How does a passport prove someone stopped for fare evasion was not you?

Busaholic · 23 Dec 2017

Only just come to this thread, but passports and the photographs on them have a special interest for me, and I'll tell you why. In 1974 my wife and I paid a visit to Soviet Russia, at a time when Cold War tensions were extremely high. We both had visas on top of our U.K. ten-year passports. My passport was brand new and showed me with beard and fur hat, both newly acquired: my wife's was six months from expiry, and showed her as a 14 year old, whereas she'd just had her 24th birthday. Ever gallant, I went through the entry process first; one gate, four heavily uniformed officials, a mere formality. Once through, I stood and watched my wife present her passport to the same officials, one taking it from her, looking first at the photo, then at her, then back at the photo, seemingly ad infinitum. All this without a word, then passing the passport to a second official, with the same ensuing result, then to the third, etc. All the while my wife remained icy cool and unblinking, with me thinking 'here I am in a VERY foreign country I've not visited before and my wife is going to be denied entry: what the hell happens now?' Luckily, after what seemed years but was probably more like five minutes. but the longest five minutes she or I have ever experienced, the officials exchanged some jocular comments and she was let in. Incidentally, on several different foreign jaunts both before and after that, and when she had a more up-to-date passport, I always got waved through and she was often stopped. It got to be a bit of a joke between us. So passport likenesses have always struck me as a hit-or-miss affair.

RailUK Forums

najaB · 23 Dec 2017

Busaholic said:
So passport likenesses have always struck me as a hit-or-miss affair.

This is one of the advantages of ePassports, the picture can be analysed electronically for things that don't really change (e.g. ratio of inter-pupillary distance to face width).

Clip said:
What would I do in a similar situation that would cause me the leaSt stress and the least amount of time to clear up?

And the answer every time is always the same - comply with the request.

Too true. I would have complied with the request apart from providing a scan of my passport - I would either have provided it in a password protected archive (providing the password by a different means) or sent a physical copy using signed-for post.

infobleep · 29 Dec 2017

Mathew S said:
To answer the original question, it doesn't provide proof. But that's not the aim here, which instead is to ensure that there is sufficient 'reasonable doubt' that you were present at the time and place of the alleged offence.
All of the Northern inspectors that I see on a regular basis have bodycams and all of the stations have CCTV, so I'd say that it would generally be fairly easy to discount someone from an inquiry based on their passport photo or physical description.
Failing that, if nothing else a passport is proof of ID, which seems important in the case concerned. If you don't have a passport, a photocard driving licence would seem a reasonable substitute. Or as a last resort any other photo ID issued by a responsible authority - perhaps a work ID accompanied by a letter from a senior manager on headed paper, which would be an ideal opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.

As a sidenote: I agree completely re: sending the ID by email. However, an easy solution is to send it as an encrypted file (ZIP with AES will do) and then phone them to provide the password.

Do Northern have the ability to deal with AES encryption? I'm sure there was a time when Windows couldn't deal with that form of encryption without a user installing a third party piece of software.

Deafdoggie · 29 Dec 2017

My niece is a lawyer, and without going into the details, I asked how a passport can prove you aren't someone. The short answer is, it can't. However, Northern can prove it is you (in this case of course, they can't) if you are falsely claiming it isn't you when it is. I think if Northern have a passport, and still go to court, they will end up looking pretty silly as they will have done the ID checks, failed them, and still gone ahead!

Mathew S · 29 Dec 2017

infobleep said:
Do Northern have the ability to deal with AES encryption? I'm sure there was a time when Windows couldn't deal with that form of encryption without a user installing a third party piece of software.

Any modern OS can handle an encrypted .zip out of the box. Of course if - like many org's - they're still on XP/Vista it's more of an issue...

matt_world2004 · 29 Dec 2017

I would be quite belligerent on the issue if a railway company wrote to me accusing me of fare evasion if I had never travelled on their services. I would demand in return for proving it wasnt me an administration charge for providing the documents they request probably similar to whatever their penalty fare scheme is. I dont see why people should waste their time helping a private company correct their mistakes when the company wouldnt do the same in return.

AndrewE · 29 Dec 2017

And grounds for a claim for defamation too? I have read that it can be done if a bank bounces a cheque when there is enough money in the account - because it makes the issuer look as though they issued the cheque but intending not to pay!

island · 30 Dec 2017

AndrewE said:
And grounds for a claim for defamation too? I have read that it can be done if a bank bounces a cheque when there is enough money in the account - because it makes the issuer look as though they issued the cheque but intending not to pay!

