Can children travel on adult tickets?

[MrJeeves]

If I wanted to do this my argument would be that the NRCoT doesn't define an adult

No, but the conditions of the ticket, which has been pointed out many times, does define an adult for that ticket as being 16+.

 

[43066]

What definition of "adult" are you using?

The railway doesn't use the same definition as the world outside the railway (18 or over for most purposes).

Moreover (and I am happy to be corrected) I don't think it's written down anywhere that only people 16 years of age or older can be adults for the purposes of this restriction? It seems anything but clear to me. It's left undefined and ambiguous.

If I wanted to do this my argument would be that the NRCoT doesn't define an adult, it just says you are entitled to a discounted child ticket if you are under 16. It doesn't say you might have to pay more because you are under 16. It doesn't say under 16s can't travel on an adult ticket and, purely by dint of travelling on an adult ticket, be regarded as an adult for the purposes of ticket restrictions, group discount conditions etc.

If I worked for the railway and wanted to stop people doing this (and I can't imagine why we'd want to, frankly) then I would argue it is implicit in saying that only under 16s qualify for child discount, that anyone 16 or over is (for purposes of rail tickets) an adult and therefore the group doesn't confirm to the conditions of the family travelcard. But if that is the railway's interpretation of it's restriction then it would be better if the restriction specified exactly what is meant by "adult".

I’m not going to get into the usual pointless hair splitting.

It’s very obvious what’s intended (ie kids travelling with a parent or other adult 16+) and using the ticket in a way other than intended might well lead to issues.

 

[Haywain]

Moreover (and I am happy to be corrected) I don't think it's written down anywhere that only people 16 years of age or older can be adults for the purposes of this restriction? It seems anything but clear to me. It's left undefined and ambiguous.

Can I refer you to post #9?

 

[redreni]

No, but the conditions of the ticket, which has been pointed out many times, does define an adult for that ticket as being 16+.

So it does, sorry, I should have spotted that.

On that basis I agree - the restriction defines an adult and a 15 year old can't qualify.

It seems at odds with the general policy of charging children less than adults rather than more, but I accept that doesn't alter the restriction.

 

[Deerfold]

What definition of "adult" are you using?

The railway doesn't use the same definition as the world outside the railway (18 or over for most purposes).

Moreover (and I am happy to be corrected) I don't think it's written down anywhere that only people 16 years of age or older can be adults for the purposes of this restriction? It seems anything but clear to me. It's left undefined and ambiguous.

If I wanted to do this my argument would be that the NRCoT doesn't define an adult, it just says you are entitled to a discounted child ticket if you are under 16. It doesn't say you might have to pay more because you are under 16. It doesn't say under 16s can't travel on an adult ticket and, purely by dint of travelling on an adult ticket, be regarded as an adult for the purposes of ticket restrictions, group discount conditions etc.

If I worked for the railway and wanted to stop people doing this (and I can't imagine why we'd want to, frankly) then I would argue it is implicit in saying that only under 16s qualify for child discount, that anyone 16 or over is (for purposes of rail tickets) an adult and therefore the group doesn't confirm to the conditions of the family travelcard. But if that is the railway's interpretation of it's restriction then it would be better if the restriction specified exactly what is meant by "adult".

Yes.

When I was a schoolchild, there was a local travel ticket for students. It it specifically said it was only available for those over 18. When I was 14, that restriction was removed and I started using it as it was cheaper to get to school than paying half fare on every individual bus and train (and I started making a *lot* more leisure journeys). But that was clearly a change they meant to do (and I'm not sure why the restriction was ever there).

If I go to the official railcard website I see a button to click on for "full eligibility and usage terms".

Are you eligible - Family & Friends Railcard

www.familyandfriends-railcard.co.uk

It says (in full):

Travelling with a child aged 5-15?​

Two adults can be named as cardholders on your Family & Friends Railcard. The two adults don't need to travel together but you do need to be travelling with at least one child between the ages of 5 and 15 to be eligible for the discount. What's more, up to four adults and four children can travel on the same card and receive the savings. You don’t need to be related either, so it’s great for big fun days out.



