A few years ago I had two police officers at the door asking for somebody I'd never heard of, they apologised and that was the end of the matter.
-
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 has used my sons id after being caught without a ticket
- Thread starter stonewall77
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Western Sunset
Established Member
When Revenue staff take someone's details, do they also note down a brief description of the person they are asking the ID of?
Bantamzen
Established Member
Without some form of ID, there really isn't. How do you prove in the time these interactions take that the name & address given are indeed accurate without seeing some form of identification? I would imagine that most times a random name & address would be used, however in this case it seems the person used the OP's son's name & address which to me suggests that they either know the son, or more likely that they have obtained some of the son's personal details.
Y Ddraig Coch
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2013
- Messages
- 1,298
I am pretty sure TfL when taking details do a check on the electoral roll via phone to confirm said person is registered at that address before letting them go.
Western Sunset
Established Member
Anyone can view (and make notes from, but not photocopy) the current full Electoral Roll at libraries and council offices, so could easily give a false name and address.
Y Ddraig Coch
Established Member
- Joined
- 1 Nov 2013
- Messages
- 1,298
That's a bit of a stretch and you are thinking this is all pre mediated, I would suggest most people don't expect to be caught and if they are just think on the hop and make something up or give someone they knows details. I hardly think it is likely anyone is popping down the council offices to make notes!
A true story that illustrates the problem perfectly. Over 30 years ago I was an RPI and working a train north from London with a colleague on a Sunday afternoon when he came to a young man who had no valid thicket.
In common with normal practice then, I continued checking the train whilst he dealt with the offender. Having finished, I walked back through the train and found my colleague seated opposite the young man, neither of whom were speaking at that time.
I said 'All done mate?' and my colleague replied 'No, I was waiting for you to help check out some details' and he handed me his notebook in which the young man had written down what he had given as 'his' name and address details. I was surprised to see that he had given MY address!!
My colleague knew my address well enough, having visited socially and, needless to say, on this occasion the young man ended up facing prosecution.
He did live in an area of town not far from me and had given what for him were a random street and house number. That humorous incident aside, many people will attempt to give false details and whether it succeeds usually depends on the willingness of the staff to probe legally with questioning in line with the Codes of Practice defined in the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (1984) and the tenacity of the inspector in properly evaluating and acting upon what they have been told.
With good training in interview techniques and some technological assistance available to most RPIs, including body worn video, the fact that a very high percentage of travellers are creatures of habit makes it generally easier to ultimately correctly identify any offender than it used to be. It does however rely on these staff using their abilities and support efficiently.
The final point to remember is that if facilities were available to them, a traveller who has no valid ticket when checked is obliged to give their correct name and address (National Railway Byelaw 23).
I've spent the last 20 years managing prosecutions and can say with some certainty that giving a false name and address in response to a request by rail staff or police with intent to avoid a liability makes this a much more serious matter and almost always results in prosecution. (The Regulation of Railways Act [1889] Section 5.3 (c)).
If and until we have a legal requirement to carry in-date photographic identity documentation, that isn't going to change much. I'm certainly not in favour of such restriction on our freedoms, but really do wish that more staff would complete proper checks so far as practical before completing any reports.
In common with normal practice then, I continued checking the train whilst he dealt with the offender. Having finished, I walked back through the train and found my colleague seated opposite the young man, neither of whom were speaking at that time.
I said 'All done mate?' and my colleague replied 'No, I was waiting for you to help check out some details' and he handed me his notebook in which the young man had written down what he had given as 'his' name and address details. I was surprised to see that he had given MY address!!
My colleague knew my address well enough, having visited socially and, needless to say, on this occasion the young man ended up facing prosecution.
He did live in an area of town not far from me and had given what for him were a random street and house number. That humorous incident aside, many people will attempt to give false details and whether it succeeds usually depends on the willingness of the staff to probe legally with questioning in line with the Codes of Practice defined in the Police & Criminal Evidence Act (1984) and the tenacity of the inspector in properly evaluating and acting upon what they have been told.
With good training in interview techniques and some technological assistance available to most RPIs, including body worn video, the fact that a very high percentage of travellers are creatures of habit makes it generally easier to ultimately correctly identify any offender than it used to be. It does however rely on these staff using their abilities and support efficiently.
The final point to remember is that if facilities were available to them, a traveller who has no valid ticket when checked is obliged to give their correct name and address (National Railway Byelaw 23).