None whatsoever. Defamation requires proof of serious harm to the claimaint caused by a statement that was published, and a claim is defeated if the statement was an honest opinion.

As for cheques, the standard marking for quite some time stamped on a dishonoured cheque is “refer to drawer” which avoids any potential defamation caused by a marking such as “insufficient funds”.

LondonJohn · 3 Jan 2018

AlterEgo said:
The staff at the time may have taken a description of the person they stopped. A passport holds an official photo of the person they’re writing to. If they don’t match, then it would seem clear they stopped a different person.

Really puzzled by this as a passport photo only has your head in that. At the time the picture was taken you could have had short hair and now grown it longer, you could have coloured your hair and it certainly doesn’t show your build. Seriously wondering how a passport would prove it wasn’t you.

Maybe the TOC should have a declaration form to complete from the alleged fare dodger to attest their innocence stating the reasons why and for the TOC to then investigate as they see appropriate.

Can understand the reluctance to provide ID documents via an unsecured email that don’t 100% prove it was you anyway

Puffing Devil · 4 Jan 2018

LondonJohn said:
Really puzzled by this as a passport photo only has your head in that. At the time the picture was taken you could have had short hair and now grown it longer, you could have coloured your hair and it certainly doesn’t show your build. Seriously wondering how a passport would prove it wasn’t you.

Maybe the TOC should have a declaration form to complete from the alleged fare dodger to attest their innocence stating the reasons why and for the TOC to then investigate as they see appropriate.

Can understand the reluctance to provide ID documents via an unsecured email that don’t 100% prove it was you anyway

I don't understand why this is so hard, or some posters are making it so hard.

Someone is stopped. The RPI either has a photo or a description of the miscreant. After the event, the TOC chases down the miscreant and receives the response "it wasn't me guv". TOC asks for ID and the ID provided does not match the description. Bingo - you are away and free. Or maybe the miscreant gets lucky and they are off the hook.

If not, then it's off to another form of ID or evidence to show that you could not have been the person stopped.

All the TOC is doing by asking for an ID is a quick and simple way to close down the investigation - which is in everybody's interest to do.
Sure, you may have changed your appearance, or the description may match you. You're in no worse position than before. Unless you believe that the TOC will now use your passport photo to launch a court case - which is exactly what would happen if you had failed to provide it.

rs101 · 4 Jan 2018

Puffing Devil said:
I don't understand why this is so hard, or some posters are making it so hard.

Someone is stopped. The RPI either has a photo or a description of the miscreant. After the event, the TOC chases down the miscreant and receives the response "it wasn't me guv". TOC asks for ID and the ID provided does not match the description. Bingo - you are away and free. Or maybe the miscreant gets lucky and they are off the hook.

If not, then it's off to another form of ID or evidence to show that you could not have been the person stopped.

All the TOC is doing by asking for an ID is a quick and simple way to close down the investigation - which is in everybody's interest to do.
Sure, you may have changed your appearance, or the description may match you. You're in no worse position than before. Unless you believe that the TOC will now use your passport photo to launch a court case - which is exactly what would happen if you had failed to provide it.

So far the TOC has sent a letter claiming the OP attempted to evade paying the appropriate fare, but the only supporting documentation has a completely unrelated name and address in it.
Maybe the TOC should correct that very basic screwup before demanding any further documentation from the OP.

Puffing Devil · 4 Jan 2018

rs101 said:
So far the TOC has sent a letter claiming the OP attempted to evade paying the appropriate fare, but the only supporting documentation has a completely unrelated name and address in it.
Maybe the TOC should correct that very basic screwup before demanding any further documentation from the OP.

Are you confusing this general discussion, with a more specific issue in this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/prosecution-but-it’s-mistaken-identity.158355/#post-3253832 ?

rs101 · 4 Jan 2018

Puffing Devil said:
Are you confusing this general discussion, with a more specific issue in this thread: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/prosecution-but-it’s-mistaken-identity.158355/#post-3253832 ?

Sorry - yep.

I'd still be reluctant to send a passport copy though. if I did, I'd obscure all identifying information (name, passport number, date & place of birth, etc).

matt_world2004 · 4 Jan 2018

Puffing Devil said:
I don't understand why this is so hard, or some posters are making it so hard.

Someone is stopped. The RPI either has a photo or a description of the miscreant. After the event, the TOC chases down the miscreant and receives the response "it wasn't me guv". TOC asks for ID and the ID provided does not match the description. Bingo - you are away and free. Or maybe the miscreant gets lucky and they are off the hook.

