Got an intention to prosecute letter yet i wasnt on the train

[durham88]

Good evening ive been passed this forum info from a facebook group
Ive had a letter about not paying for a ticket yet i wasnt even on the train that day and can prove
The letter has my correct name on it. I have no idea how they could have got my details like this
I am very worried. Please help

 

[Watershed]

This is a reasonably common occurrence. Usually you'll find that your details were provided by someone that knows you (e.g. a so-called "friend" or family member). It can be sorted out but it is in your best interests to cooperate and give them any information or evidence they ask for.

It would help if you could upload a copy of the correspondence you've had - with any personally identifying details such as name, address, date/time and reference numbers redacted for your privacy.

 

[durham88]

someone on the facebook said these people who issue these things wear body cameras. So they should have who ever did this on that ?
Will i be able to see this? If i can see who it is then can i have her done by them surely?
What will the rail company do?
I can prove myself via photo ID.
I will post it tommorrow as i am at work

 

[jfollows]

Just remember, as Watershed has said already, that although this is the first time this has happened to you and it's worrying, the railway companies know that this happens all the time. It doesn't mean that you don't have to convince them that it wasn't you, but don't panic, take a deep breath and have a good think about what you were doing at the time you were alleged to have been on a train, and write it all down, and think about who else you know can corroborate your story. Don't get over-excited about cameras, but on the other hand think about the fact that the person who pretended to be you probably doesn't look like you and they'll have written down some kind of description.
At the end of the day, they have to prove that it was you, not the other way round, you don't have to prove that it wasn't you. But if you can help prove that it wasn't you, it'll make things easier for you in the end.
But remember that this happens all the time and they know that it does, so take it easy and cooperate and it should get sorted out in the end. It's a pain of course, but the fault is with the person who pretended to be you, not with the rail company that was (probably) defrauded.

 

[WesternLancer]

someone on the facebook said these people who issue these things wear body cameras. So they should have who ever did this on that ?
Will i be able to see this? If i can see who it is then can i have her done by them surely?
What will the rail company do?
I can prove myself via photo ID.
I will post it tommorrow as i am at work

If they don't have body worn cameras they usually take a brief description of the person they have stopped (the fare evader) - so as mentioned when you reply to them it will help if you can state where you were at the time and provide an image of yourself from photo ID.

But if I recall prev advice on here correctly, if you tell them the person they stopped is not you, you will not have the right to get images of the person impersonating you that they hold. But you could always ask them for it and see what they say.

But given someone out there is doing this (maybe or maybe not supported by fake ID) you should take steps to guard against any ID theft that may be going on that you could be a victim of (eg check bank accounts for anything unexpected, esp accounts you may not use often, change passwords / PIN numbers, that sort of thing).

 

[basfordlad]

This seems a common occurance yet i guess resources stop them from doing much about it

 

[jfollows]

This seems a common occurance yet i guess resources stop them from doing much about it

It is.
The railway companies know this, of course.
But for an individual it's usually a unique occurrence and it's worrying.
So it's always worth remembering that it's common, that it's down to the prosecution to prove who committed the offence rather than the accused proving he/she wasn't the person, and the person who caused this is the person who impersonated someone by giving the wrong name and address.
It's happened to me, once, on Manchester Metrolink. In my case I guessed that it was a former tenant of mine who had given my name at the address he used to rent from me, I engaged with Metrolink in writing and the issue was dropped.
Don't engage by phone, but make sure to put everything in writing, either by letter or email.
And remember, if accused in this way, that you're not the guilty party, both you and the railway company are the victims, so engage and don't panic and - eventually - it will be resolved.
It happens all the time, and - despite the tone of the initial contact from the railway company - they know it.

 

[basfordlad]

It is.
The railway companies know this, of course.
But for an individual it's usually a unique occurrence and it's worrying.
So it's always worth remembering that it's common, that it's down to the prosecution to prove who committed the offence rather than the accused proving he/she wasn't the person, and the person who caused this is the person who impersonated someone by giving the wrong name and address.
It's happened to me, once, on Manchester Metrolink. In my case I guessed that it was a former tenant of mine who had given my name at the address he used to rent from me, I engaged with Metrolink in writing and the issue was dropped.
Don't engage by phone, but make sure to put everything in writing, either by letter or email.
And remember, if accused in this way, that you're not the guilty party, both you and the railways company are the victims, so engage and don't panic and - eventually - it will be resolved.
It happens all the time, and - despite the tone of the initial contact from the railway company - they know it.

