Unwarranted penalty fare

[bb21]

Discussion about the Electoral Roll has been split out here.

 

[ATW Alex 101]

That is a good idea to get a head to try and find the culprit/lier.

I'm no expert at this matter but does the letter say the route or what train the offence was committed on? If so, is it one local to you? Is it a route nearby? I suppose with evidence that your son was where he was and if the route isn't local you can use that as evidence on the basis he was nowhere near that route at that particular time. Get school to print off a copy of your sons register to prove he was in attendance and you could also use phone history to say that he was called at that time the offence was committed. Any evidence such as alibi or statement that he was at his girlfriend house at the time. Anything like that could help. