Received a court notice for a ticket I know nothing about

[Fawkes Cat]

So I am now just thinking of not responding to them at all. The letter has a wrong surname and not even more correct door number and clearly the only way this second letter has made it to my house is down to the post man. If I hand the letter back to the post office with a "not known at this address' on it, should that be the end of it?

Please see my post of 0919 this morning (#21 above). I really think that if you just ignore this issue, it won't go away.

 

[AlterEgo]

The OP's angle is basically that:

- Their surname is recorded correctly
- They were allegedly accused of being on a "train heading to Slough"
- There may be CCTV evidence
- The inspector's notebook clearly records his exact plans for that afternoon as part of the interview,

But:

- The first name is wrong and the address has an extra digit, so will this go away and can I avoid addressing the issue?

I recommend to the OP that if the person stopped really was not you, that you follow the advice @Fawkes Cat gave, which is comprehensive.

If it was you, then you should contact the prosecutions office to settle the outstanding amount without delay.

Doing nothing is not an option.

 

[KieranDel]

The OP's angle is basically that:

- Their surname is recorded correctly
- They were allegedly accused of being on a "train heading to Slough"
- There may be CCTV evidence
- The inspector's notebook clearly records his exact plans for that afternoon as part of the interview,

But:

- The first name is wrong and the address has an extra digit, so will this go away and can I avoid addressing the issue?

I recommend to the OP that if the person stopped really was not you, that you follow the advice @Fawkes Cat gave, which is comprehensive.

If it was you, then you should contact the prosecutions office to settle the outstanding amount without delay.

Doing nothing is not an option.

Thank you for your advice. So you are essentially saying that some way or another the prosecution will track me at my correct address if I ignore the letter?

 

[Darandio]

Your behaviour and responses in no way suggest it wasn't you, you are hoping they don't catch up with you. Hardly the angle of an innocent party.

So yes, either way it needs to be dealt with. If it isn't you then there is nothing to worry about. If it is you then they can track you down if you ignore it.

 

[AlterEgo]

Thank you for your advice. So you are essentially saying that some way or another the prosecution will track me at my correct address if I ignore the letter?

Yes. You need to address the situation either way.

 

[KieranDel]

Your behaviour and responses in no way suggest it wasn't you, you are hoping they don't catch up with you. Hardly the angle of an innocent party.

So yes, either way it needs to be dealt with. If it isn't you then there is nothing to worry about. If it is you then they can track you down if you ignore it.

thank you for your help

 

[KieranDel]

Yes. You need to address the situation either way.

thank you for your help

 

[6Gman]

So I am now just thinking of not responding to them at all. The letter has a wrong surname and not even more correct door number and clearly the only way this second letter has made it to my house is down to the post man. If I hand the letter back to the post office with a "not known at this address' on it, should that be the end of it?

Since you are perfectly innocent* I don't think that is wise.

The advice given by cuccir in #4 seems spot on to me. Write (or call, or both) to explain that it wasn't you, and why it couldn't be you, and somebody has clearly tried to give your details. And that you believe that should close the matter.

The danger in just returning/ ignoring the correspondence is that if they choose to pursue the matter - which they might - and you then offer the same explanation they might reasonably ask why you didn't explain this at the outset.

* I am taking your account at face value since I have no reason to doubt your word.

 

[221129]

It's all well and good ignoring correspondence until a summons is issued and you're found guilty in absentia and the additional problems that will incur.

 

[6Gman]

I'm not suggesting it's the individual's job to write back; but that it's probably sensible.

The TOC hasn't "cocked up" - they've been given a name and address, which they have followed up.

 

[MichaelAMW]

I'm not suggesting it's the individual's job to write back; but that it's probably sensible.

The TOC hasn't "cocked up".

My view on this is that the TOC has made little or no effort to confirm the accuracy of the iinformation provided, but they have treated the inormation as if it is absolutely true. The "accused" should not be expected to have to do any more than make "little or no effort" in the face of that - it's completely unreasonable to expect someone to move mountains in the face of a random and ubsubstantiated accusation where the TOC cannot [be bothered to] verify their so-called evidence.