If not, then it's off to another form of ID or evidence to show that you could not have been the person stopped.

All the TOC is doing by asking for an ID is a quick and simple way to close down the investigation - which is in everybody's interest to do.
Sure, you may have changed your appearance, or the description may match you. You're in no worse position than before. Unless you believe that the TOC will now use your passport photo to launch a court case - which is exactly what would happen if you had failed to provide it.

Lets put the shoe on the other foot how would you feel if a private company accused you of defrauding them because somone had given them your name. Would you be coooerative

Hillingdon council accused me of fraud after someone accidentally put the wrong address applying for a library card I went ballistic at it.

Puffing Devil · 4 Jan 2018

matt_world2004 said:
Lets put the shoe on the other foot how would you feel if a private company accused you of defrauding them because somone had given them your name. Would you be coooerative

Hillingdon council accused me of fraud after someone accidentally put the wrong address applying for a library card I went ballistic at it.

Yes, I would be cooperative. Would I be pleased with the situation, no.

I would do what was necessary to resolve the situation with the minimum effort on my part. It is easy to become defensive in these situations - however, your anger should be directed at the person who "framed" you or made the original mistake, not the organisation following their procedures to correct the issues as they see it.

By all means dig your feet in, become annoyed and remain uncooperative. The council and TOC employees will continue to be paid as the dispute drags on, you will not.

matt_world2004 · 4 Jan 2018

Puffing Devil said:
Yes, I would be cooperative. Would I be pleased with the situation, no.

I would do what was necessary to resolve the situation with the minimum effort on my part. It is easy to become defensive in these situations - however, your anger should be directed at the person who "framed" you or made the original mistake, not the organisation following their procedures to correct the issues as they see it.

By all means dig your feet in, become annoyed and remain uncooperative. The council and TOC employees will continue to be paid as the dispute drags on, you will not.

The organisation has a legal responcibility to maintain accurate records . northern typically charges an £80 administration fee to customers for innocent mistakes it should work both ways

Mathew S · 4 Jan 2018

matt_world2004 said:
The organisation has a legal responcibility to maintain accurate records . northern typically charges an £80 administration fee to customers for innocent mistakes it should work both ways

Northerns's legal duty under the data protection act to maintain accurate records is limited, as are so many things, by the concept of 'reasonableness'. In the specific case here, Northern were given details by a person who had been stopped for evading paying their fare. They recorded those details. They sent a letter using those details. As soon as they were told there could be a problem with the data they held, they asked for evidence so they could update their records. They have done absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever, in fact I don't see what they could possibly have done differently.

matt_world2004 · 4 Jan 2018

Mathew S said:
Northerns's legal duty under the data protection act to maintain accurate records is limited, as are so many things, by the concept of 'reasonableness'. In the specific case here, Northern were given details by a person who had been stopped for evading paying their fare. They recorded those details. They sent a letter using those details. As soon as they were told there could be a problem with the data they held, they asked for evidence so they could update their records. They have done absolutely nothing wrong whatsoever, in fact I don't see what they could possibly have done differently.

The person they have written to should not have their time/moneuly wasted because Northern do not have accurate records. It is not the person they are writing to fauot they either need to accept the initial explanation of the incorrect details or engage in another way of verifying that information without incovencing the person they are writing to.They can request to see some kind of proof. However they have no right to demand it or expect it.

The failure to properly check the information given to them is not the person they are writing to fault.

Mathew S · 4 Jan 2018

matt_world2004 said:
The person they have written to should not have their time/moneuly wasted because Northern do not have accurate records. It is not the person they are writing to fauot they either need to accept the initial explanation of the incorrect details or engage in another way of verifying that information without incovencing the person they are writing to.They can request to see some kind of proof. However they have no right to demand it or expect it.

The failure to properly check the information given to them is not the person they are writing to fault.

Given that they have evidence of the person they've written too fare evading they absolutely have that right. Also worth pointing out that there's an exemption in the data protection act that covers any information used for the prevention or detection of crime, which would certainly cover this.

What do you think Northern should have done differently? Even an electoral roll check wouldn't show up if someone just gave another person's details. They can only go off the information they've been given, and hope to correct it if they later find out it's wrong. I agree it's a massive annoyance for there person who has had their details used fraudulently by the fare evader, but that's not Northerns's fault.

matt_world2004 · 4 Jan 2018

Mathew S said:
Given that they have evidence of the person they've written too fare evading they absolutely have that right. Also worth pointing out that there's an exemption in the data protection act that covers any information used for the prevention or detection of crime, which would certainly cover this.

