Train ticket punishment for 16yo

chambta

There are some people here for who there's no grey, only black and white.

POPPYOSCAR

Syman wrote: »

when my son got caught bunking the train, the penalty charge was sent to me as his "parent or gaurdian".

Why send to parent or guardian if they are considered to be 'adults'!

chambta

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Why send to parent or guardian if they are considered to be 'adults'!

Absolutely.

wealdroam

chambta wrote: »

There are some people here for who there's no grey, only black and white.

And isn't the problem that you described, black and white?

A person over the prescribed age was using a child's ticket.

Seems very clear to me.

What are you suggesting should've happened?

Jeff_Bridges_hair

chambta wrote: »

It's a little unfair in many ways. He's a schoolchild effectively. They wouldn't sell him a beer on the train as he isn't an adult of course!

No, thats because the legal age to purchase alcohol is 18 in this country.

Also there is no such thing as an adult fare but there is a thing such as a child fare which is for the ages of 15 and under.

spiro

chambta wrote: »

There are some people here for who there's no grey, only black and white.

In law there is normally no grey, you either broke the law or you didn't same applies to rules. Person was not 15 years or under and travelled on a child ticket - they broke the rules. Simplies.

It the same with people coming on here complaining about huge data roaming bills, in black and white they used the data and therefore they are require to pay. The only grey in that scenario is if the provider voluntarily opts to reduce their bill by possibly retrospectively applying a data bundle.

timbo58

As axial and others have asked:
What was this £100 'fine'?
It wasn't a fine thats for sure it could either be IME (15 years as a guard and Inspector until I left)

a) a full fare adult single ticket (£100 is quite possible for longer journeys at full fare)
b) an UPFN (unpaid fares notice)*
c) a penalty fare

*the upfn will be controlled by RPSS ltd, this should be dealt with immediately since it has charges added every 10 days and will only increase, RPSS will get most of this money and WILL persue it IME.

I doubt it's a) since he clearly hasn't paid it looking at the OP again.

If it's c) then it will be escalated for court action should it remain unpaid by most TOCs, and they (rather sensibly IMHO) normally take the view it's not worth handing out PFs unless they enforce them nowadays.

His age will be held in consideration if he/his parents write back to the TOC very promptly making a 'reasonable' offer -the key is 'reasonable' here that will mean the FULL adult single fare which was avoided plus a sum to cover the TOCs cost.

1. They most certainly won't take any account of what was paid for the child ticket as that was invalid at point of sale, regardless of what the traveller thought was valid.
2.TOCs costs -start at £50 since anything lower than this is more then likely to be dismissed out of hand.
3.The quicker you deal with this the better, if the TOC has to issue chase up letters you can add another £50 to £75 costs to each if you finally decide to settle.
4. If the full adult fare was over £50 you'd be better off paying the £100 immediately for the reasons above.
5. It is unlikely although perfectly possible that if this goes unpaid the traveller could be banned from travel by this TOC if they wish to.

The consumer action group forums have a dedicated rail section which has had cases like this ad infinitum worth taking some advice there.

Syman

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

Why send to parent or guardian if they are considered to be 'adults'!

I don't know to be honest, i assume that as he was under 18 he has to be treated as a juvenile.

POPPYOSCAR

Syman wrote: »

I don't know to be honest, i assume that as he was under 18 he has to be treated as a juvenile.

But not treated as a 'juvenile' for ticketing purposes.

They may be the 'rules' but I happen to think it is wrong.

We want to encourage our children(yes children at 16 to me) to stay on at school and be educated, and yet on the other hand treat them like 'adults' when it comes to paying for things.

neilmcl

POPPYOSCAR wrote: »

But not treated as a 'juvenile' for ticketing purposes.

They may be the 'rules' but I happen to think it is wrong.

We want to encourage our children(yes children at 16 to me) to stay on at school and be educated, and yet on the other hand treat them like 'adults' when it comes to paying for things.

So you dont believe a 16yr old "child" should take responsibility for his or her's actions?