Article: Bus drivers ditch children in violation of rules

[ozbob]

From the Courier Mail click here!

Bus drivers ditch children in violation of rules

Bus drivers ditch children in violation of rules
Article from: The Courier-Mail

Ursula Heger

September 10, 2009 12:00am

A 14-YEAR-OLD schoolboy has been left behind on a semi-rural road by a Brisbane bus because the driver refused to break a $20 note.

The incident was the second serious case in a month for Brisbane Transport after a 10-year-old girl was left stranded in Mt Gravatt.

The boy's father, Nick Smith, told The Courier-Mail he had dropped his son Joshua off on Meadowlands Rd at Carina early last month, with a $20 note to pay for his week of bus trips to school.

But the boy, who was dressed in school uniform, was told by the driver he would have to leave the bus because there was not enough spare change to break the note.

"He had a $20 note and then the driver said to him that he couldn't change the note and that he had to get off the bus," Mr Smith said.

"I had to pick him up and then take him down to Cannon Hills bus terminal . . . but where he was on Meadowlands Rd there are no shops or things close to hand for him to get change.

"Being in full school uniform, showing his ID and being of a relatively minor age, I felt it was extremely disappointing that the decision was made not to let him on, given the problems that we have had in the past."

Both TransLink and Brisbane City Council have a "no child left behind" policy, which states that children of school-age or younger cannot be left behind by buses regardless of whether they are carrying the sufficient fare.

Mr Smith said his wife had rung TransLink to complain, and was told the driver had the right to refuse entry if passengers were not carrying the correct fare.

"Initially when we complained, my wife actually rang them and they said, 'Look, passengers do have to tender the right change ? there is a sign on the bus'," he said.

"If it was an adult, or if he was abusive or the behaviour was not appropriate you would understand but he did nothing wrong, he was very upset, very shaken and quite disappointed that he wasn't allowed to get on the bus."

A spokesman for TransLink said yesterday incidents of children being left behind were "very serious" and the driver had been disciplined but not sacked.

"In this instance, following a thorough investigation by Brisbane Transport and TransLink, the driver involved has been disciplined and counselled and an apology has been issued to the child's parent," he said.

Public and Active Transport chair Jane Prentice said a memo had been sent to council drivers, reminding them of the "no child left behind policy".

"I understand the latest incident was after we sent the alert but the bottom line is that it is not acceptable behaviour."

[#Metro]

It's important.

You don't want something bad to happen because they were left behind over a measly $2.00 or whatever.

[p858snake]

um... how can the driver legally refuse? under our currency laws you can't refuse legally defined tender execpt:

Paying more than $5 with silver coins or 10 times the face value of the note.

Of course then there is the ethical issues of leaving the kid at a "empty" area as well....

[#Metro]

This wouldn't happen if they all had goCard!

[ButFli]

um... how can the driver legally refuse? under our currency laws you can't refuse legally defined tender execpt:

Paying more than $5 with silver coins or 10 times the face value of the note.

Legal tender is only "legal tender" for payment of a debt. Bus trips are paid for in advance so a bus driver can demand any form of payment they like.

[ozbob]

Indeed BuFli

See --> http://www.rba.gov.au/currencynotes/legalframework/legal_tender.html

LEGAL TENDER

The Concise Oxford Dictionary defines legal tender as ?currency that cannot legally be refused in payment of debt (usually up to a limited amount for baser coins, etc.)?.

It is the Bank?s understanding that, although Australian currency has legal tender status, it does not necessarily have to be used in transactions and that refusal to accept payment in legal tender notes and coins is not unlawful. This is the case even where an existing debt is involved. However, a refusal to accept legal tender in payment of an existing debt, where no other means of payment/settlement has been specified in advance, conceivably could have consequences in legal proceedings, i.e. the creditor may be unable to enforce payment in any other form.

It appears that the provider of goods or services is at liberty to set the commercial terms upon which payment will take place before the ?contract? is entered into. For example, some toll collection points indicate by signs that they will not accept low denomination coins. If a provider of goods or services specifies other means of payment prior to the contract, then there is usually no obligation for legal tender to be accepted as payment.

According to the Reserve Bank Act 1959, Australian notes are legal tender. According to the Currency Act 1965, coins are legal tender for payment of amounts which are limited as follows:

    * not exceeding 20c if 1c and/or 2c coins are offered (however, it should be noted that these coins have been withdrawn from circulation but are still legal tender);
    * not exceeding $5 if any of 5c, 10c, 20c and 50c coins are offered;
    * not exceeding 10 times the face value if coins in the range 50c to $10 inclusive are offered; and
    * to any value if coins of value greater than $10 are offered.

These general comments are offered only as a guide and should not be taken as legal advice. If further clarification is required, you should obtain legal advice.

[STB]

If I may make an assumption, and correct me if I'm wrong, if you handover a note that is ten times more than the actual cost and assuming the kid was only travelling 1 zone one way ($1.20) a $20 note is more than ten times that cost, and hence whatever service you are getting the provider of that service has a right of refusal and to ask you to break that note, is it not?

I must say though in this scenario, there are people out there, kids included who do genuinely rort the system by handing large notes to the driver in the hope of scoring a free ride.  It doesn't appear to be in this case, but at the same time, what message does it send to the kid if the driver takes them regardless, even if they cannot pay their fare?  Would this send a message to the kid, that if I give a large note to the driver I won't have to pay anyway, and I can get a free ride? 

It's a damn if you do and damn if you don't situation.

[ozbob]

As I read the RBA's comments STB, all notes are legal tender, it is coins that the 10 times limit applies in terms of coins being legal tender.

