Fines to under 18's

bevmanchester

DKLS wrote: »

I am pleased to hear it, its common theft, yet again we see on this site someone wanting to evade their responsibilities.

Young and naive my arris, just the usual "its not my fault" and ineffective parenting.
Sounds daft but I was brought up to be responsible for my actions.

Thanks to 'MOST' of the comments, regarding the above,
as I said in my original post....
What she did was wrong and I am willing to pay the fine, or ensure she pays it...I never once indicated that we didnt want to pay.
The issue was that as she was young and naive, she buried her head and got admin fees on top of the original fine, i was asking if i was responsible for the fine and if so would i also be responsible for the admin fees..
My parenting is not ineffective, she was in a difficult situation of not being able to withdraw money from a cashmachine and therefore couldnt get her tram fare..the machine was not working - it was not something she had done before - nor will it be again. we all make mistakes!!

Before commenting on people you know nothing about...read the original thread properly first, you would then see that I wasnt avoiding the fine at all!!!

To others re her getting a job, she is starting one shortly, luckily!

bevmanchester

JQ. wrote: »

I think it's safe to say the tram is in question is in Manchester which is run by GMPTE, which I believe is part of the Council or some sort of QUANGO - definately not a private company, so I wouldn't be ignoring the fine. Plenty of press up here about people being taken to court for tram fare evasion.

As for the moral question - I think it's terrible you're even trying to evade the fine on behalf of a 17 year old, what a terrible example to set your daughter, who's not exactly a child. She did not buy a ticket and this is the consquence. The fine doubled because she ignored the first letter, again another consequnce. Pay her fine and then make her pay it off over a year.

yet again!!!!!
not trying to evade the fine!!!!!
read the original quote properly.....
in hindsight it could have been worded a little better, and I appreciate others opinion that the admin fees will also teach her that burying her head isnt the option...which I agree with....

i just wanted to know if I would be held responsible, and if so....would 'I' have to pay the admin fees as the original letter wasnt sent to me....

as she is fully responsible due to her age she will have to pay the whole amount - obviously - please dont mis-judge others by not taking the time to read properly - it isnt nice !!

DKLS

bevmanchester wrote: »

Thanks to 'MOST' of the comments, regarding the above,
as I said in my original post....
What she did was wrong and I am willing to pay the fine, or ensure she pays it...I never once indicated that we didnt want to pay.
The issue was that as she was young and naive, she buried her head and got admin fees on top of the original fine, i was asking if i was responsible for the fine and if so would i also be responsible for the admin fees..
My parenting is not ineffective, she was in a difficult situation of not being able to withdraw money from a cashmachine and therefore couldnt get her tram fare..the machine was not working - it was not something she had done before - nor will it be again. we all make mistakes!!

Before commenting on people you know nothing about...read the original thread properly first, you would then see that I wasnt avoiding the fine at all!!!

To others re her getting a job, she is starting one shortly, luckily!

Excuses, excuses, excuses, I can see where your daughter learnt her irresponsible ways from.

Funny at a similar age, if I didnt have the money for the bus or taxi home, I would rely on those two things protruding from my hips to get home, I soon learnt that it wasnt wise to spend my taxi money on a kebab, when faced with a 25 mile walk home after a night out.

Like I said ineffective parenting.

geordieracer

What a very familiar thread. And if i was the OP i would stop listening to the very bad advice from sassy-one

and if i was sassy-one id stop giving out very bad and very wrong advice.

Stigy

Livingthedream wrote: »

This hasn't happened, she hasn't received any court summons or a visit from the Police, all she got was an fare invoice + late fees, so she hasn't broke any laws, Yet

It's not a fine, I agree, however, firstly, lets pretend we're talking about trains as opposed to trams here, as although chargable in the same way, numbers etc will differ (not sure if 5.3(a)RRA applies to trams, but I'm sure they have their equivalent recordable offences, lol).

I'm assuming it's a Penalty Fare, and not an Unpaid Fare Notice, given the OPs terminologies etc. That being the case, an offence HAS been committed, usually under Byelaw 18.1 (fail to show a valid rail ticket in laymans terms!), otherwise the Penalty Fare wouldn't have been a legal means of resolution for the RPI to issue. The Penalty Fare is means of deterrant for Train Companies etc in oder to keep minor byelaw breaches out of Courts. It's the same as Penalty Notices for Disorder (PNDs) or Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) issued by Police Forces or local government agencies. The only difference is that whereby you'd be summonsed (potentially) for failing to pay a PND or FPN, if you fail to pay a Penalty Fare you're not goung to be summonsed for failing to pay the £20 or whatever the charge may be, but summonsed to a Magistrate's Court for either the initially 18.1 Byelaw offence, or worse, a 5.3(a) Regulation of Railways Act offence which basically establises intent to avoid payment of the fare (which, lets face it, will be the case...if it's got this far), which is recordable on the PNC and generally carries a greater penalty if found guilty. The latter would probably only be the case if there was no payment made as far as the initial train/tram fare went, and only a Nil-Paid Penalty Fare was issued (if that is the case though, the PF really shouldn't have been issued in the first place!).

