessary.
Although, I guess it is possible that if a child was purely on a leisure trip, then it may not be considered a necessary.

 

[island]

The "necessary" question is a very complex one. I seem to recall, for example, that after a child who ordered half a dozen waistcoats on his father's credit account with a tailor, the father was not found liable to pay for them because the child was already well-supplied with clothing!

 

[bnm]

Makes sense. With the necessity to fill in 'parent or guardian' details on the UFN, I guess legal liability is transferred to them. Would that be correct?

If the parent or guardian were to contest then could the TOC pursue the child (if above the age of criminal responsibility) with a criminal prosecution?

 

[Ferret]

Makes sense. With the necessity to fill in 'parent or guardian' details on the UFN, I guess legal liability is transferred to them. Would that be correct?

It could well be. Must admit I've never looked into the legal complexities of that!

 

[island]

Unlikely, as the child can't make the parent legally liable.

 

[bnm]

So what is the position, legally, if a UFN issued to a child is not paid?

I'm not suggesting the OP shouldn't pay, just curious as to the legal process.

 

[tony_mac]

Then, I guess, intent to avoid payment has been proven and a criminal case can begin!

The "necessary" question is a very complex one. I seem to recall, for example, that after a child who ordered half a dozen waistcoats on his father's credit account with a tailor, the father was not found liable to pay for them because the child was already well-supplied with clothing!

Yes, it was apparently 11 waistcoats!
But a gold ring and watch chain have been considered 'necessaries'.

 

[Ferret]

Then, I guess, intent to avoid payment has been proven and a criminal case can begin!

Yes, but that wouldn't be against the parent though. Hmmmm, interesting! I reckon my last post may well be wrong!

 

[yorkie]

Not relevant to the OP but...

Then, I guess, intent to avoid payment has been proven and a criminal case can begin!

...I'd disagree, as losing your ticket could not indicate intent to avoid payment (indeed depending on the payment method used it may be possible to prove that payment was made).

However I understand that a Byelaw 18 prosecution could take place instead, because it is a requirement for the ticket to be held during the journey (and not just to get through the barriers), this does not require any intent to be found guilty of, but is a less serious offence as it is not recordable.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Then, I guess, intent to avoid payment has been proven and a criminal case can begin!

Yes. That's correct.

But we mustn't confuse the OP who was already doubtful that (s)he may have done something wrong or was likely to find themselves being prosecuted or some other lasting record.
As stated repeatedly above - its simply an invoice for a train ticket which has to be paid.

No offence has been committed, and no offence will be prosecuted. We shouldn't confuse new members/posters who come on here with tales of what might happen in other circumstances.

Can we please treat people (particularly new members) with the courtesy of answering their question; and not indulging in a speculative debate about other possible circumstances in their thread?

 

[tony_mac]

Not relevant to the OP but...

...I'd disagree, as losing your ticket could not indicate intent to avoid payment (indeed depending on the payment method used it may be possible to prove that payment was made).

I had forgotten that there was a ticket, but that it was lost!
D'oh!

But we mustn't confuse the OP who was already doubtful that (s)he may have done something wrong or was likely to find themselves being prosecuted or some other lasting record.

Oops, yes, there's nothing to worry about here - just some of use obviously like to drift off into hypothetical scenarios.....

 

[bnm]

And my apologies to the OP if my going off on a tangent caused any confusion.

Just curious of the legal position.

Despite my curiosity I'm happy to confirm that my cat is safe and well, curled up on the sofa oblivious to the danger I was putting her in.

But then, rather like the liability being discussed here, Spooky should be safe as she wasn't the one being curious!