Fined for having a child DART ticket (I'm 17!)

Kedo93

Right well this afternoon whilst heading into town, there was no ticket-man at the window in Harmonstown station(no surprise there!) so I had to use the ticket machine. I bought a return child ticket to Tara Station and yes I know the child ticket says for ages 16 and under but I honestly thought being 17, there was no fuss. Anyway I ended up being hauled by an inspector on the other side and getting a 100 euro fine for for an Invalid Ticket. Personally, I think this is ridiculously unfair. I mean, I did buy a ticket after all. Being 16 or 17,whats the difference? At the end of the day I'm under 18, hence a CHILD. why call it a child ticket if only 16 and under classify. Anyway I'm just a little cheesed off so don't mind my endless ranting. I just want to know what do you all think of this.
Was I right to get the fine or was the inspector just a bitter owl man?

efb

Who (who) knows?

mikemac

What are the age requirements for Child Tickets?
A. Children aged five or more and under the age of sixteen years of age are entitled to purchase a child ticket or fare.

Children under the age of five years are entitled to travel for free on intercity services when accompanied by a fare paying adult provided children do not occupy seats required for fare others passengers.

I'd a long post typed but I'll leave it be
You get more posts tomorrow morning less kind then mine

Here's the rules from their site

Lurching

Generally speaking, persons 16 and under wouldnt have ID, why didnt you just say you had none. He couldnt prove you were over 16 then.

**Timbuk2**

Lurching wrote: »

Generally speaking, persons 16 and under wouldnt have ID, why didnt you just say you had none. He couldnt prove you were over 16 then.

In that case he'd probably be just issued with the fine. These things can be appealed - a person who is genuinely a 'child' (in the eyes of the DART) should find it very easy to prove that he is in an appeal (birth cert, passport, etc.).

Happened to someone I know on the Luas recently - had a child ticket when he was 17. €45 fine. Funny the inspectors didn't give a fine to the junkie (who didn't have a ticket and was quite obviously drunk) down the way from us, just asked him to leave at Stephens Green (they got on at Harcourt Street).

Kedo93

Lurching wrote: »

Generally speaking, persons 16 and under wouldnt have ID, why didnt you just say you had none. He couldnt prove you were over 16 then.

Well I chanced my arm saying I was 16 firstly but then he asked my date of birth. Of course being a person who works horribly under pressure, I said I was born in 1995..making me 15 *facepalm* So I came clean an apologized for lying. I then had to give my details which they checked in a directory book to ensure they were correct.

mikemac

How does the directory book work?

Like does it show your family name and address?

I'm asking as I rent and I'm not registered realy for anything official. You wouldn't find me in a directory

Kedo93

feelingstressed wrote: »

How does the directory book work?

Like does it show your family name and address?

I'm asking as I rent and I'm not registered realy for anything official. You wouldn't find me in a directory

Yeah, the House owners name (my dad) and address. I'm not sure what would happen in your case. Your man threatened me that if those details weren't in the directory, they would have to call the guards. A little extreme I know. :P

AlekSmart

Kedo93 I think this is ridiculously unfair. I mean, I did buy a ticket after all. Being 16 or 17,whats the difference? At the end of the day I'm under 18, hence a CHILD. why call it a child ticket if only 16 and under classify. Anyway I'm just a little cheesed off so don't mind my endless ranting.

Sound Kedo93 I won`t mind it at all,at least you`re aware of what it is.

It`s often overlooked that a Child fare is in fact a "Concessionary" fare and

Each passenger shall produce evidence of his eligibility for travel at concessionary rates where he claims to be so entitled.

..

Seems clear enuf really,but I`m ok with your cheesey feeling cos it`ll get it out of your system at a young age instead of allowing it to fester and poison your attitude to a wider world where folks is havin to pay fer stuff n all....:rolleyes:

seanybiker

You knew when buying the ticket that you where wrong so man up and pay the fine.

AlekSmart

seanybiker wrote: »

You knew when buying the ticket that you where wrong so kid up and pay the fine.

FTFU.....

KD345

Yes, you were right to be fined. You didn't have a valid ticket. Whether or not you agree with it makes no difference. You chose to buy the wrong ticket and you were caught. I know you're probably annoyed, but just pay the fine and put it down to a lesson learned!

