Someone used my details!

WelshBluebird · 8 Jan 2016

grid56126 said:
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.

Of course this is assuming CCTV images still exist, but surely if the ToC don't think an image is of the OP then how on earth can they prosecute the OP for being that person? And if they it does exist and they do think it is the OP (hence the prosecution) then by law the OP can view it.

Surely the situation is:
1 - The image is of the OP, in which case the OP is entitled to see it. The OP has lied to us and the ToC is right to prosecute.
2 - The image is not of the OP, in which case the OP is not entitled to see it. But the ToC are wrong to prosecute as they have the wrong person.

Obviously there is the potential situation of CCTV not existing, in which case I am not sure what point the OP providing a description to them would be? Unless it is to compare with a statement from staff, but in that case I would be wary as the OP is because staff can lie / statements can become fuzzy (certainly the only time I had to give a statement to the police my description of the person ended up being pretty wrong!!).

The easiest way to sort this out IMO would be a way of proving you were elsewhere. Receipts, bank / credit card statements showing purchases etc. Failing that I think you would have to cooperate really (and I guess not cooperate could be seen as suspicious anyway).

RailUK Forums

rhythm_doctor · 9 Jan 2016

Llanigraham said:
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.

It was a spur of the moment comment because of my frustration, i shall write a letter, it's just I have too much going on... TOC have now said the CCTV is only kept a month so they don't have it anymore...

grid56126 · 9 Jan 2016

WelshBluebird said:
Of course this is assuming CCTV images still exist, but surely if the ToC don't think an image is of the OP then how on earth can they prosecute the OP for being that person? And if they it does exist and they do think it is the OP (hence the prosecution) then by law the OP can view it.

Surely the situation is:
1 - The image is of the OP, in which case the OP is entitled to see it. The OP has lied to us and the ToC is right to prosecute.
2 - The image is not of the OP, in which case the OP is not entitled to see it. But the ToC are wrong to prosecute as they have the wrong person.

Obviously there is the potential situation of CCTV not existing, in which case I am not sure what point the OP providing a description to them would be? Unless it is to compare with a statement from staff, but in that case I would be wary as the OP is because staff can lie / statements can become fuzzy (certainly the only time I had to give a statement to the police my description of the person ended up being pretty wrong!!).

The easiest way to sort this out IMO would be a way of proving you were elsewhere. Receipts, bank / credit card statements showing purchases etc. Failing that I think you would have to cooperate really (and I guess not cooperate could be seen as suspicious anyway).

The only way the OP will ever see the CCTV image is if it is him and it is produced in court by the TOC as evidence, there is no debate in this matter, it is law. The ifs buts why and wherefores are irrelevant. Before CCTV these types of cases still existed and were and still are investigated in many different ways.

34D · 9 Jan 2016

rhythm_doctor said:
It was a spur of the moment comment because of my frustration, i shall write a letter, it's just I have too much going on... TOC have now said the CCTV is only kept a month so they don't have it anymore...

So telling them you're 5'6" with blue eyes won't really help?

rhythm_doctor · 10 Jan 2016

Just letting it all take it's course, I'm innocent so I have nothing to worry about, apparently they only keep CCTV for a month, the offence was back in Oct, but I didn't get a penalty farr notice until December...

furnessvale · 10 Jan 2016

rhythm_doctor said:
Just letting it all take it's course, I'm innocent so I have nothing to worry about, apparently they only keep CCTV for a month, the offence was back in Oct, but I didn't get a penalty farr notice until December...

You have absolutely nothing to worry about.

The TOC had evidence (CCTV) which could have proved your innocence.

THEY chose to destroy that evidence before court.

Simply go to court when summoned and ask them to produce their "unused material". When they cannot do so the case must be thrown out.

najaB · 10 Jan 2016

furnessvale said:
The TOC had evidence (CCTV) which could have proved your innocence.

There's been a lot of talk about CCTV so I may have missed it: has the TOC actually claimed that they have CCTV of the offender or are we just assuming that they do based on rhythm_doctor's request for it?

andykn · 10 Jan 2016

grid56126 said:
The only way the OP will ever see the CCTV image is if it is him and it is produced in court by the TOC as evidence, there is no debate in this matter, it is law. The ifs buts why and wherefores are irrelevant. Before CCTV these types of cases still existed and were and still are investigated in many different ways.

Don't they have to supply any evidence they want to use in court to the defendant first?

Andrewlong · 10 Jan 2016

Clip said:
I believe so yes. And they are not the hardest of cards to forge either.

I don't think you get cards anymore - simply a letter from the DWP - anyway this was the case with our son who is now 19. We have scanned the letter and given him a copy & we have kept the master copy here!

furnessvale · 10 Jan 2016

andykn said:
Don't they have to supply any evidence they want to use in court to the defendant first?

For Crown Court yes, not over sure about magistrates.

Similarly, for Crown, they have to supply a list of unused material to the defendant for Crown Court. Even if they don't supply the list, or the CCTV is missing from the list, the defendant can ask for it.

In this case, where ID is disputed, CCTV is crucial evidence and the knowledge that a TOC had destroyed it would see any case thrown out.

Scotty · 10 Jan 2016

rhythm_doctor said:
I'm innocent so I have nothing to worry about

In your eyes. In the TOCs eyes, they have evidence (the NI number) that you do have something to worry about.

najaB · 10 Jan 2016

furnessvale said:
In this case, where ID is disputed, CCTV is crucial evidence and the knowledge that a TOC had destroyed it would see any case thrown out.

Again, do we know for a fact that the TOC had CCTV that they would have conclusively identified the offender?

Haywain · 10 Jan 2016

najaB said:
There's been a lot of talk about CCTV so I may have missed it: has the TOC actually claimed that they have CCTV of the offender or are we just assuming that they do based on rhythm_doctor's request for it?

The latter, I think. The TOC asked rythm_doctor to supply a brief description of himself, and there seems to have been an assumption that they will compare it to CCTV. The reality is likely to be that they have a brief description on the paperwork (and signature) and wish to compare them with those that would be supplied by rythm_doctor to see if they match. In this way they can make a judgement about the insistence that someone else was actually present.

furnessvale · 10 Jan 2016

najaB said:
Again, do we know for a fact that the TOC had CCTV that they would have conclusively identified the offender?

I have no idea. I am simply laying out the legal position if CCTV had been available but the TOC subsequently destroyed it.

Antman · 11 Jan 2016

rhythm_doctor said:
Just letting it all take it's course, I'm innocent so I have nothing to worry about, apparently they only keep CCTV for a month, the offence was back in Oct, but I didn't get a penalty farr notice until December...

Well you've told them it wasn't you so surely the ball is in their court now? I would imagine this sort of thing happens regularly?

Someone used my details!

WelshBluebird

Established Member

RailUK Forums

rhythm_doctor

Member

grid56126

Member

34D

Established Member

rhythm_doctor

Member

furnessvale

Established Member

najaB

Veteran Member

andykn

Member

Andrewlong

Member

furnessvale

Established Member

Scotty

Member

najaB

Veteran Member

Haywain

Veteran Member

furnessvale

Established Member

Antman

Established Member