What could happen for not giving Revenue Officer my details

[Bletchleyite]

Doesn't a single post code cover a number of houses ? So at least the house number would be required to identify the actual house. When I'm asked for my address on say an order form and I put my post code it gives me a list of house numbers to choose from.

Yes. As I said in most cases postcode and house number are enough. There may be odd exceptions but it's rare for a postcode to cover more than one street.

 

[Titfield]

Yes. As I said in most cases postcode and house number are enough. There may be odd exceptions but it's rare for a postcode to cover more than one street.

Without wishing to muddying the waters a postcode can be assigned to a business or organisation. Mail addressed with that postcode is then aggregated and delivered to an address which may have a different postcode. This is to facilitate a form of sorting for the business.

 

[AlbertBeale]

Yes. As I said in most cases postcode and house number are enough. There may be odd exceptions but it's rare for a postcode to cover more than one street.

It is indeed not common, but it certainly happens. Similarly, a number and street name and postal district is - very occasionally - insufficient without a district name too.

Under international postal conventions - which all national postal administrations used to sign up to, and presumably still do - a "valid address" is a set of information, moving from the general to the specific, that would allow premises or a letter box to be uniquely identified. Most countries do this "back to front" - ie the specific first (ie house number, then street name, then district, then town, etc etc) - but in a few places it's different, where the convention is to start with the city and "work down". The key thing is that the information is logically structured and uniquely defines the premises concerned. Hence in this sense - and logically anyway - a postcode is not essential providing the rest of the information is clear.

Post in the UK is frequently delivered successfully without a postcode - or indeed with an incorrect postcode. (The latter since post is delivered by human beings who can read, not [yet] by machines.) Logically, the postcode is something derived from the address to assist the postal service's automated systems. However, in an age of computers and surveillance, it is being increasingly put to other uses for which it wasn't initially designed. This is exacerbated by online systems which try to deduce your address from your postcode, rather than the other way round; I have personally experienced situations where doing this produces an address which might work, but which is misleading in terms of the actual physical address (ie the traditional "hierarchical" description of how to find a place), and indeed produces an address in a form (such as the name of the street the premises is on) which has never been used by the occupiers.

Without wishing to muddying the waters a postcode can be assigned to a business or organisation. Mail addressed with that postcode is then aggregated and delivered to an address which may have a different postcode. This is to facilitate a form of sorting for the business.

Indeed - I know well a building where one (historically large user of the postal system) was allocated one postcode, and the rest of the building (and the rest of the block) was allocated another one. Hence this building (though only a small shop+offices terraced building) has two postcodes, one unique and one shared with the block. Providing the building number is correct the post gets through irrespective of which postcode is used, and whether or not the postcode is the "right" one for the orgnanisation concerned.

 

[Cloud Strife]

He asked for my ID numerous times but I honestly didn’t have it. He then said he wanted to go through my phone to prove who I was, which is obviously illegal without a warrant. He then said give me your details (still hasn’t told me what I’ve done wrong) and i refused as it had got heated at this point.

There is no obligation to present ID to anyone, nor to even carry it. In my specific case, not a single document of mine contains my address, not my British passport, not my Polish passport, not my Polish ID card, not my Polish driving licence. So even if they demanded ID from me as a foreign resident, it wouldn't tell them anything except my name.

The important thing is that the law obliges you to provide your name and address, nothing more. I certainly wouldn't provide them with details of my identity documents, nor would I provide them with anything such as social media accounts or otherwise.

One thing that I'd also point out is that there's no such thing as a population/address register in the UK, so if they can't "verify" you, it's their problem, not yours.

 

[AlterEgo]

One thing that I'd also point out is that there's no such thing as a population/address register in the UK, so if they can't "verify" you, it's their problem, not yours.

The closest thing we have is the electoral roll and credit reference agencies; sometimes staff validate the passenger's details using the electoral roll if they don't belive they have been given real details.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

The closest thing we have is the electoral roll and credit reference agencies; sometimes staff validate the passenger's details using the electoral roll if they don't belive they have been given real details.

All that might do is verify that the name was in some way consistent with the address. It wouldn't verify that the name and address belonged to the person giving it.

 

[AlterEgo]

All that might do is verify that the name was in some way consistent with the address. It wouldn't verify that the name and address belonged to the person giving it.

Indeed. Just that “real details” of a real person been given.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

That becomes a problem if a train company prosecutes that named person, before making further any further checks that it's actually the person they believe committed an offence.