Aard

This is more a comment on the 'concession' rates than the OP's case. In France, there are different rates for children, students, under-26s, 'large families', the disabled*, pensioners*, certain social welfare recipients... The list is virtually endless. Even if an under-26s fare were introduced here, I'm sure it would soften the blow as such for commuters on their 17th birthdays.

Also, make the Age Card the standard form of ID. I have never understood the racket of the CIE student travel card.


*Yes, they actually pay!

ted1

i know many people who would take offence to being called a child at seventeen. It's above the legal age to work. Pay the fine and learn a lesson.
Most seventeen year olds drink and visit pubs do you? How do you expect to have the best of both worlds?

Del2005

Kedo93 wrote: »

At the end of the day I'm under 18, hence a CHILD. why call it a child ticket if only 16 and under classify. Anyway I'm just a little cheesed off so don't mind my endless ranting. I just want to know what do you all think of this.
Was I right to get the fine or was the inspector just a bitter owl man?

Turning 18 doesn't make you an adult, all it means is that you can now vote and drink legally, I've know many people over 18 who I'd still consider children.

CIE, or any company. can set whatever age they like for a child, adult etc it's up to you to know the ages, which you did and chanced it anyway, or find out the correct fare to pay.

Yes you where right to get the fine.

ArmaniJeanss

ted1 wrote: »

i know many people who would take offence to being called a child at seventeen.

Seriously off-topic, but I remember about 10 years ago seeing a youngone being refused an adult fare on a Saturday night, with the driver insisting that she should only be paying a 50p fare as she was clearly max 16.
And the girl, (obviously in practice mode for trying to get into the Harp or Blooms), trying to pay £1.20 and claiming that she was 18 - it was all fairly bizarre.

DWCommuter

Im not backing the OP up, but here's a hand grenade.

The concessionary child fare is set at a max limit of 16 years of age. There is a bit of a gap in existence until the age of 17/18 when a student travel card is justified upon entry to third level thereby offering a further concessionary fare. Does anyone else think that the 16 years of age limit is one based on past times when the majority of "children" at that age were actually in some kind of full time employment and not education. Child Benefit is paid out until the age of 17 once said child is in second level education so it looks like the states definition of a child is anyone under 18 years of age. Makes perfect sense really. But CIEs definition is different. And they aren't alone in that.

Maybe the CIE rules need to be updated. I was once a genuine victim of the newly formed DB in 1987. At the age of 15 and travelling on a "half fare" ticket an inspector demanded ID because he was convinced I was over 16. Without trying to be awkward I must say that forms of ID were scarce in 1987 for 15 year olds. Secondary schools didn't issue them. I wasn't in third level and I had no passport. Carrying your birth cert around with you hadn't really caught on:D. I wasn't fined. I was thrown off the bus 5 miles from home. No money and no mobile phones back then. I was fit and healthy and walked. Cursed the fecker into hell, but that was about it. No follow up from my parents about the safety implications. We didn't act like that in the 80s.:D One can only imagine that if this happened now and proof of age was eventually produced, the inspectors actions of throwing a minor off a bus miles from said minors destination, would result in a handy compo payout regardless of rules.

Anyway I think the 16 year limit needs to be looked at combined with some tangible ID scheme.

AlekSmart

DWCommuter wrote: »

Im not backing the OP up, but here's a hand grenade.

But CIEs definition is different. And they aren't alone in that.

Maybe the CIE rules need to be updated.

Anyway I think the 16 year limit needs to be looked at combined with some tangible ID scheme.

A kindofa dud Mills Bomb perhaps DWC ?

The key is the word "Concession" which is not a term universally accepted in this Republic.

If we look across the Irish Ocean to our nearest ancient Oppressor we now witness their "Concessionary" Free Travel scheme in a very real turmoil,as funding to the Local Authorities who operate it,is drying up.

Many LA`s are now increasing other charges in attempts to finance the OAP "concession".

Child and Student Fare increases are but one of the ways this is being addressed so perhaps the youthful Gaels should be happy so far ?

I must confess to having a quite simple system which I regularly use,particularly towards the end of the week.