Did they show you any images of the offender?

 

[jfollows]

Did they show you any images of the offender?

If you mean in my case, then, no, they didn't. It just seemed likely, I offered to engage with them further to help identify the real perpetrator if they wanted, but they didn't take me up on my offer, which I expected. Each case is unique, in mine I had a good idea of who might have done it, but the original poster here quite possibly doesn't, in the end that won't make a difference to the outcome, as I say it's about engaging and jointly sorting out the mistake so that it doesn't go any further. I didn't say who I thought did it, by the way, I simply said that if they wanted to discuss further I might be able help them identify the person they stopped for not having a ticket, it definitely wasn't me, and after receiving my letter they wrote back to confirm they were dropping the case.

And remember, too, that because it's a criminal offence, any attempted prosecution needs to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and having the accused give evidence to the contrary, even verbal evidence under oath, in court is probably going to meet the bar of "reasonable doubt". Most people aren't going to lie in court to avoid the conviction, because the penalty for doing so and being found out is much worse than for the railway's offence. So don't get hung up on "body cameras" and so on. Any additional evidence such as this or corroboration by third parties will simply make things easier and make it more likely that the case will be dropped sooner.

 

[robbeech]

Someone has evaded a fare so the railway is out of pocket. Clearly they don’t like this so will try to obtain the money from someone, they’ve got your details somehow, we assume because someone else face your details. The railway is used to this sort of thing as others have said, but they’re also used to people giving the correct details but then trying it on when they get the letter.

They will come across as aggressive, mainly because they are, that’s the way they get people to pay (whether it’s due or not). Out of court it’s on you to prove your innocence, which given the unlikelihood of their cooperation won’t be possible, they want their money and they don’t REALLY care where it comes from. However, in court it’s on them to prove you’re guilty so there is a chance this might go this far.

The rest of the advice here is spot on as expected. Cooperate with them, but don’t expect them to cooperate with you.

 

[jfollows]

The rest of the advice here is spot on as expected. Cooperate with them, but don’t expect them to cooperate with you.

I totally agree. That second sentence is a very good short summary.
It also seems that "cooperation" usually means the accused providing some kind of "proof of identity" (passport, driving licence, etc.) to the railway company so that the person dealing with the case can log it and justify dropping the case to his/her manager if required. It's always going to be easier to go along with them at this stage because a "see you in court" type of response is simply going to involve lots more hassle, although probably ultimately successful.

 

[spag23]

It's always struck me as ridiculous that the TOC won't provide you with bodycam footage of the person they assert is you, on the basis they must respect the privacy of the person who is fraudulently claiming to be you. Heads they win, tails you lose.
The answer to this might be to ask for the images, without - or at least before - denying it is you.
If this doesn't work, offer to send them a certified photo of yourself, so they can compare them. If they concede it's not you, report it as a crime, and insist they investigate; an obvious element of which would be letting you identify the miscreant.

 

[AstowJ]

It's always struck me as ridiculous that the TOC won't provide you with bodycam footage of the person they assert is you, on the basis they must respect the privacy of the person who is fraudulently claiming to be you.

Would this be a potential GDPR breach?

 

[spag23]

Would this be a potential GDPR breach?

Yes, this was the argument given in other posts; protecting the rights of the fraudster to remain anonymous. But using the details they provided to pursue the innocent, and refusing to cooperate with the identification of the real culprit.
As mentioned before, someone who gave their name as Fred Smith of 23 Acacia Avenue can hardly complain to the Information Commissioner if footage of them is supplied to Fred Smith of 23 Acacia Avenue.

 

[WesternLancer]

Would this be a potential GDPR breach?

Well if the person went on to commit a more heavy duty offence, and say the police got involved in trying to solve that - you can start to bet that in their efforts to find out who the perpetrator would be - you'd probably get shown the picture of the person who earlier on gave your details at a revenue check before going on to steal wallets of several passengers / steal luggage / assault a member of staff etc ....