What do you think Northern should have done differently? Even an electoral roll check wouldn't show up if someone just gave another person's details. They can only go off the information they've been given, and hope to correct it if they later find out it's wrong. I agree it's a massive annoyance for there person who has had their details used fraudulently by the fare evader, but that's not Northerns's fault.

If Northerns system of verifying identies is not robust enough thats more northerns fault than the person they are writing to. If I was the person I would tell northern that they are more than welcome to visit my house 5 seconds looking at a person would be a lot less incoveniant than 20 minutes finding a passport. They would need to rely on me being in like the gas meter reader does. And come back if I am not.

Puffing Devil · 4 Jan 2018

matt_world2004 said:
If Northerns system of verifying identies is not robust enough thats more northerns fault than the person they are writing to. If I was the person I would tell northern that they are more than welcome to visit my house 5 seconds looking at a person would be a lot less incoveniant than 20 minutes finding a passport. They would need to rely on me being in like the gas meter reader does. And come back if I am not.

How exactly do you suggest that Northern verify the identity of someone purporting to be matt_world2004 stopped at Manchester Piccadilly as they have not produced a ticket for the journey that they have just completed?

matt_world2004 · 4 Jan 2018

matt_world2004 said:
If Northerns system of verifying identies is not robust enough thats more northerns fault than the person they are writing to.

Puffing Devil said:
How exactly do you suggest that Northern verify the identity of someone purporting to be matt_world2004 stopped at Manchester Piccadilly as they have not produced a ticket for the journey that they have just completed?

Not my problem thats their problem.

jon0844 · 4 Jan 2018

AlterEgo said:
Phone GPS provides evidence of a phone being somewhere at a given time, not a person.

While not relevant for this thread perhaps, the level of detail stored by a phone these days (and the ability to view back your route on any given day via Google services) and the use of a secure unlock process (e.g. your fingerprint) could probably be used in court to provide an alibi for serious cases where you can prove the person using the phone HAD to be you.

Perhaps one day this might happen, and it will be debated as to whether it's 100% secure or open to fraud by deliberate manipulation (i.e. to create false alibis). That's quite an interesting thing to think about, but I doubt a TOC or a defendant is going to be able to go down this route!

Puffing Devil · 4 Jan 2018

matt_world2004 said:
Not my problem thats their problem.

You're prepared to call them out on the issue, but are not willing to offer a solution? Have you considered a career as an opposition politician? Or maybe there isn't a workable solution other than the current practice within the legislative framework?

Please post back in the forum when you do have the opportunity to test your combative approach with a real issue of your own. I'd be very interested in how it works out for you.

matt_world2004 · 4 Jan 2018

Puffing Devil said:
You're prepared to call them out on the issue, but are not willing to offer a solution? Have you considered a career as an opposition politician? Or maybe there isn't a workable solution other than the current practice within the legislative framework?

Please post back in the forum when you do have the opportunity to test your combative approach with a real issue of your own. I'd be very interested in how it works out for you.

No if it was me they were writing to that would not be my problem that they couldnt verify the identify its theirs. Even if it is difficult for them to verify the identity a neutral and innocent third party should not be effected by that

Puffing Devil · 4 Jan 2018

matt_world2004 said:
No if it was me they were writing to that would not be my problem that they couldnt verify the identify its theirs. Even if it is difficult for them to verify the identity a neutral and innocent third party should not be effected by that

Then you will find yourself in court, where you will have the full attention of the Magistrates.

matt_world2004 · 4 Jan 2018

Puffing Devil said:
Then you will find yourself in court, where you will have the full attention of the Magistrates.

And a case that would be throne out in minutes

AlterEgo · 4 Jan 2018

matt_world2004 said:
The organisation has a legal responcibility to maintain accurate records . northern typically charges an £80 administration fee to customers for innocent mistakes it should work both ways

You’re missing the fact that they did have accurate records. If someone gave your address, that’s not their fault, they simply recorded the information they were given correctly.

AlterEgo · 4 Jan 2018

matt_world2004 said:
And a case that would be throne out in minutes

Yes but it would cause you a lot more inconvenience than finding a passport or giving them a ring. Daft.

Puffing Devil · 4 Jan 2018

matt_world2004 said:
And a case that would be throne out in minutes

Quite possibly. If you're happy to take a day out of your life to attend an unnecessary court appearance, I hope you enjoy the experience.

How does a passport prove someone stopped for fare evasion was not you?

Veteran Member

RailUK Forums

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Established Member

Veteran Member

Veteran Member

Established Member