The OP is suspicious as he has already been lied to once concerning the electoral roll.
He could be just giving them the details they'd need to prosecute him, height appearance etc, which would then magically match what they have for the offender.
-
Our booking engine at tickets.railforums.co.uk (powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Someone used my details!
- Thread starter rhythm_doctor
- Start date
- Status
The OP is suspicious as he has already been lied to once concerning the electoral roll.
He could be just giving them the details they'd need to prosecute him, height appearance etc, which would then magically match what they have for the offender.
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
It takes a certain amount of cynicism to believe that the TOC has a blank form waiting for the OP's details in order to fill them in.
If someone is that suspicious then simply ask for the TOC to confirm the details they have on record already before providing your own.
Edit: As to the electoral roll issue, it could simply be that the TOC initially said "Our inspectors check the electoral roll." since as a matter of course they will do that, then on subsequent investigation they found that the guard hadn't been able to in this specific instance.
Last edited:
There may be a totally innocent explanation but for the TOC to make incorrect assertions tends to fuel that cynicism.
When RPIs are checking they ring to confirm name and address though I cant remember if that is the ER that they check or some other database so depending on when the OP left the address it may not have been updated as of yet.
WelshBluebird
Established Member
- Joined
- 14 Jan 2010
- Messages
- 4,923
"that they checked the electoral roll". So if it was some other database the OP was still lied to.
Doesn't stop some organisations accepting them as ID though.
We have just had to get a background check done at work due to a new project and despite what you have correctly said, one of the forms of ID accepted was an NI card.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
Access to the full electoral register is very tightly regulated, so if someone is not on the open register (and about 55% of adults aren't) then "checking the electoral roll" will achieve very little. Credit reference agencies have access to the full register, but only for the purpose of assessing credit worthiness. I do not know if either IRCAS or RPSS have access to the full register for the purpose of preventing crime; I don't think they should, but nothing would surprise me with how the government cosy up to those two dodgy companies.
I agree the OP is probably being needlessly cynical about his personal information, but given some of the things seen on here recently I don't blame him. I don't think I'd trust the TOCs to tell me the time.
I agree the OP is probably being needlessly cynical about his personal information, but given some of the things seen on here recently I don't blame him. I don't think I'd trust the TOCs to tell me the time.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Just give them the details they ask for!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Correct!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Correct!
Last edited:
Although I should point out that I was speculating rather than advising.
matt_world2004
Established Member
- Joined
- 5 Nov 2014
- Messages
- 4,504
Do you have proof that you were somewhere else, at the time of this alleged fare evasion? If So I would hold off for now providing them details until the TOC has provided you with more details. I would request CCTV evidence of the alleged fare evader, and claim that it is so you can pursue an police action for identity theft.
My understanding is that "the railway" does have access to the full register.
I wonder if the electoral roll issue is confusion rather than conspiracy in any case.
I suspect it went something like this:
rhythm_doctor
Member
I called the BTP today and they weren't interested, they said it is up to the train company to provide CCTV
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Pretty much like that, then they said he might have tried to call their office but had no signal which is feasable
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I rang HMRC today to let them know after a 34 minute wait what had happened with my NI number and now they want me to write them a letter stating what has happened... I can't be arsed with all this, it has nothing to do with me, just give me the CCTV so the offender can be caught!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I left that address 7 years ago but am still the home owner, my mother just lives there...
cjmillsnun
Established Member
- Joined
- 13 Feb 2011
- Messages
- 3,254
That is poor. Not good at all. BTP know full well that the TOC has every right to deny you access to the CCTV if you claim you weren't there, as if you genuinely weren't, they would be in breach of the DPA.
If you know you are innocent, I would go back to the TOC and state that you can prove your whereabouts at the time in question, and that you believe that the fare evader has given false details using your stolen ID. State that you have tried to involve BTP (if you took the name of the person from BTP who spoke to you, even better), but for them to be able to investigate further, they would require the statement from the RPI and CCTV evidence.
My guess is they will back down. Hopefully they will agree to provide BTP with any information, if so, you then get back on the horn to BTP and tell them that Mr/Ms X at the TOC would be more than willing to cooperate in providing them with CCTV. Hopefully then this sorry episode can be put to bed.
And my apologies for my earlier post, but as you must guess, the Shaggy defence (it wasn't me) is one that has been heard by ITAL/TOC prosecution departments (and pretty much every law enforcement people) many, many times before.