 

[Haywain]

Well if the person went on to commit a more heavy duty offence, and say the police got involved in trying to solve that - you can start to bet that in their efforts to find out who the perpetrator would be - you'd probably get shown the picture of the person who earlier on gave your details at a revenue check before going on to steal wallets of several passengers / steal luggage / assault a member of staff etc ....

I think even that is fairly unlikely, given the proliferation of CCTV generally - they would probably soon find that the images they collect do not match the person who was implicated by their name and address being given.

 

[WesternLancer]

I think even that is fairly unlikely, given the proliferation of CCTV generally - they would probably soon find that the images they collect do not match the person who was implicated by their name and address being given.

Yes, sorry - I meant tho that if the person wrongly touched for the fare evasion knew the miscreant - showing them a picture would help them bring said person to justice for the more serious offence at least - it thus identifying the person captured in whatever CCTV was used with a name and address.

 

[30907]

Meanwhile, if the OP can prove that they were elsewhere at the time of the alleged offence, questions about CCTV are less relevant, as the TOC will almost certainly drop the case.

Admittedly this will not help the OP land the perpetrator in the proverbial.

 

[Haywain]

Admittedly this will not help the OP land the perpetrator in the proverbial.

The OP's priority should be getting themselves out of the proverbial.

 

[MotCO]

To prove that you were not the person on the train, can you prove you were elsewhere. For example, if yiu were at work, can you get your manager to write confirming this? Did you use a credit card at the time of the allegeed ffence which proves you were elsewhere? Did you use a cash ATM? If you have a smart phone, can you use the tracker function to prove where you were? (You may need to take screen shots etc to preserve these records in case they are wiped by the phone company.)

 

[MCSHF007]

Google Maps/timeline? (assume there's a Crapple equivalent)

 

[Tetchytyke]

The OP's priority should be getting themselves out of the proverbial.

Absolutely.

The OP should write back explaining it wasn’t you and detail any corroborating information. The TOC will ask for any further information they need. It’s for the TOC to decide if they can be bothered pursuing the other person.

 

[robbeech]

The OP's priority should be getting themselves out of the proverbial.

Tell me the railway operates on a guilty until proven innocent basis without telling me the railway operates on a guilty until proven innocent basis.

Obviously I fully agree with your statement of course.

 

[Haywain]

Tell me the railway operates on a guilty until proven innocent basis without telling me the railway operates on a guilty until proven innocent basis.

It's very clear that you like to think the worst of the railway but this is a wider problem. In this case someone gave the OP's details, so who else would the company write to? Meanwhile, a few minutes ago my local radio station reported that the local police forces are investigating 60-ish cases of people committing speeding offences and giving false details - which probably came to light when letters had been sent to the innocent parties about legal action.

 

[robbeech]

It's very clear that you like to think the worst of the railway but this is a wider problem. In this case someone gave the OP's details, so who else would the company write to? Meanwhile, a few minutes ago my local radio station reported that the local police forces are investigating 60-ish cases of people committing speeding offences and giving false details - which probably came to light when letters had been sent to the innocent parties about legal action.

I think it is somewhat inaccurate to suggest i think the worst of the railway, i see things how they are and make my views on it known. It absolutely IS a wider problem, and i agree that it's obviously the details they are given that they should initially contact to confirm the facts. However, as it IS a wider problem and they know it is a wider problem, they must surely be used to this sort of thing. A reasonable entity would make contact initially in a strict but fair way to ensure that all the facts are correct. It is the immediate "treated like a criminal" attitude of the railway that concerns me the most, especially when it is known that this issue is widespread.

 

[Class142sbad]

@durham88 Has anything come out about this letter? It's been over a week and we still haven't recieved any updates.

 

[Cowley]

Ok. The face recognition stuff is now here.

As far as this thread goes:

@durham88 Has anything come out about this letter? It's been over a week and we still haven't recieved any updates.

Yes. I think we’ll lock it for now and if you want to update us at some point @durham88 then just use the report function below and we’ll reopen the thread for you.

Thanks everyone.