The great news is that if you’re with kids under 5, they travel completely free. Each adult can have up to two ‘under 5s’ with them. But if there’s only one child in the group and they’re under 5, you’ll need to buy them a child ticket to be eligible for the Family & Friends discount. And remember that all child fares are subject to a £1 minimum fare.



If your little one turns 16 before your 1-year Family & Friends Railcard runs out, they can still travel at the discounted child fare for as long as the card is still valid.



If you’ve got a 3-year Railcard and your child turns 16 before it runs out, they can carry on travelling at the discounted child rate until the day before they turn 17.

There's nothing there about an adult having to be over 16, but it does say they're the full usage terms. So presumably, one could could buy travelcards at the discounted rates using this railcard?

Are they worse than the "Family Travelcard" product?

 

[redreni]

Yes.

When I was a schoolchild, there was a local travel ticket for students. It it specifically said it was only available for those over 18. When I was 14, that restriction was removed and I started using it as it was cheaper to get to school than paying half fare on every individual bus and train (and I started making a *lot* more leisure journeys). But that was clearly a change they meant to do (and I'm not sure why the restriction was ever there).

If I go to the official railcard website I see a button to click on for "full eligibility and usage terms".



View attachment 158060

Are you eligible - Family & Friends Railcard

www.familyandfriends-railcard.co.uk

It says (in full):


There's nothing there about an adult having to be over 16, but it does say they're the full usage terms. So presumably, one could could buy travelcards at the discounted rates using this railcard?

Are they worse than the "Family Travelcard" product?

They might be the full usage terms of the railcard, but you also have to comply with the conditions of the ticket.

E.g. if you buy a Network Railcard-discounted off-peak return ticket on a weekday, the ticket restrictions might say travel after 09.30 is fine, but the Network Railcard conditions say not before 10am and you have to comply with both.

 

[Deerfold]

They might be the full usage terms of the railcard, but you also have to comply with the conditions of the ticket.

E.g. if you buy a Network Railcard-discounted off-peak return ticket on a weekday, the ticket restrictions might say travel after 09.30 is fine, but the Network Railcard conditions say not before 10am and you have to comply with both.

I think you've misunderstood me. I was suggesting buying a number of Adult and Child Travelcards with a Family railcard rather than buying the "Family Travelcard" product. This should not break any rules, but I don't know how it compares financially.

 

[Haywain]

There's nothing there about an adult having to be over 16, but it does say they're the full usage terms.

Terms and conditions:

4.1. One Railcard will be issued to up to two people aged 16 years or over.

There are several further mentions of "adults aged 16 years and over".

 

[Deerfold]

Terms and conditions:

There are several further mentions of "adults aged 16 years and over".

Where are you quoting that from? It's not in the "full eligibility and usage conditions" I linked to above.

 

[Haywain]

Where are you quoting that from? It's not in the "full eligibility and usage conditions" I linked to above.

It's in the Family Railcard terms and conditions. If in doubt, the T&Cs of any product are always the place to look.

 

[Deerfold]

It's in the Family Railcard terms and conditions. If in doubt, the T&Cs of any product are always the place to look.

So, the Railway is being misleading, again? Why would you be in any doubt after checking the full eligibility and usage conditions?

 

[island]

So, the Railway is being misleading, again? Why would you be in any doubt after checking the full eligibility and usage conditions?

I think it's generally well-known that the full terms and conditions of a product or service should be read and checked as they will contain full specifics.

 

[redreni]

But those T&C's don't say you can't apply for the Railcard if you're under 16. They just don't say a Railcard will be issued to you.

If, despite that, the Railcard was issued to an applicant under 16 years of age, it'd be a bit of a reach to claim the consumer, rather than the TOC, had breached the Railcard's T&C's, wouldn't it?