However,

It appears that the provider of goods or services is at liberty to set the commercial terms upon which payment will take place before the ?contract? is entered into. For example, some toll collection points indicate by signs that they will not accept low denomination coins.

This is perhaps why prepaid  bus services are permitted.

I think it is incumbent on TransLink and all operators to spell out clearly what the limits are for onboard purchase of tickets.  For example the maximum denomination note that can be presented is say $20.   TransLink has a policy that no child is to be left behind.  To avoid abuse of this policy it may be necessary to record details of the child and collate this centrally.  It would then become clear if there was abuse.

If a driver is not able to change the $20 then the punter travels free.  Have a clear and defined policy.

This would be the best for all, punters and drivers.

[p858snake]

Legal tender is only "legal tender" for payment of a debt. Bus trips are paid for in advance so a bus driver can demand any form of payment they like.

Wouldn't it be classed as a debt once the ticket is issued since your now oweing the company money even though your still technically paying in advance?

This wouldn't happen if they all had goCard!

Then the card wouldn't read and he would be refused :p

As I read the RBA's comments STB, all notes are legal tender, it is coins that the 10 times limit applies in terms of coins being legal tender.

However,

It appears that the provider of goods or services is at liberty to set the commercial terms upon which payment will take place before the ?contract? is entered into. For example, some toll collection points indicate by signs that they will not accept low denomination coins.

This is perhaps why prepaid  bus services are permitted.

I think it is incumbent on TransLink and all operators to spell out clearly what the limits are for onboard purchase of tickets.  For example the maximum denomination note that can be presented is say $20.   TransLink has a policy that no child is to be left behind.  To avoid abuse of this policy it may be necessary to record details of the child and collate this centrally.  It would then become clear if there was abuse.

If a driver is not able to change the $20 then the punter travels free.  Have a clear and defined policy.

This would be the best for all, punters and drivers.

Or all students that traveling on discounts be given a gocard instead of those other cards that they get given, even if each trip automatically gets charged at 0.

[#Metro]

Hmm. Keep the $20 or $50 note. Take their name/details. Give them a slip.
They can claim the change from Translink at some later time and wait for it.

I know this is annoying, but hey. They can wait!

[WTN]

Hmm. Keep the $20 or $50 note. Take their name/details. Give them a slip.
They can claim the change from Translink at some later time and wait for it.

I know this is annoying, but hey. They can wait!

Haha, that's a good idea, but why not give them a go card instead?  The cards could be preloaded with $20 or $50, and the fare deducted from that.  If they don't like the go card, they can refund it!

I'm sure Translink will like the fact that it'll drive up their number of go cards issued stats.

[Emmie]

I think you might be on to something, tramtrain and WTN - a clever solution that bears working out further.  It doesn't have to take much time - because the cards don't have to be registered to a particular user - and it certainly gets around the problem of kids (or others) deliberately trying it on to get a free fare.

[ButFli]

Legal tender is only "legal tender" for payment of a debt. Bus trips are paid for in advance so a bus driver can demand any form of payment they like.

Wouldn't it be classed as a debt once the ticket is issued since your now oweing the company money even though your still technically paying in advance?

I'm not quite sure what you're getting at. You choose to buy a ticket. You hand money to the driver, he hands you change and a ticket. There is no debt there. If the bus driver refuses your money you get off the bus and everything is square.

An example of where a debt arises is a restaurant. You order and eat your food and pay as you leave. You can't square things up without paying. If they refuse the payment you tender you can't just walk out of the restaurant to fix things. You still owe them money. That is a debt.

[justanotheruser]

Hmm. Keep the $20 or $50 note. Take their name/details. Give them a slip.
They can claim the change from Translink at some later time and wait for it.

I know this is annoying, but hey. They can wait!

Only problem with this is the father said in the article the $20 was for the entire weeks travel. So if the driver kept the $20 and the boy claimed the change later what would he pay with the rest of the week?



And could someone explain more clearly to me what the bit about 10 times the face value of the note in the policy on legal tender means. I wasn't very clear on that.

[ozbob]

According to the Reserve Bank Act 1959, Australian notes are legal tender. According to the Currency Act 1965, coins are legal tender for payment of amounts which are limited as follows:

   * not exceeding 20c if 1c and/or 2c coins are offered (however, it should be noted that these coins have been withdrawn from circulation but are still legal tender);
   * not exceeding $5 if any of 5c, 10c, 20c and 50c coins are offered;
   * not exceeding 10 times the face value if coins in the range 50c to $10 inclusive are offered; and
   * to any value if coins of value greater than $10 are offered.

According to the Reserve Bank Act 1959, Australian notes are legal tender.

Coins have some limitations.

No lawyer, but I think this means that if you are paying with $1 coins these can be used to pay up $10, if using $2 coins up to $20. If paying with 5c, 10c, 20c and 50c coins only then up to $5.  

If you were using a $100 coin or something (although these don't exist in circulation as far as I know) they are legal tender for any amount.  

Then if using 50 cents,  $1 and $2 coins up to $20.

[#Metro]

If someone handed me $100 coin, I would not know what to do.
It would be a nice (but annoying) prank! 

[justanotheruser]

No lawyer, but I think this means that if you are paying with $1 coins these can be used to pay up $10, if using $2 coins up to $20. If paying with 5c, 10c, 20c and 50c coins only then up to $5.  

If you were using a $100 coin or something (although these don't exist in circulation as far as I know) they are legal tender for any amount.  

Then if using 50 cents,  $1 and $2 coins up to $20.

thanks bob seems clearer