Mein Junge ist vorletzte Woche alleine Zug gefahren hat sich vertan stieg in den falschen Zug. Heute kam ein Brief die verlangen doch tatsächlich 60 Euro von einem 10 Jährigen weil er aus versehen aus dem Verkehrsverbund rausgefahren ist so eine dreiste Frechheit er ist doch noch ein Kind
(1 votes)
Loading...Hey , ich habe momentan einen Minijob (Schüler) und habe vor kurzem meinen Arbeitsvertrag unterschrieben (Seitdem arbeite auch erst dort). Mir ist klar, dass ich dann jeden Monat die Lohnabrechnungen schicken muss. Aber kriegt das Jobcenter durch den Arbeitsvertrag automatisch mit, dass ich momentan arbeite? Ich habe echt keine Ahnung, aber eigentlich müssten die doch…
Hallo, ich hoffe ihr könnt mir helfen ich bin aus südtirol und in einer total ratlosen situation, mein Stiefvater hatte immer schon eine aggressive seite,er hatt mich und meine mutter immer spüren lassen wenn er zu viel stress auf der arbeit hatte da hatt er uns angeschriehen und namen genannt und wenn wir nicht alles…
es gibt ja Frauenhäuser und Männer dürfen da ja net rein wie ist das dann eigentlich mit den Kinder wenn die 18 sind gelten sie ja als erwachsen dürfen die dann immer noch ins Frauenhaus rein. ( auch da wohnen)
Hallo, mein Paypal Account wurde vor zwei Jahren eingeschränkt. Bedeutet ich kann keine Überweisungen tätigen und nichtmal meine hinterlegte Kreditkarte, geschweige denn meinen Account löschen. Ich kenne bis heute den Grund für die Einschränkung nicht ( Ja ich war zu dem Zeitpunkt bereits 18 und nein ich mein Konto war niemals im minus). Nun wurde…
Wie viel Wohngeld zahlt ihr euren Eltern wenn ihr eine Ausbildung anfangt ? Ich müsste ihnen nichts zahlen aber ich möchte sie Fairness halber unterstützen wenn ich schon Geld verdiene und bei ihnen wohne und bei ihnen esse etc.
Well, I wouldn’t pay.
Does the train have a debt because the train was on the wrong track at the wrong time?
You have equipped your child with the right ticket and instructed accordingly. With this you have fulfilled your supervisory duty and no claim can arise against you.
The child, which is only limited to business, shot a new contract with the wrong train. The child was neither capable nor entitled to take this contract. Thus, the contract is not valid and there is no right to increased transport money. It could at best be the ‘inclusive of an achievement’ within the meaning of a criminal offence. A 10-year-old Kibd is not criminal.
You write to the railway: “I object to your request and reject the request. The child was equipped with a suitable ticket for the intended journey. The fact that the child was wrong is not in my fault. A judgment of a German court is required in order to enforce its forderubg. ‘
That’s gonna be a little bit back and forth. If it comes to trial, you’ll have a lawyer. Until then, no significant costs are incurred in the worst case. You’re not allowed to give up on time.
Right. That is why a written objection is sufficient. Make it clear that your son is not used to driving alone by public transport, that he is still in the learning phase where mistakes are made and belong to them. Moreover, he is only 10 years old and has not deliberately and intentionally made the wrong driving.
Please, the Transport Federation to look away from a penalty.
It worked with my daughter.
Well. This happens when you drive without a valid ticket. Even if you’re 10, it doesn’t change.
Maybe it makes sense to have a 10 year old not alone unknown ride. Bzw. The first paintings to drive the tracks together so that something like that does not happen.
The dishes look different:
https://www.anwalt.de/rechtstipps/minderjaehriger-ohne-fahrschein-kein-erhoehtes-befoerderderderderderzulaessig_127497.html
Basically, you don’t need to respond to letters and write the web in this connection, because this would cost you don’t get back.
The demand for increased transport money is not legally permissible. In the last consequent, the web can initiate a “mass method”. Only when you get mail from the ghetto and not before, you have to react and apply simple opposition. In the oral proceedings, the railway must then justify its claim to the claims and prove what is not given.
so: breathe calmly through the pants and sit out.