If, in fact, the problem is that it is hard for a TOC to prove who someone is then they can't just act like they actually do have proof. They need to find some other way of doing things properly. Under "little or no effort" I would include a simple reply to say it's not me and a request to close the matter.

 

[talltim]

It's all well and good ignoring correspondence until a summons is issued and you're found guilty in absentia and the additional problems that will incur.

But it would be Kevin at number 66 who was found guilty in absentia...

 

[robbeech]

Perhaps there’s an Oyster card history to show you tapping out at Ealing Broadway on the day.

I appreciate people shouldn’t have to go out of their way when they’ve done nothing wrong but surely someone would want to see the person who has done this charged accordingly. I know I certainly would.

If I received a letter suggesting I had done something like this I’d be interested in 2 things happening. 1, for them to be made aware, quite simply that it wasn’t me and they’d made a mistake and 2, for them to catch the person who did it and to make sure that any penalty is of a level high enough to include the false detail saga that started it all off.

My general views are we can only go on what we are told, there do seem to be some facts that aren’t clear here but people have offered advice in good faith.
If for whatever reason it was you and you’re trying to get out of it then all I can say is, that’s disappointing. If you look in this section of the forum, you’ll see lots of threads where someone comes along and admits they did something bad and asks for advice. They get given good advice, and they (hopefully) learn not to do it again. They’re not really judged, they’re told what to expect and what to do. It would be a real shame if it turns out it was you and you didn’t want to admit it. So let’s asume you are honest as we have no reason to think otherwise. It’s up to you what you choose to do, as always you’ll get a variety of different views but a good selection of ideas that you can choose from.

 

[Signal Head]

Personally I would prefer to explain it at the outset rather than go through all that unpleasantness.

But each to their own ...

Does not always work.

I was getting mithered by automated calls from a debt coercion agency a few years ago. Definitely not for me, and the name given in the call wasn't that of anyone associated with the address, going back over 30 years.
I emailed them and told them they were chasing the wrong person. The calls stopped Then started again a year later.

Eventually, having left more voicemail messages on their system, I got to speak with a real person, whose attitude I took exception to, who then 'accused' me of living at the wrong address! (ie they had the wrong phone number for the address they were actually chasing, so no risk of bailiffs at my door).

He was informed that any further calls from his company would result in my paying a visit to their office, and that they 'would not enjoy the experience', followed by a robust invitation to go forth...

Result, no more calls!

 

[cuccir]

A debt collection agency is very different from a single justice procedure notice though. The former have to go through a long process to have any legal power and they'd have to establish identity during this time; if the latter is misguidingly attached to an individual, which can happen without any involvement of that person, then it has full legal force with significant consequences that can possibly be undone but with a bit of effort.

Sending the thing back saying "not me, don't know him" might work. Taking 5 minutes to bash out a more elaborate response is more likely to work. As I think has been emphasized, lying in either case is unlikely to work.

 

[js1000]

My view on this is that the TOC has made little or no effort to confirm the accuracy of the iinformation provided, but they have treated the inormation as if it is absolutely true. The "accused" should not be expected to have to do any more than make "little or no effort" in the face of that - it's completely unreasonable to expect someone to move mountains in the face of a random and ubsubstantiated accusation where the TOC cannot [be bothered to] verify their so-called evidence.

If, in fact, the problem is that it is hard for a TOC to prove who someone is then they can't just act like they actually do have proof. They need to find some other way of doing things properly. Under "little or no effort" I would include a simple reply to say it's not me and a request to close the matter.

But it would be Kevin at number 66 who was found guilty in absentia...

Generally agreed with both.

If you know you have done nothing wrong* and what the TOC has stated in their letter cannot possibly be you (i.e. you were elsewhere and not on the train/in the vicinity named in the letter) then it shouldn't be up to you to waste your time and potentially money to help them.

*if what you are saying in the OP is true

 

[Essan]

Despite all the comments above, surely the fact - so far as we know - is that the OP has not been accused of anything.