I would regularly have substantial groups of "Children" tendering 65c of an evening for their journey.

Inevitably they will exhibit total ignorance of the "Rules" surrounding the school-fare and then ask for an 80c....:)

They then delve even further into their resevoir of juvenile angst when I ask them to decide between being a "Child" and leaving their slabs of Bud or bottles of Bacardi behind them OR taking the decision to become an Adult and paying the full-fare...

I have yet to experience a Child willing to leave an alcoholic beverage behind them in order to avail of a concessionary Busfare.

There is,I suspect,a moral in that,which easily solves the age ID puzzler and yet remains totally voluntary in nature...;)

At the end of the day there is NO obligation on any operator to offer a "concessionary" fare to any grouping...just ask Ryanair

stop

DWCommuter wrote: »

Anyway I think the 16 year limit needs to be looked at combined with some tangible ID scheme.

Didn't DB once have some kind of "Scholar" ticket/id for 16/17 year olds?

bitter_lemon

efb wrote: »

Who (who) knows?

twit twoo

MagicMarker

Can someone under 18 even be fined?

Cookie_Monster

you state you knew the rules re tickets and still broke them anyway.
No sympathy at all.

Pay up and move on.

DWCommuter

stop wrote: »

Didn't DB once have some kind of "Scholar" ticket/id for 16/17 year olds?

They still do. Only applies to a 10 journey ticket within certain hours. Normal adult fares apply outside those hours.

cson

**Timbuk2** wrote: »

Happened to someone I know on the Luas recently - had a child ticket when he was 17. €45 fine. Funny the inspectors didn't give a fine to the junkie (who didn't have a ticket and was quite obviously drunk) down the way from us, just asked him to leave at Stephens Green (they got on at Harcourt Street).

Ah the oul Luas discretionary fine. If you look like you can pay it, then we'll fine you. Further to this; we don't waste our time on the Red Line because invariably most of the folk who can afford to pay the fine travel on the Green. I would to see fine yields broken down between the two lines.

bmarley

ted1 wrote: »

i know many people who would take offence to being called a child at seventeen. It's above the legal age to work. Pay the fine and learn a lesson.
Most seventeen year olds drink and visit pubs do you? How do you expect to have the best of both worlds?

That's a flippant generalisation.

Why should one person get a fine of 100 euro and another person get a fine of 45 euro - is there no set fee or does it depend on the mood of the inspector in question? I would write a letter and try to get the fine reduced.

flyingsnail

bmarley wrote: »

That's a flippant generalisation.

Why should one person get a fine of 100 euro and another person get a fine of 45 euro - is there no set fee or does it depend on the mood of the inspector in question? I would write a letter and try to get the fine reduced.

45 is for Luas, 100 is for Irish rail.

corktina

in my home town, you ahve to apply for a card before you can get a reduced fare , any visitors or casual passengers pay full fare w3hatever age they are...unless they are OAPs where they get free travel on the towns buses. Always bugged me whenh I went home with 5 kids and had to spend a fortune on the bus and was the only one paying! All the other passengers were a damn sight better off than me!

Kedo93

Ok well cheers for all the feedback guys but I think some of you are missing the point. I never said I was going to refuse to pay up. I was in the wrong and thats that, Nor am I looking for sympathy. I just wanted to share my view that the current fining system Is a little backward. Like someone said, It makes little sense why someone should be fined 45 euro on the Luas and then get 100 euro for the exact same offence on the Dart. Also I think they should introduce a child fare privileged for those up 18 years of age like in most other countries.

flyingsnail

Kedo93 wrote: »

Like someone said, It makes little sense why someone should be fined 45 euro on the Luas and then get 100 euro for the exact same offence on the Dart.

It probably has to do with the fare levels there are plenty of instances where your Irish rail ticket could have been in excess of 45 euro. To remain a deterrent the penalty for getting caught must be more than the original fare.

Kedo93 wrote: »

Also I think they should introduce a child fare privileged for those up 18 years of age like in most other countries.

They do a 16-25 railcard but I don't know what level of discounts are applied to it. LINK

ted1

the luas is contracted out to private operators the dart isn't. you'll find that the cost of the fines is a combination of number of fines per pasenger issued, the cost of issuing the fines and the cost of collecting the fines as weel as the quantity of non payment. the dart also has trunstiles ad entry points resulting in a higher number ofa ctual paying passengers. if you don't have ticket it is cause you wne tout of your way nto to have one.

the luas is a hop on system where the number of people evading fares is much much higher.

i remember gettign a night luas home a few christams ago, the luas a was full of people singing a conductor gets on shouts "everyone keep it down or i'll come around looking for tickets!!"

amdublin

You have to be 16 or under to use a childs ticket.

You aren't so you got fined.

goingnowhere

Stop trying to create excuses about the system itself being wrong. You made a conscious decision not to pay the correct fare, you got caught pay up.

For those of us who play by the rules the amount of the fine is not a concern. The fine on Irish Rail is set out in law its not a random choice.

AlekSmart

goingnowhere wrote: »

Stop trying to create excuses about the system itself being wrong. You made a conscious decision not to pay the correct fare, you got caught pay up.

I agree with you here goingnowhere.

The very fact that the OP`s still trying to generate a degree of "rage against the machine" actually serves to indicate the robustness of the system itself...?

80% success rate in the Courts,Nuff said ..?

BrianD

Kedo93 wrote: »

Ok well cheers for all the feedback guys but I think some of you are missing the point. I never said I was going to refuse to pay up. I was in the wrong and thats that, Nor am I looking for sympathy. I just wanted to share my view that the current fining system Is a little backward. Like someone said, It makes little sense why someone should be fined 45 euro on the Luas and then get 100 euro for the exact same offence on the Dart. Also I think they should introduce a child fare privileged for those up 18 years of age like in most other countries.

It's really irrelevant. You pressed the button for a child fare when you knew you didn't qualify. If you had been caught we would never of heard from you.

The qualifying age makes no difference. If the age was 18 and you were 17 you could still make the same arguement, what difference does a year make?

I don;t think anybody sees 18 as being the threshold between being a child and an adult. It's really up to the transport body to make their rules. There is no set standard. For example, Airlines have a much lower age definition for a child

DWCommuter

BrianD wrote: »

I don;t think anybody sees 18 as being the threshold between being a child and an adult. It's really up to the transport body to make their rules. There is no set standard. For example, Airlines have a much lower age definition for a child

Airlines are a totally different beast to mere public transport on the ground. Alek Smart tried to play the ryanair card. A pointless argument in my opinion. There is a clear and definable set standard as set down by precedent. Under 16 is when Irish public transport introduces a higher student concession or adult fare. Its based on historic trends. A post junior or rather Inter Cert mentality. Its a throwback to when Ireland spawned a workforce that was post primary cert or inter cert. I believe it should be brought into line with the states definition of a child which in itself is confused. 17 to have sex and with parental and high court consent 16 to get married. I reckon the married bit is more prehistoric baloney. You can't drink alcohol or vote until you are 18. A massive grey area. But the international and accepted definition is simple, accepted and easily understood. 18 is the definition of adulthood. Under that you are a child, so why the 16 age limit on public transport?

The OP was wrong in terms of existing rules, but lets not lose sight of the point I'm making about the age limit on child fares. Its a very obvious example of an area that is ripe for confusion and abuse.

The issue of all these "children" getting on buses or trains with alcohol is an entirely different one and only serves to cloud the point I am making due to personal grievances. I've load of personal grievances but they should never be used to undo discussion about a valid issue.

mgmt

It the op dosn't bother paying the fine, what will happen? Can they bring a minor before the circuit/district court?

DWCommuter

mgmt wrote: »

It the op dosn't bother paying the fine, what will happen? Can they bring a minor before the circuit/district court?

Section 3 of the 2001 Children Act defines a child as under 18. The fine is for travelling with an invalid ticket. (child fare which according to CIE rules cannot be done from the age of 16 and over.)

The OP can be fined at a lower rate in the district court (from my experience of the alcohol laws) but it would be interesting to see what would happen if it went to court.

