Metro Penalty Fare Notice

geordieracer

anewman wrote: »

Can they really haul a 15 year old before the courts? - and fine them? (when they have no means to pay the fine)

Also I suspect the byelaws are outdated and infact may violate some laws. Even if travel without a valid ticket is a crime under a byelaw, I thought it was against the law to make a profit from crime? (In this case profit is being made via the fine and admin fee as it does not reflect the actual or potential losses due to not purchasing a ticket). Even if my point of view has some merit I don't envisage putting it forward in court would be helpful though.

I don't know what the Metro in Newcastle is like now but when I used it a good few years ago it seemed like you could easily get away without buying a ticket (I did purchase a ticket for my entire journey of course).

Yes they can.. If the person is over 10 then they can be taken before the courts. In reality i have never known this to happen as the parents always pay the fine. The bye laws have been updated since then to keep in line with other laws.And they are not making a profit from it either.

The Metro will be getting better towards fare evasion now that DB have taken over - I worked on the Bid team to win the thing so i know what is coming.

bigturnip

anewman wrote: »

Can they really haul a 15 year old before the courts? - and fine them? (when they have no means to pay the fine)

Also I suspect the byelaws are outdated and infact may violate some laws. Even if travel without a valid ticket is a crime under a byelaw, I thought it was against the law to make a profit from crime? (In this case profit is being made via the fine and admin fee as it does not reflect the actual or potential losses due to not purchasing a ticket). Even if my point of view has some merit I don't envisage putting it forward in court would be helpful though.

I think you'd be hard pushed to argue they are making any profit off a £20 or £50 fine when you look at the costs of employing thousands of ticket inspectors. In fact I would imagine they will be losing money when issuing fines, but the hope is that it will act as a deterrent to other people. But yes, punitive damages are extremely rare under English law, quite rightly in my opinion, it's an American thing.

anewman

geordieracer wrote: »

The Metro will be getting better towards fare evasion now that DB have taken over - I worked on the Bid team to win the thing so i know what is coming.

Hopefully DB will be half as good as their German counterparts, then maybe they won't need to target fare evasion.

There's not alot of positive things to say about running a system that takes no precautions whatsoever to prevent fare evasion in the first instance. Start with a supervised barrier system and conductors who can get from one end of the train to the other before the next station, and lurk around the toilet to get whoever's hiding in them Otherwise it's pretty much like leaving your house with the door wide open, someone's going to invite themselves into your house and take all your stuff whether it's right or wrong.

As for fining people £50 being profitable, if you get twenty people a week caught I'm sure that covers the costs and the rest is as we say pure profit. I'll bet the enforcement officers have targets much like traffic wardens (targets are good for profit), and if they have a good day probably go home at midday.

bigturnip

anewman wrote: »

As for fining people £50 being profitable, if you get twenty people a week caught I'm sure that covers the costs and the rest is as we say pure profit. I'll bet the enforcement officers have targets much like traffic wardens (targets are good for profit), and if they have a good day probably go home at midday.

But you are forgetting that most ticket inspectors will never issue a fine, ie the conductor on a train, he has two jobs, to inspect tickets and sell tickets, I'm sure the train companies will factor in a portion of the cost to employ him to the costs of catching fare dodgers. It's quite a reasonable thing to do as well, if everybody who could bought tickets before they got on a train you would only need conductors on lines with no ticket machines.

dizzybuff

FATBALLZ wrote: »

Doesn't sound right to me either that a 15 year old with no entitlement to state benefit or legal employment can be fined £50, what are they expected to do, steal it?

Children over 10 can be liable for any crime . Thats the law . At 10 years they are deamed to know right from wrong, they can be issued an asbo , and bailed and a juvenille warning so why not a fine. Just as they can be issued a Fixed penalty notice , for Public order , criminal damage , possesion of cannabis and shoplifting . ( although as they are classed as a juvenille they will be arrested first so an appropriate adult can be sought) Oh yeh and public urination (£50 fine)

Yes the parents will mostly pay , but as I said earlier , if they lived in my household would be paying it back in chores or installments out of their pocketmoney.

king100

geordieracer wrote: »

Probably the 'Travelling without a valid ticket' part but given that her daughter had kept it from her im not sure she knows

Thats not what i meant.

The fine would have been imposed under a certain laws, they have a few to chose from ranging to the railway bye laws to fraud. Thta then governs how they deal with the fine.

geordieracer

anewman wrote: »

Hopefully DB will be half as good as their German counterparts, then maybe they won't need to target fare evasion.

There's not alot of positive things to say about running a system that takes no precautions whatsoever to prevent fare evasion in the first instance. Start with a supervised barrier system and conductors who can get from one end of the train to the other before the next station, and lurk around the toilet to get whoever's hiding in them Otherwise it's pretty much like leaving your house with the door wide open, someone's going to invite themselves into your house and take all your stuff whether it's right or wrong.

As for fining people £50 being profitable, if you get twenty people a week caught I'm sure that covers the costs and the rest is as we say pure profit. I'll bet the enforcement officers have targets much like traffic wardens (targets are good for profit), and if they have a good day probably go home at midday.

The Metro has been abused for years and has lost millions through people knowing they can use it without really having to buy a ticket unless they are getting off in the centre of town... Now there will be more inspectors on the trains and possibly more permanent gates at the city stations too..


Revenue protection officers have no targets.

iamana1ias

macthemountie wrote: »

If my daughter is classed as a minor and still in full time education and below the age where she can seek legal employment where will she find the money in order to pay the fine.

Utter b0llox. It's perfectly legal to work when you are 15 - and younger in fact. Don't see many middle aged people with paper rounds

At 15 I'd been working for a year and had already saved around a third of the money I'd use at 17 for my first car.

OP, you can't have it all ways. If she's old enough to ride the metro alone and be responsible for buying her own ticket then she's old enough to deal with the consequences when she doesn't.

Lax parenting isn't going to give her any kind of sense of responsibility

FATBALLZ

dizzybuff wrote: »

Children over 10 can be liable for any crime . Thats the law . At 10 years they are deamed to know right from wrong, they can be issued an asbo , and bailed and a juvenille warning so why not a fine. Just as they can be issued a Fixed penalty notice , for Public order , criminal damage , possesion of cannabis and shoplifting . ( although as they are classed as a juvenille they will be arrested first so an appropriate adult can be sought) Oh yeh and public urination (£50 fine)

Yes the parents will mostly pay , but as I said earlier , if they lived in my household would be paying it back in chores or installments out of their pocketmoney.

There's being liable for a crime and then there's being asked to fulfil a penalty that you have no means to do so. Going to jail at any age is easy but paying a fine when you can't work and can't claim benefits can be impossible. I'm sure in practice the parents usually pay but what if they won't?

System

As the child is under 18 and in the care of their parents then surely the parents also have financial responsibility & liability for the child and their actions?