Okay. I have to withdraw my statement. I was wrong. Thanks for the correction.
The 60€ (increased transport fee) are designed as a contractual penalty. In order for a contractual penalty to be enforced, a contract must first be concluded. This is known to be problematic in children (§§ 106 ff. BGB). As a rule, transport companies cannot enforce this requirement against minors.
It is true that one would have to deal more closely with the circumstances of the individual case and in particular look at one another. At first glance, however, the chances for you are quite good.
Simply inform the traffic operators that your son is 10 and thus cannot conclude contracts without your consent. I would expressly refuse the approval of the contract. Any other post of them should be obsolete. Only when post of the District Court comes, should you react.
Hello HolgerPetermann
Contrary to what is in most other answers, you don’t have to pay for it alone because your son is still minor.
Share the respective mode of transport with your son, due to his age, only legal transactions can be concluded which will not cause him any disadvantages and therefore cannot be imposed on a contractual penalty.
https://www.anwalt.de/rechtstipps/minderjaehriger-ohne-fahrschein-kein-erhoehtes-befoerderderderderzulaessig\_127497.html
PS: I would even say that even an adult would not have to pay in such a case, as he has definitely moved to the scope of another transport network and has therefore not deliberately agreed to his transport requirements at any time.
Of course, an adult would have to be able to make the mistake credible.
LG
Darkmalvet
At the last point, I’m not entirely with you. In an adult, one can presume that he is informed.
the statement with the adult is of course wrong. It has nothing to do with negligence. The rest is to be agreed.
The consideration behind this is the following:
With the conscious entry into a means of transport, the terms of transport of the respective transport network are agreed by contract.
If you are unintentionally out of the road network, you have never agreed to the conditions of transport of the other road network.
So where do you see the basis for a contractual penalty where should the conclusion of the contract take place?
That would be a case that can be solved at best by a contest.
Compared to contracting, this is already an exception because the consent is implicitly accepted by entering the means of transport.
In most cases, since entry is desired, it is of course possible in these cases to conclude an objective contract.
But I am talking about a case where entry (a means of transport of the other network) is already unintentional.
If the error is credible in court, it can also happen that tracks are exchanged or display boards are defective or faulty, I do not see a basis for the legality of a contractual penalty.
If you take your view consistently, then you could not conclude contracts because everyone could claim that he did not know that he has signed a contract through his action.
Therefore, the objective recipient is placed on the basis of §§ 133, 157 BGB. In principle, it doesn’t matter what the person thinks – apart from a few exceptions – as long as you have to proceed objectively from a contract conclusion.
This is exactly the case when you get in the train. I mean, even if you cross a tariff line. Even if no new contract is required for this.
For minors, an increased transport fee is not enforceable, at most the cost of a simple journey.
Why?
See the link of Darkmalvet.
I’ve read on the Internet something about a principle that someone didn’t have to pay who was asleep and didn’t want to go there. But is an adult then a proof question and judgement look out on the Internet.
I have to say bad luck. I was sure “black. ‘
After that, children could always use the “open” without paying. That’s why it’s fine with the 60 euros. Darkmalvet makes you a little bit too easy here in which he says you don’t have to pay.
Theoretically, you should take a lawyer. So that the individual case can be tested. Can go well for you and you don’t pay the 60 euros. Or you’ll also pay the attorney fees.
I’d just try to explain the situation in traffic companies. But if you’re starting to get rid of a nasty, you’d bite me on granite. Thanks to it, the sound is the music.
Why? The transport company wants money, not the questioner!
The company must justify, in the event of a complaint, why the majority rule of law of the official and regional courts which have dealt with the issue over the last 50 years is wrong and the claim of the operation of transport for Conventional penalty should be a higher legal entity than minor protection.
So I’d be stubborn and say, diplomatically, the train can go to the knee and try to sue the contribution.
In this case, it can be clearly stated that it was really the error of a non-executive and non-criminal child. The ride certainly had some purpose, e.g. to go to the grandma or what I know. If the boy has risen to the wrong train, the journey could not fulfill its purpose. He will certainly not have been on his way without a ticket, but with the ticket for the connection he actually wanted to drive to get to his destination.