What further checks do train companies carry out?

 

[WesternLancer]

That becomes a problem if a train company prosecutes that named person, before making further any further checks that it's actually the person they believe committed an offence.

What further checks do train companies carry out?

Cases on here where exactly this has happened. Safeguard seemed to be v basic notes describing features of person without ticket. I guess innocent party gets asked to send in a copy of a pic of themselves for comparison with those notes.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Safeguard seemed to be v basic notes describing features of person without ticket.

Happy to be corrected, but in those cases, my recollection is that basic check of identity was only done after the prosecution had been brought. In some of those cases, the innocent party had actually been convicted in their absence.

 

[Cloud Strife]

That becomes a problem if a train company prosecutes that named person, before making further any further checks that it's actually the person they believe committed an offence.

It is a real problem, especially if some details have been given like a real name and a previous address, leading to someone being convicted without any knowledge of the process.

I find it quite strange and surreal that a conviction can take place on the basis of nothing more than a statement and a name/address being provided on the train.

 

[AlterEgo]

It is a real problem, especially if some details have been given like a real name and a previous address, leading to someone being convicted without any knowledge of the process.

I find it quite strange and surreal that a conviction can take place on the basis of nothing more than a statement and a name/address being provided on the train.

Freedom loving Britain there for you.

Surprise! You have a criminal record because someone memorised your name and address!

 

[Haywain]

my recollection is that basic check of identity was only done after the prosecution had been brought.

Not much else that can be done if the suspect fails to engage with the process, with an offender having given their genuine (or seemingly genuine) details.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

You have a criminal record because someone memorised your name and address!

If it was that simple criminals would be escaping justice by giving false details for all sorts of crimes. But the police do more than just check that a name and address given can be found on the electoral roll before accepting that it belongs to the person they've apprehended.

A train company doesn't have the same powers as the police to detain someone until their identity can be confirmed. But they can take their photo. They can then use that photo as a very basic check that they aren't prosecuting the wrong person. They just don't bother. That's the problem.

 

[Haywain]

They can then use that photo as a very basic check that they aren't prosecuting the wrong person. They just don't bother. That's the problem.

How will that work then? If you have a photo of someone who gave my details how do you verify that it’s me, or not, in the photo if I don’t reply to correspondence?

 

[AlterEgo]

If it was that simple criminals would be escaping justice by giving false details for all sorts of crimes. But the police do more than just check that a name and address given can be found on the electoral roll before accepting that it belongs to the person they've apprehended.

A train company doesn't have the same powers as the police to detain someone until their identity can be confirmed. But they can take their photo. They can then use that photo as a very basic check that they aren't prosecuting the wrong person. They just don't bother. That's the problem.

That’s exactly why there should be much stronger due process for private prosecutions if they happen at all. The police have very, very strong criteria for identifying someone and in nearly all cases they will conduct an arrest anyway. Cases of mistaken identity with a conviction coming from a police arrest are so rare I’ve never heard of one in years.

But it happens all the time with the railways. I expect hundreds or thousands a year go through the mill.

How will that work then? If you have a photo of someone who gave my details how do you verify that it’s me, or not, in the photo if I don’t reply to correspondence?

It would at least come to light in court, if the defendant appears that is. Often, they don’t - and there’s the SJPN process as well which doesn’t require this either.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Not much else that can be done

If you have a photo of someone who gave my details how do you verify that it’s me, or not, in the photo if I don’t reply to correspondence?

If there is no reply to the letter, you could visit the address. You could search records other than the electoral roll to establish whether the named person has other addresses and send letters there and/or visit those. It's relatively straightforward to track down a named person and there are plenty of private companies who will do it for you. Ultimately, if that seems like far too much work/expense, or you cannot track down the named person and confirm that they are the person you photographed, you don't prosecute.

 

[WesternLancer]

Happy to be corrected, but in those cases, my recollection is that basic check of identity was only done after the prosecution had been brought. In some of those cases, the innocent party had actually been convicted in their absence.

Yes, I think you are correct in that.

 

[Haywain]

It would at least come to light in court, if the defendant appears that is. Often, they don’t - and there’s the SJPN process as well which doesn’t require this either.

So, as I said, if they don't engage with the process they get convicted.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

So, as I said, if they don't engage with the process they get convicted.