As far as other Train Companies not summonsing offenders who fail to pay, well I work for a major train comapany and often report for summons, and have had many successful cases, so I believe if there's potential to make money most if not all TOCs will actively seek to claw back their costs at the very least through the courts (not necessarily from court itself, as they're often better off being settled outside court as the TOC gets all the money that way, as opposed to just getting their costs back if successful!).

Basically, telling people to ignore these issues cuts no ice I'm afraid, unlike the standard "ignore them" responses to PCNs! Should this go to court, it won't be a civil matter, but a criminal one. I think Sassy-one needs to take note.

JQ.

bevmanchester wrote: »

not trying to evade the fine!!!!!

So what was the purpose of this thread then?

Stigy

sassy-one wrote: »

I understand that ignoring the notice may not apply in this case However, if it's First Great Western or Virgin Trains or similar, it would be safe to ignore it

Why? The offence is exactly the same, and the method Virginj Trains or FGW would go through, to all intents and purposes will be identical to either TfL or Metrolink or whoever else operates trams.

A Penalty Fare is a civil remedy for a Byelaw offence. If the matter goes to court and charged under byelaws, it becomes criminal.

Livingthedream

Stigy wrote: »

Basically, telling people to ignore these issues cuts no ice I'm afraid, unlike the standard "ignore them" responses to PCNs! Should this go to court, it won't be a civil matter, but a criminal one. I think Sassy-one needs to take note.

Stigy, please tell me that comment is not aimed at me, as I have never told anybody in this thread or any other to ignore a Penalty fare or Unpaid fares notice.

Stigy

Livingthedream wrote: »

Stigy, please tell me that comment is not aimed at me, as I have never told anybody in this thread or any other to ignore a Penalty fare or Unpaid fares notice.

No, and I appologise if it looked that way. The only reason I quoted you, was explained in the main body (second paragraph) of my post.

I believe it was aimed at Sassy!

Livingthedream

Stigy wrote: »

I'm assuming it's a Penalty Fare, and not an Unpaid Fare Notice, given the OPs terminologies etc. That being the case, an offence HAS been committed, usually under Byelaw 18.1 (fail to show a valid rail ticket in laymans terms!), otherwise the Penalty Fare wouldn't have been a legal means of resolution for the RPI to issue. The Penalty Fare is means of deterrant for Train Companies etc in oder to keep minor byelaw breaches out of Courts. It's the same as Penalty Notices for Disorder (PNDs) or Fixed Penalty Notices (FPNs) issued by Police Forces or local government agencies. The only difference is that whereby you'd be summonsed (potentially) for failing to pay a PND or FPN, if you fail to pay a Penalty Fare you're not goung to be summonsed for failing to pay the £20 or whatever the charge may be, but summonsed to a Magistrate's Court for either the initially 18.1 Byelaw offence, or worse, a 5.3(a) Regulation of Railways Act offence which basically establises intent to avoid payment of the fare (which, lets face it, will be the case...if it's got this far), which is recordable on the PNC and generally carries a greater penalty if found guilty. The latter would probably only be the case if there was no payment made as far as the initial train/tram fare went, and only a Nil-Paid Penalty Fare was issued (if that is the case though, the PF really shouldn't have been issued in the first place!).

As far as other Train Companies not summonsing offenders who fail to pay, well I work for a major train comapany and often report for summons, and have had many successful cases, so I believe if there's potential to make money most if not all TOCs will actively seek to claw back their costs at the very least through the courts (not necessarily from court itself, as they're often better off being settled outside court as the TOC gets all the money that way, as opposed to just getting their costs back if successful!).

Total agree Penalty fare/Unpaid fares notices(UFN) are ways to keep minor breaches out of court, but they are a civil issue which should be pursed in a small claims court, however, train companies don't want their Terms and conditions challenged in a court of law as this could set a legal legal president against the train company, a prime example of this was the 'Professor and his advance tickets'. So what's the easiest thing for the train company to do, cancel the Penalty fare/UFN and prosecute under bylaw 18.1 or in the case of the 'professor' just cancel the UFN.

If you ignore a Penalty fare/UFN it's easier for the train company to prove that you are a 'fare dodger', correct. However, if you have 'mitigating circumstances' and appeal your Penalty fare both to the train company and passenger focus this can be used as a defence to prove that your not a 'fare dodger' making it very difficult to prosecute under bylaw 18.1.