And that’s exactly what you should say to the transport companies in a friendly way.
Just let the thing be based on itself and don’t pay, can go hugely back..
Where do I make it too easy by putting the facts on the table?
A friendly contradiction with reference to, for example, the article by attorney.de and the statement that it happened unintentionally (while not even necessary) are completely sufficient.
If the opposite side wants money she has to look for a lawyer and check the individual case in court is not different.
In order that children and young people do not repeatedly drive black again, there is still the criminal record “Encouragements”. Can not be punished in children (under 14) but at some point goes to the Youth Office.
Being based definitely doesn’t work. A written objection is absolutely necessary. And it is not only written that you deny the payment, but also in detail why and you will disclose further details that serve the exact description of the situation and the increase of credibility.
He had no valid ticket. So the increased transport fee is due. This is indicated in each car MHRFACH. What’s wrong with that? Others also pay their ticket.
From Jura, the Hans still doesn’t have that much idea, does it?
For a 10 year old, the same applies to a teenager or an adult.
If you get caught without a valid ticket to use public transport, you get a penalty (for a child/ teenager, as a substitute the parents).
Whether this happened consciously or the one (child/younger/adult) got out of mistake into the wrong vehicle.
It is not three times, it is merely a fixed provision that does not make any exception. Not with a child or a young person, neither with a disabled person nor with a non-disabled person, neither with a young adult or with a senior.
You can try to stay friendly and factual at the following telephone contact/write traffic with the competent transport companies. To be able to purify history in this way.
And if it doesn’t help, you still have to pay the full sentence – well then this is a teaching for all those involved in the future.
This is not the case for a 10 year-old because he cannot agree to a contractual penalty due to the limited viability:
https://www.anwalt.de/rechtstipps/minderjaehriger-ohne-fahrschein-kein-erhoehtes-befoerderderderderderzulaessig_127497.html
As a parent, therefore, there is the possibility of clarifying it at a quiet/ factual level by telephone and in writing with the competent transport companies.
He is a child who requires the supervision of the guardians and you missed them. That is why the fine is not directed to him, but to you.
Parents are liable for their children.
Shit. In several respects the answer is simply grossly wrong!
Well, I’d like to see the judge suing a 10-year-old.
For being lawful and lawful, you really have no idea about the BGB.
A 10-year-old child is allowed to take train alone and does not have to be supervised 24/7.
Yeah, he can, and then he’ll still be liable if something goes wrong.
No, they don’t.
In the time false answers are repeated, they are not more correct, even if the US President sometimes seems to represent this view.
A judge never sues anyone. First mistake. Secondly, of course, 10 year old children can be sued. Second mistake.
Errors 3 and 4 can be found in your answer. Parents shall not be liable for their children, nor shall the penalty be directed to parents.
ignorance does not protect against punishment.
He’s just 10
Right. Then why would you let him go by himself if he obviously doesn’t get along with it?
Then why is he driving train alone?
This means ignorance does not protect against punishment.
No, it’s not. It is a popular wisdom (also known as “redensation”) in ancient German from the Latin translation of the original “ignorantia legis non excusat”, which were traded in a remnant form.
This is not a punishment, it is the increased charge of conspiracy.
Reading a 10-year-old should already be possible.
I’ve had one in my hand before, yes.
Hmm reads books?.
But seemingly not to write correctly.
He went without a valid ticket.
It costs 60 euros. Also for children…
He didn’t do it on purpose
You have to pay the ticket even when it comes to fire.
That’s what everyone’s gonna say. The controller could have been more cunning, but it does not have to
The dishes see this differently just children don’t have to pay this:
https://www.anwalt.de/rechtstipps/minderjaehriger-ohne-fahrschein-kein-erhoehtes-befoerderderderderzulaessig\_127497.html
You should read your own links in more detail. The case refers to the home forgetting the ticket. Not around without tickets
Xd
Yes
The thing with the right read
In response, turnmami is fast
Not at all.
If you had read attentively, you would know that there was a fight against minors in principle no increased transport allowance may be required.
I would like to give you the appropriate passage from the text:
And what exactly is the question now?