I'm sorry but this is just another example of the railway industry mindset. If a letter is sent and no reply is received from someone, it's assumed that they are "not engaging with the process". The alternative - that the named person never received the letter and has no knowledge of "the process" - is not even considered.

 

[dosxuk]

The alternative - that the named person never received the letter and has no knowledge of "the process" - is not even considered.

Why would the named person not receive the letter if we're talking about a person being stopped and giving someone else's name and address which can be validated against other data sources?

 

[Haywain]

I'm sorry but this is just another example of the railway industry mindset. If a letter is sent and no reply is received from someone, it's assumed that they are "not engaging with the process". The alternative - that the named person never received the letter and has no knowledge of "the process" - is not even considered.

Your comment is an example of the anti-railway industry mindset, in that you are not prepared to consider an alternative point of view to your own, which is that 'the railway' is wrong.

 

[AlterEgo]

Why would the named person not receive the letter if we're talking about a person being stopped and giving someone else's name and address which can be validated against other data sources?

For a start they might not even be in the country. At my old place, several electors were still on the roll for the property, despite two of them definitely having left the country back to the EU.

Or, they might simply no longer live at that address and be elsewhere. They might be at university, or on a gap year, or doing something else.

Often it is entirely legitimate and reasonable for the first time a person to know about a conviction is undertaking some sort of background check, or a letter from the court demanding money for a fine.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Why would the named person not receive the letter if we're talking about a person being stopped and giving someone else's name and address which can be validated against other data sources?

It depends what you mean by "validated". If you mean the railway company has checked that a person with the given name is currently living at the given address, then it's reasonable to expect a letter sent to that named person at that address will be received by them.

But if "validated" only means that the given name and address is consistent with an entry on the electoral roll, that's not the case, is it?

Or, they might simply no longer live at that address and be elsewhere. They might be at university, or on a gap year, or doing something else.

They may have died. You're not supposed to prosecute dead people.

Your comment is an example of the anti-railway industry mindset, in that you are not prepared to consider an alternative point of view to your own, which is that 'the railway' is wrong.

Where the railway prosecutes someone, without checking at even the most basic level that they might not be the person they believe committed the offence, I think that the railway is wrong. It doesn't mean I think the railway is always wrong, or that I have an anti-railway industry mindset.

 

[Haywain]

or that I have an anti-railway industry mindset.

Well, you said that my comment was "another example of the railway industry mindset" so how should I be expected to regard your comments?

 

[Fermiboson]

I think that, no matter how you spin it, the fact that a proper conviction can be made (as opposed to a paperwork error) with the wrong defendant at all indicates that the prosecution does not meet criminal standards of proof, period. That indicates a systemic problem, the solution to which is definitely not “we should look out for random convictions relating to things we have never done as due dilligence”.

 

[Haywain]

I think that, no matter how you spin it, the fact that a proper conviction can be made (as opposed to a paperwork error) with the wrong defendant at all indicates that the prosecution does not meet criminal standards of proof, period.

You really should read up on miscarriages of justice - even the police and CPS can get the wrong people, and that's with the benefit of dealing with them in person.

 

[HurdyGurdy]

Well, you said that my comment was "another example of the railway industry mindset" so how should I be expected to regard your comments?

I apologise if you felt my comment was directed towards you, personally. Not my intention.

The mindset I refer to is one where, when a number of possibilities exist, the railway industry only considers the most convenient ones.

 

[AlterEgo]

You really should read up on miscarriages of justice - even the police and CPS can get the wrong people, and that's with the benefit of dealing with them in person.

But with due respect those are very rare, and usually as a result of a witness misidentifying someone. That is, a person who looked like John Smith fired the gun, so John Smith gets arrested - and perhaps even convicted - but it was actually David Jones who did it and they get away with it.

Here, the suspect is cooperating with the authority - giving a name and address, but their identify never verified. If I am arrested, my identity is not taken at face value; the police have lots of ways of identifying people before bringing a prosecution. The train companies have no better way of identifying someone than the electoral roll and credit reference agencies, and all they can do is say "well, I suppose the name and address are real according to a database, let's press ahead. Send a letter to that address, I suppose."

 

[Haywain]

The train companies have no better way of identifying someone than the electoral roll and credit reference agencies, and all they can do is say "well, I suppose the name and address are real according to a database, let's press ahead. Send a letter to that address, I suppose

And we have seen plenty of cases here where people have received that letter and, not having been the person who gave those details, has engaged with the company concerned and put the record straight without being prosecuted.