 

[Haywain]

But those T&C's don't say you can't apply for the Railcard if you're under 16. They just don't say a Railcard will be issued to you.

I think you're stretching the imagination a bit with that.

 

[infobleep]

I think so.


I don't understand why the frequency of use has any impact on the question.


I don't understand what makes the forum's site specific to this question.

If you tell the forum's site that 1 adult and 5 children are travelling (as per your scenario), it will sell you tickets that match this, as would any other site.


Liable for what?

I actually disagree. The rules refer to ages and not ticket type.

If they were all 15 or under, they wouldn't be an adult in terms of the rules.

Practically they wouldn't be able to tell if one of them wasn't 16 though.

That isn't saying a child can't buy an adult ticket and lawfully travel on it, just that they are not an adult even if they do.

I may be wrong on this, but this is how I read it and for avoidance of doubt, so far I've only read up to this reply.

 

[Deerfold]

I think it's generally well-known that the full terms and conditions of a product or service should be read and checked as they will contain full specifics.

That's true. However the one I linked to described itself in very similar terms. Many people would read "full eligibility and usage conditions" as being synonymous, even if they might be technically wrong to do so. Having found that page, I was surprised to find other restrictions that aren't mentioned there. If using that website you've to make several more steps before the actual terms are given as an option to read (and you can just click to say you've read them - say, you think you already have...).

 

[redreni]

I think you're stretching the imagination a bit with that.

I don't think it's very well written, put it that way.

If it means to say you have to be 16 otherwise you are not allowed to buy this type of Railcard and if you do manage to buy it, you're still not entitled to the discounts it offers, then it could be an awful lot clearer about that. Looking at condition 4.1, the only obligation imposed on the customer appears to be that they have to provide the names of the cardholder(s) at the time of purchase. The rest of it is just a description of what the TOC will and won't do (i.e. they will issue it to up to two persons aged 16 or over and they won't let you add a second name later), but there's nothing to suggest that it would put the customer in breach of the T&Cs if the TOC did, in fact, issue it to a person under 16 (entirely plausible - the T&Cs don't even expressly state that they can't) or (less likely) agree to add in a second name after issue.

I think it would be entirely reasonable for a ticket office or back office to refuse an application on the basis that an applicant is under 16. But I also think if the Railcard was issued to a person under 16, I'm not at all sure there's anything in the T&Cs to say they can't then use it.

 

[infobleep]

That's true. However the one I linked to described itself in very similar terms. Many people would read "full eligibility and usage conditions" as being synonymous, even if they might be technically wrong to do so. Having found that page, I was surprised to find other restrictions that aren't mentioned there. If using that website you've to make several more steps before the actual terms are given as an option to read (and you can just click to say you've read them - say, you think you already have...).

Under the Consumer Rights Act, all key terms must be prominent. No idea if any of this is key.

 

[WAB]

I don't think it's very well written, put it that way.

If it means to say you have to be 16 otherwise you are not allowed to buy this type of Railcard and if you do manage to buy it, you're still not entitled to the discounts it offers, then it could be an awful lot clearer about that. Looking at condition 4.1, the only obligation imposed on the customer appears to be that they have to provide the names of the cardholder(s) at the time of purchase. The rest of it is just a description of what the TOC will and won't do (i.e. they will issue it to up to two persons aged 16 or over and they won't let you add a second name later), but there's nothing to suggest that it would put the customer in breach of the T&Cs if the TOC did, in fact, issue it to a person under 16 (entirely plausible - the T&Cs don't even expressly state that they can't) or (less likely) agree to add in a second name after issue.

I think it would be entirely reasonable for a ticket office or back office to refuse an application on the basis that an applicant is under 16. But I also think if the Railcard was issued to a person under 16, I'm not at all sure there's anything in the T&Cs to say they can't then use it.

Would there be any obligation to carry proof of age to prove eligibility for adult tickets, rather than vice versa?

 

[thedbdiboy]

No, but the conditions of the ticket, which has been pointed out many times, does define an adult for that ticket as being 16+.

We are in Edge Case City here - these Conditions won't have been written the specific intention of excluding the scenario of 'responsible 15 year olds'. The key test is whether the interpretation is being applied to subvert the intended nature of the product, which is to incentivise family groups to travel. For practical purposes, as long as the holder of the Adult ticket acts and behaves in a responsible manner (and doesn't look about 8 years old) no one is going to care or check and there is absolutely no requirement to travel with proof of age.

 

[redreni]

We are in Edge Case City here - these Conditions won't have been written the specific intention of excluding the scenario of 'responsible 15 year olds'. The key test is whether the interpretation is being applied to subvert the intended nature of the product, which is to incentivise family groups to travel. For practical purposes, as long as the holder of the Adult ticket acts and behaves in a responsible manner (and doesn't look about 8 years old) no one is going to care or check and there is absolutely no requirement to travel with proof of age.

That sounds about right to me.

(Although I do find it amusing to imagine a world in which there was a strict, written requirement to act and behave in a responsible manner attached to these tickets - I've seen plenty of parents who are clearly in their 40s who would struggle, quite frankly, to convince me they were conforming to that one!)

 

[tspaul26]

We are in Edge Case City here - these Conditions won't have been written the specific intention of excluding the scenario of 'responsible 15 year olds'. The key test is whether the interpretation is being applied to subvert the intended nature of the product, which is to incentivise family groups to travel.

That sounds about right to me.

I have refrained from getting involved in this thread so far, but the above is quite simply wrong as a matter of law.

The starting point is to give the words of the contract their plain and ordinary meaning.

In this case, the general conditions state (in relevant part):

Off-Peak Family Travelcard is valid only when at least 1 Adult (16+) and 1 Child (5-15 years) is travelling together.

The ordinary meaning of this is perfectly clear: the ticket is only valid if at least one person aged 16+ is travelling. There is accordingly no room for any of the fanciful creative ‘interpretations’ which have been advanced in this thread, whether on the basis of ‘subversion’ or otherwise.

For practical purposes, as long as the holder of the Adult ticket acts and behaves in a responsible manner (and doesn't look about 8 years old) no one is going to care or check and there is absolutely no requirement to travel with proof of age.

This is the practical reality of the matter, as long as at least one of the children is capable of behaving in a mature manner and is so perceived by staff.

 

[redreni]

I have refrained from getting involved in this thread so far, but the above is quite simply wrong as a matter of law.

I think you might want to read the post I was responding to again. It says nothing about contract law, it says nobody will care and it gives reasons. At least, that's how I interpret it and that's what sounds about right to me.

To be clear, I don't think a group that doesn't include anyone over 16 years of age can validly travel on an Off-Peak Family Travelcard because (as I failed to spot originally but have since accepted) that is against the ticket restrictions.

I don't think the position is as clear if the group has separate tickets discounted using a Family & Friends Railcard because the restriction there is that the group must include the named cardholder (or one of them). The T&Cs suggest you won't be able to become a named cardholder on that Railcard if you are under 16 (though it doesn't expressly state you can't), and all I'm saying is if, despite this, a 15 year old was a named cardholder and travelled on an adult ticket with a group of children then I struggle to see what rule they'd have broken?

I doubt anyone is saying it would be possible to win a formal contractual dispute by speculating that there wouldn't have been an express intention to prevent responsible 15 year olds supervising a family excursion. That's merely a basis for judging how likely it is that anyone would attempt to enforce any of these rules, howsoever construed.

 

[tspaul26]

I think you might want to read the post I was responding to again. It says nothing about contract law

Ahem:

these Conditions won't have been written the specific intention of excluding the scenario of 'responsible 15 year olds'. The key test is whether the interpretation is being applied to subvert the intended nature of the product

This part of the post is specifically saying (incorrect) things about contract law.

 

[thedbdiboy]

I have refrained from getting involved in this thread so far, but the above is quite simply wrong as a matter of law.

The starting point is to give the words of the contract their plain and ordinary meaning.

In this case, the general conditions state (in relevant part):

Off-Peak Family Travelcard is valid only when at least 1 Adult (16+) and 1 Child (5-15 years) is travelling together.

The ordinary meaning of this is perfectly clear: the ticket is only valid if at least one person aged 16+ is travelling. There is accordingly no room for any of the fanciful creative ‘interpretations’ which have been advanced in this thread, whether on the basis of ‘subversion’ or otherwise.


This is the practical reality of the matter, as long as at least one of the children is capable of behaving in a mature manner and is so perceived by staff.

I said absolutely nothing to suggest that the combination was valid in contract law. All I said was that when the terms and conditions were written they wouldn't have been designed to deal with these circumstances.

I used the phrase 'they key test' to refer to the judgement call made by staff on the ground when a decision is made to whether to investigate use of tickets. I was not referring to the phrase in any legal sense.

No - the Terms and Conditions as worded don't allow use by a party consisting of Under 16s. But in real life no one would ever question or interrogate a group who were on the border of being 16 who made use of it.

 

[43066]

I have refrained from getting involved in this thread so far, but the above is quite simply wrong as a matter of law.

The starting point is to give the words of the contract their plain and ordinary meaning.

In this case, the general conditions state (in relevant part):

Off-Peak Family Travelcard is valid only when at least 1 Adult (16+) and 1 Child (5-15 years) is travelling together.

The ordinary meaning of this is perfectly clear: the ticket is only valid if at least one person aged 16+ is travelling. There is accordingly no room for any of the fanciful creative ‘interpretations’ which have been advanced in this thread, whether on the basis of ‘subversion’ or otherwise.

It would be good if this post could be made a sticky given some of the “fanciful” interpretations certain forum members like to adopt!

I used the phrase 'they key test' to refer to the judgement call made by staff on the ground when a decision is made to whether to investigate use of tickets. I was not referring to the phrase in any legal sense.

That’s odd because, in the context in which you used it, you appeared to be opining on the intention behind some contractual conditions!

 

[redreni]

There you go. If somebody says they think the key test is X but it is ambiguous what they think X is the key test of, there will always be those who will read more into the statement than is there.

Much like if a clause in some T&Cs says a Railcard will be issued to up to two people aged 16 or over, there will always be those who read extra stuff into that statement, such as that it can't be issued to persons under 16 or that a cardholder under the age of 16 wouldn't be entitled to use the Railcard.

For what it's worth I agree that we should generally stick to the plain meaning of what people, or the RDG or TOCs, actually say.

 

[thedbdiboy]

That’s odd because, in the context in which you used it, you appeared to be opining on the intention behind some contractual conditions!

I am not arguing with the contractual conditions. I was opining on the intention behind them because I was involved years back when the product was introduced and I therefore can state with some degree of insight that there was no specific intention to exclude this scenario - it was designed as an adult + child product and took those definitions because we have no effective under 16 criteria to define responsible person. Nevertheless it is indeed there in the Ts & Cs.

Maybe it's simpler just to say in response to the OP's question
- No, the Ts & Cs don't allow it. In reality, no one is going to care in the slightest.

 

[Somewhere]

Whether there is a definition of "adult" that means anything other than "passenger with a valid adult ticket" is another question, mind you?

Especially as the legal definition of an adult is someone 18 and over. So someone 16 years old has to have an adult ticket despite being a child, so can they take reduced rate children with them with these tickets?

 

[Bletchleyite]

Especially as the legal definition of an adult is someone 18 and over. So someone 16 years old has to have an adult ticket despite being a child, so can they take reduced rate children with them with these tickets?

Yes, because they specifically define an adult as 16+.