He simply opened someone else's post that was delivered to him by mistake.

Meanwhile, Kevin at no.66 is probably wondering why he still hasn't received the court summons he was expecting .....

 

[big all]

Despite all the comments above, surely the fact - so far as we know - is that the OP has not been accused of anything.

He simply opened someone else's post that was delivered to him by mistake.

Meanwhile, Kevin at no.66 is probably wondering why he still hasn't received the court summons he was expecting .....

thats the other problem
opening a letter by mistake is an error
opening a letter that you know is not you can be a criminal offense so opening further letters can have other consequences

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

opening a letter that you know is not you can be a criminal offense so opening further letters can have other consequences

This is not entirely accurate. It is only during the course of transmission of post that Sections 83(1)(a) and 84(1)(a) of the Postal Services Act 2000 make it an offence to open a letter without reasonable excuse (i.e. a reasonable excuse is mandatory). Once a letter is no longer within the postal system, Section 84(3) applies instead. This adds an important further bar, being that the person opened the letter with intent to cause detriment.

Therefore, merely opening a (delivered) letter that you know is not addressed or intended for you, is not an offence.

 

[island]

If the letter does not relate to you and is addressed to a different name at a different door number on your street, why don’t you simply put it through that door?

If the letter does relate to you (i.e. you made the journey referred to) but the details on the letter are for whatever reason incorrect, this is a different matter.

 

[big all]

certainly wouldnt know the finer points
but is a letter considered delivered if not to the correct person at a correct premises ??

 

[ForTheLoveOf]

certainly wouldnt know the finer points
but is a letter considered delivered if not to the correct person at a correct premises ??

Yes, it is considered delivered once it leaves the postal system, whether at the intended addressee's address or not.

 

[silverfoxcc]

Have you got google timeline working on your phone?

It is a Godsend..As an aside in even showed the daty trip we took to Denmark and Sweden in Sept AND differentiates between car, train and aircraft journeys Possibly even ferries and liners as sell!

 

[tiptoptaff]

Have you got google timeline working on your phone?

It is a Godsend..As an aside in even showed the daty trip we took to Denmark and Sweden in Sept AND differentiates between car, train and aircraft journeys Possibly even ferries and liners as sell!

The usefulness of location data has been discussed before, and ultimately, it's next to useless.

 

[talltim]

The usefulness of location data has been discussed before, and ultimately, it's next to useless.

It depends. As evidence on its own I'd agree, but as a reminder to yourself it could be invaluable.
'I have no idea what I was doing on 27 Oct last year'
'Ah my phone says I was on a ferry in Denmark'
'And here are the tickets'

 

[londonbridge]

Does not always work.

I was getting mithered by automated calls from a debt coercion agency a few years ago. Definitely not for me, and the name given in the call wasn't that of anyone associated with the address, going back over 30 years.
I emailed them and told them they were chasing the wrong person. The calls stopped Then started again a year later.

Eventually, having left more voicemail messages on their system, I got to speak with a real person, whose attitude I took exception to, who then 'accused' me of living at the wrong address! (ie they had the wrong phone number for the address they were actually chasing, so no risk of bailiffs at my door).

He was informed that any further calls from his company would result in my paying a visit to their office, and that they 'would not enjoy the experience', followed by a robust invitation to go forth...

Result, no more calls!

Reminds me of an early morning when I had overslept and only had a short time to get the bus or I would be late for work. Was jogging along when I was stopped by the police who said they were hunting a burglarly suspect who apparently matched my description and was wearing jeans and a black jacket. Despite explaining that I was running late and was wearing my uniform plain black trousers and a black jacket, they insisted on holding me whilst they fetched the woman who'd house had been burgled, who took one look and said 'no, that's not him'. One of the officers then started moaning that the real suspect was getting away whilst they were wasting their time with me, to which I replied "who's stupid fault is that'? as I walked off.

 

[RPI]

Bear in mind also that GWR RPIs wear body cameras so they'll have footage of the actual person who gave the details