CIE

Kedo93 wrote: »

Right well this afternoon whilst heading into town, there was no ticket-man at the window in Harmonstown station(no surprise there!) so I had to use the ticket machine. I bought a return child ticket to Tara Station and yes I know the child ticket says for ages 16 and under but I honestly thought being 17, there was no fuss. Anyway I ended up being hauled by an inspector on the other side and getting a 100 euro fine for for an Invalid Ticket. Personally, I think this is ridiculously unfair. I mean, I did buy a ticket after all. Being 16 or 17,whats the difference? At the end of the day I'm under 18, hence a CHILD. why call it a child ticket if only 16 and under classify. Anyway I'm just a little cheesed off so don't mind my endless ranting. I just want to know what do you all think of this.
Was I right to get the fine or was the inspector just a bitter owl man?

You broke the rules, so you were right to get the fine. Those rules (laws, actually) have been in place since before I was born, and I'm middle-aged. You don't get to rewrite the laws, or demand extra-legal treatment, based on your personal feelings.

BrianD

DWCommuter wrote: »

Airlines are a totally different beast to mere public transport on the ground. Alek Smart tried to play the ryanair card. A pointless argument in my opinion. There is a clear and definable set standard as set down by precedent. Under 16 is when Irish public transport introduces a higher student concession or adult fare. Its based on historic trends. A post junior or rather Inter Cert mentality. Its a throwback to when Ireland spawned a workforce that was post primary cert or inter cert. I believe it should be brought into line with the states definition of a child which in itself is confused. 17 to have sex and with parental and high court consent 16 to get married. I reckon the married bit is more prehistoric baloney. You can't drink alcohol or vote until you are 18. A massive grey area. But the international and accepted definition is simple, accepted and easily understood. 18 is the definition of adulthood. Under that you are a child, so why the 16 age limit on public transport?

The OP was wrong in terms of existing rules, but lets not lose sight of the point I'm making about the age limit on child fares. Its a very obvious example of an area that is ripe for confusion and abuse.

The issue of all these "children" getting on buses or trains with alcohol is an entirely different one and only serves to cloud the point I am making due to personal grievances. I've load of personal grievances but they should never be used to undo discussion about a valid issue.

The point I was making is that airlines have a different definition of what a child is for fare purposes. The reality is that there isn't any real definition of what a child is. 18 is only the age a majority for some things such as alcohol purchase and voting. In the states 21 is the age of purchase for alcohol and that doesn't make a 20 year a child. A 15 year can be fully culpable for some crimes and that extends to younger people for certain crimes.

Bottom line is that there is no universal definition so it's up to each operator to set their rules. Childrens Act 2001 has zip to do with it as it has no influence as to how any company defines a child or the cut off age. All it defines is what is a child for the purposes of the document (which mainly concerns legal responsibility and welfare).

AlekSmart

DWCommuter wrote: »

Airlines are a totally different beast to mere public transport on the ground. Alek Smart tried to play the ryanair card. A pointless argument in my opinion. There is a clear and definable set standard as set down by precedent. Under 16 is when Irish public transport introduces a higher student concession or adult fare. Its based on historic trends.

The issue of all these "children" getting on buses or trains with alcohol is an entirely different one and only serves to cloud the point I am making due to personal grievances. I've load of personal grievances but they should never be used to undo discussion about a valid issue.

I`d not describe it as a Personal Grievance at all,nor for that matter the playing of any specific card,except perhaps fair-play.

It`s merely an observation based upon several years experience of the phenomena and is offered without reference to the OP personally.

My "point",if thats what`s required,is that the child,schoolchild or student fare is a concessionary one and operators are not bound to offer it,but most do as a gesture of goodwill and commercial nous.

I cannot see how this can "undo" the discussion re the OP`s question.....

I just want to know what do you all think of this.
Was I right to get the fine or was the inspector just a bitter owl man?

Well Kedo93 now knows what most of the responders think of it,although I do perhaps think that Kedo93`s somewhat gratuitous description of a Revenue Inspector as a "bitter owl man"might in fact be undoing the validity of his/her`s own post ?

DWCommuter

DWCommuter wrote: »

A massive grey area. But the international and accepted definition is simple, accepted and easily understood. 18 is the definition of adulthood. Under that you are a child, so why the 16 age limit on public transport?

lets not lose sight of the point I'm making about the age limit on child fares. Its a very obvious example of an area that is ripe for confusion and abuse.