I've spent the last 20 years managing prosecutions and can say with some certainty that giving a false name and address in response to a request by rail staff or police with intent to avoid a liability makes this a much more serious matter and almost always results in prosecution. (The Regulation of Railways Act [1889] Section 5.3 (c)).
If and until we have a legal requirement to carry in-date photographic identity documentation, that isn't going to change much. I'm certainly not in favour of such restriction on our freedoms, but really do wish that more staff would complete proper checks so far as practical before completing any reports.
Last edited:
Bodycam footage should be used here.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 15,186
To what purpose should body care footage be used?
But in the instance that started this thread it seems likely that the individual was sufficiently knowledgeable about the unfortunate victim that they not only knew their name but where they used to live. I have suspected all along that in this case that the guilty party may well be someone the victim went to school with.
Yes I understand that, what I meant is once the recipient has informed the TOC or whoever that it wasn't them then that's all they should have to do. It should then be up to the TOC to investigate further.
It's not difficult to get hold of somebody else's name and address.
You would have the alleged fare dodger on CCTV.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 15,186
And you would probably still need to get someone to court to identify them as the wrong person. I don't think you've thought this through.
What are you on about? Surely it's obvious why it would be useful to have an alleged offender on camera?
WesternLancer
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 7,174
But it's easy to do that sort of thing - I don't shred all my post so some stuff ends up in my recycling bin with my name and address on it, I have no doubt (eg the envelope my regular railway magazine comes in for example!). If a nefarious person walked down my street on bin day they could find stuff with name and address on it pretty easily - and I bet not just from my bin but many of my neighbours too.
WesternLancer
Established Member
- Joined
- 12 Apr 2019
- Messages
- 7,174
Well, you could get eg a solicitor endorsed copy of say your passport / drivers licence say (if you had one) to send to the TOC who could then compare that with the CCTV image of the person apprehended and if they looked utterly different then it would at least reduce wasted time for innocent party, court and prosecution team would it not?
Under English Law yes guilt normally has to be proved. But it seems for reading a number of these threads that as far as the TOC's are concerned it is innocence that needs to be proved by the individual, the presumption being you are guilty. I have read, although unsure if true, that even when you prove your innocence you may still be hit with an administration fee from the TOC anyway.
This clearly is ridiculous and totally unacceptable. If the person says it wasn't them that should be that and it should be up to the TOC to investigate further.
That is incorrect. The TOC will write to the person at the address given and, if they are told "It wasn't me and I would be able to prove it if needed." they will normally drop the matter. Where things get complicated is if there is no reply to the letter. The TOC will then request a summons, which will be sent to the address given and, if ignored, will result in the named person being found guilty in absentia.
Please note that this is, in no way, a problem that is unique to the Railway industry.
I'm not aware of any instances of this happening - a TOC admitting that the person they've written to isn't the person who travelled, but still expecting them to pay admin charges. Could you provide an example please?
Llanigraham
On Moderation
As far as I am aware no such charge could be made.
Exactly, and is what happened to me when I was initially accused of travelling on Manchester's Metrolink without paying. Which wasn't true.
It's obviously of significant concern when it happens, but the TOCs know that they're frequently given false names and addresses. It's only in cases of exceptional stupidity when they pursue a prosecution against someone whose details have been incorrectly passed to them. From the threads on this forum, early and clear written communication helps in preventing this. In my case it was a simple response from Metrolink agreeing that they wouldn't be pursuing the case any further. I suspected who the person giving my details was (a former tenant), who looks nothing like me, and offered to help them pursue him but they declined my offer. Obviously not everyone suspects they know who might have given their details.
Wonder if they can check the electoral register, as a private company.
If they do, could that be because they're a public body?
221129
Established Member
Yes they can.
There's 2 different issues being conflated here;
one is identity theft, which checking against data wont flag up
the other is simply false info, so a real name (or false name) but a false address. Checking against data when taking the persons info would flag most of those.
Which is probably why they give somebody else's name and address which will be on the electoral roll.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 15,186
I am “on about” the fact that body worn cameras would do nothing at all to prevent innocent people being involved in the sort of cases we see on this forum.
Llanigraham
On Moderation
The Electoral Register is an Open Document and anyone can access it.
I was basing the comment on this Passenegr Focus report which was 2015, so now may have been changed but page 13 amongst others quotes examples.
https://www.transportfocus.org.uk/research-publications/publications/ticket-to-ride-an-update/
Well it can't do any harm, somebody will be less likely to give false details in the first place if they know they are being recorded on the body cam.
- Status