Last edited:
rhythm_doctor
Member
Many thanks for this, I shall proceed again tomorrow well actually in a few hours as I can't seem to sleep with all the crap floating round my head, I would have probably handed over my documents in the beginning if the lady hadn't insinuated I was a liar... I don't know what has happened now since I sent my driving licence after calming down as the last e mail I received they said it had been sent to the TOC... Oh and thanks for the apology
Peter Mugridge
Veteran Member
It would be wise to formally notify HMRC in writing, ideally via Special Delivery so that you have proof of delivery, because if someone else is using your NI number they could well cause you far worse problems later on than they can with their fare dodging.
Asking for CCTV so far after the event is a bit of a moot point, even today with digital recording systems, CCTV is typically only kept for a couple of weeks anyway.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
I have worked with Ital before and was told that the verification service was effectively the same as that used by credit reference agencies, i.e. a mixture of electoral roll data and information about outstanding finance.
So as the home owner you will have a mortgage under your name yes? As Mojo has mentioned above this is what they would've got confirmation of then.
ETA: If you want this to go away quickly then assist them with any information you can to help the problem go away quickly. If not then its just going to go on for ages and youll be frustrated even more imo.
I'm not here to defend BTP but this sort of thing happens all the time and clearly they just don't have the time or resources to investigate every such incident.
They seem to be saying that it's up to the TOC to prove that it was the OP by providing CCTV footage which doesn't seem unreasonable to me although I appreciate it can be a time consuming process.
It seems that the OP has done all that he can reasonably do and really shouldn't be losing any sleep over it.
They aren't even issued any more.
Indeed. When I was assaulted, and reported to the police the following day, the somehow managed to miss the window of opportunity to review CCTV footage - and only told me they'd missed the chance some considerable time later when, unsurprisingly, they said they intended to take no further action.
The officer on my case must have been rushed off his feet for the 30 odd days he probably had.
This was an assault so it doesn't surprise me they'd have even less interest in something like this.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
To repeat, they will NOT provide you with the CCTV, as they have no right to do so.
All you are being asked to do is put it in writing, if that is typical of your attitude I don't see why anyone should help you.
dcsprior
Member
Is that technically correct? People have the right to request CCTV footage of themselves - as the person filmed in this case will have identified themselves as the OP, it'd seem logical that the OP has the right to request the footage.
Not that this changes the fact that the quickest way to resolve this would be to answer the TOC's questions.
Although they have already said it is not them so where does that leave it? Grey area? probably. Doubt they have it now though
The OP is seeking to see the CCTV to prove that it is not them, so they are effectively asking to see CCTV of someone else. Though, what would refusal by the TOC to provide the CCTV on that grounds mean for their case? Hmm....
Surely that is the whole point of CCTV? They don't necessarily have to show it to the OP.
Oh, I know that. I'm just looking at the legal ramifications of the OP making a data subject request. In order for the OP to make a DSR he would need to claim that he is in the footage. But he's claiming that he wasn't there and so therefore couldn't be in the footage (and has no right to claim it).
If the TOC provided the footage as a result of the OP claiming he wasn't there then they would be in breach of the DPA. But if they refuse to provide it on that basis, then it undermines their case that it was the OP.
I think this is a Mexican stand-off!
Surely the ball is in the TOC's court so to speak?
Llanigraham
On Moderation
Correct. Which is why they have asked him for his description. They can look at the CCTV to see if there are any similarities.
The CCTV image is incredibly clear cut here. Unless the image you request is of your self you are quite simply not entitled by law to view it. CCTV profilers doing a decent job will release footage of incidents to people who request it with other people pixcelated. This will only be done with evidence that the person requesting it is who they say they are, often with photographic evidence coupled with substantiated times and a very valid reason for requesting it. There is more to the process that I will not go into that stops dead fishing expeditions by stalkers who want to check what train their partner was actually on.
This sort of request is sometimes used by people to prove they were where they said they were for exactly this scenario, but the OP needs to find that for where he really was, not where he was not. These days it is getting rarer for individuals to request stuff like this as the police have already done it or use other sources of proof that are less cumbersome.
There have been cases where people like to see loved ones taking lastvtrips which have sometimes been released but only after very very thorough investiagtion and with pigmentation of others including people they were with...
The only way you will ever see the image of the person who was stopped and penalty fared is if you can get the police involved, anyone else showing it to you would be in very deep water.
This sort of request is sometimes used by people to prove they were where they said they were for exactly this scenario, but the OP needs to find that for where he really was, not where he was not. These days it is getting rarer for individuals to request stuff like this as the police have already done it or use other sources of proof that are less cumbersome.
There have been cases where people like to see loved ones taking lastvtrips which have sometimes been released but only after very very thorough investiagtion and with pigmentation of others including people they were with...
The only way you will ever see the image of the person who was stopped and penalty fared is if you can get the police involved, anyone else showing it to you would be in very deep water.
But by doing that they'd be admitting reasonable doubt and might as well abandon the whole process at that point.
- Status