Can you put up a link of where you found the international and accepted definition? I had no idea there was an internationally accepted definition.

If it turns out there isn't proof for that, I'd have to say that the grey area is there for a reason. No one wakes up one day and is suddenly an adult. Different parts of a person mature at different times. The body's ability to hold alcohol matures at a different time than our ability to work. Hence the age of being able to work is earlier. Even the age at which we can drink is different in certain countries/states, due to different acceptance of what "handling it" means. Many prescription medicines group under 12's together and over 12's together, but that doesn't mean the pharmaceutical group that made them thinks that's a definition of becoming an adult. It's just that different capabilities of the body mature at different times. Clearly, Irish rail thinks that a 17 year old is capable of paying full fare, and personally when I was 17 I didn't have any difficulty.

Someone mentioned it being unfair that at 17 you're too old for child fare, but too young for college student concession. In fact, the student travelcard is available from 4th year in secondary school, so that's just not true.

As for it being an area ripe for confusion and abuse, the OP knew it he was too old for child fare, so it wasn't confusion, and he got reprimanded, so he didn't get to abuse it. The system works. It's just that there will always be some people who think they're exceptions to the rules.

DWCommuter

a child means every human being below the age of eighteen years unless under the law applicable to the child, majority is attained earlier.

http://www2.ohchr.org/english/law/crc.htm

Under the Child Care Act 1991 Act, the Health Service Executive (HSE) has a statutory duty to promote the welfare of children who are not receiving adequate care and protection. The definition of a child is a person under 18 years of age who is not or has not been married.

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/en/birth_family_relationships/services_and_supports_for_children/children_in_care.html

DWCommuter

As for it being an area ripe for confusion and abuse, the OP knew it he was too old for child fare, so it wasn't confusion, and he got reprimanded, so he didn't get to abuse it. The system works. It's just that there will always be some people who think they're exceptions to the rules.

Im not defending the OP. I am merely asking why a child fare is capped at 16 years of age when the definition of a child is a person under 18. Ive provided a UN definition and an Irish definition above. Yes it is a grey area and just because you had no problem paying adult fare at 17, doesn't mean that your circumstances can be used to justify the ability of others to pay it. Anyway all Im interested in now are the definitions of a child and why many industries (not just transport) apply adult charges to under 18s when in Irish law many benefits of adulthood are not available to them.

Del2005

DWCommuter wrote: »

Maybe the CIE rules need to be updated. I was once a genuine victim of the newly formed DB in 1987. At the age of 15 and travelling on a "half fare" ticket an inspector demanded ID because he was convinced I was over 16. Without trying to be awkward I must say that forms of ID were scarce in 1987 for 15 year olds. Secondary schools didn't issue them. I wasn't in third level and I had no passport. Carrying your birth cert around with you hadn't really caught on:D. I wasn't fined. I was thrown off the bus 5 miles from home. No money and no mobile phones back then. I was fit and healthy and walked. Cursed the fecker into hell, but that was about it. No follow up from my parents about the safety implications. We didn't act like that in the 80s.:D One can only imagine that if this happened now and proof of age was eventually produced, the inspectors actions of throwing a minor off a bus miles from said minors destination, would result in a handy compo payout regardless of rules.

It's now against the law to throw a child off a bus so you don't have to worry.

DWCommuter wrote: »

Im not defending the OP. I am merely asking why a child fare is capped at 16 years of age when the definition of a child is a person under 18. Ive provided a UN definition and an Irish definition above. Yes it is a grey area and just because you had no problem paying adult fare at 17, doesn't mean that your circumstances can be used to justify the ability of others to pay it. Anyway all Im interested in now are the definitions of a child and why many industries (not just transport) apply adult charges to under 18s when in Irish law many benefits of adulthood are not available to them.

DB are a semi private company and offering a concession fare on their network. They can set the age limit at whatever age they want as it's their concession fare that they are offering.

DWCommuter

DWCommuter wrote: »

just because you had no problem paying adult fare at 17, doesn't mean that your circumstances can be used to justify the ability of others to pay it.

Just for the record, I didn't mean the ability to pay, I meant the understanding that if I couldn't pay, then I shouldn't get on the dart.

foggy_lad

"They then delve even further into their resevoir of juvenile angst when I ask them to decide between being a "Child" and leaving their slabs of Bud or bottles of Bacardi behind them OR taking the decision to become an Adult and paying the full-fare... I have yet to experience a Child willing to leave an alcoholic beverage behind them in order to avail of a concessionary Busfare."

Ah alexsmart I remember fondly an auld conductor on the 66s back when we could smoke on top who would not give us child/half fares if he saw us smoking. And then there was the standard fare of 10 pounds that was introduced, iirc up to that you would just pay the full fare for the route if caught without a ticket.

CIE

DWCommuter wrote: »

Im not defending the OP. I am merely asking why a child fare is capped at 16 years of age when the definition of a child is a person under 18. Ive provided a UN definition and an Irish definition above. Yes it is a grey area and just because you had no problem paying adult fare at 17, doesn't mean that your circumstances can be used to justify the ability of others to pay it. Anyway all Im interested in now are the definitions of a child and why many industries (not just transport) apply adult charges to under 18s when in Irish law many benefits of adulthood are not available to them.

Equivocation. The bus rule is clearly different. They can set their own rules. They could charge adult fares at age 12 if they so determined.

HarryPotter41

DWCommuter wrote: »

Im not defending the OP. I am merely asking why a child fare is capped at 16 years of age when the definition of a child is a person under 18. Ive provided a UN definition and an Irish definition above. Yes it is a grey area and just because you had no problem paying adult fare at 17, doesn't mean that your circumstances can be used to justify the ability of others to pay it. Anyway all Im interested in now are the definitions of a child and why many industries (not just transport) apply adult charges to under 18s when in Irish law many benefits of adulthood are not available to them.

Yor definition of a child is soneone under 18 who is not or has not being married. So to apply your definitions we would have ticket booths asking if people under 18 were married so as to go by the definition of a child. Plenty of U18's are doing part time work and this is probably taken into account by companies offering concessionary fares.

Hilly Bill

Kedo93 wrote: »

Right well this afternoon whilst heading into town, there was no ticket-man at the window in Harmonstown station(no surprise there!) so I had to use the ticket machine. I bought a return child ticket to Tara Station and yes I know the child ticket says for ages 16 and under but I honestly thought being 17, there was no fuss. Anyway I ended up being hauled by an inspector on the other side and getting a 100 euro fine for for an Invalid Ticket. Personally, I think this is ridiculously unfair. I mean, I did buy a ticket after all. Being 16 or 17,whats the difference? At the end of the day I'm under 18, hence a CHILD. why call it a child ticket if only 16 and under classify. Anyway I'm just a little cheesed off so don't mind my endless ranting. I just want to know what do you all think of this.
Was I right to get the fine or was the inspector just a bitter owl man?

Because the ticket office wasnt manned you decided to fraud Irish Rail so how is it unfair when you was caught?

kaizeriiish

just wanna say to the people who said i had no chance of my appeal being successful, becuz i was an adult (16years old) and had a child ticket, well in your face Veola sended me a letter that i no longer have to pay
so HA!
dont tell people next time that appealing is pointless or that they wud just ignore a letter of appeal because u have a chance aslong u knw u right and no mean of breaking the law.

AlekSmart

kaizeriiish wrote: »

just wanna say to the people who said i had no chance of my appeal being successful, becuz i was an adult (16years old) and had a child ticket, well in your face Veola sended me a letter that i no longer have to pay
so HA!
dont tell people next time that appealing is pointless or that they wud just ignore a letter of appeal because u have a chance aslong u knw u right and no mean of breaking the law.

Did we miss something here kaizeriiish,what was your specific case...?

Refresh our elderly memories here....You were an Adult travelling (Knowingly ?) on a Child ticket ?

You appealed to Veolia on the grounds that you did'nt know wrong from right ?...or you did know wrong from right but did'nt consider it wrong enough to be breaking the law ?

Perhaps you could tell us what Veolia said in the letter they sended to you ??

EDIT: Just spotted the OP's other thread on this topic.
Apologies for the ommission !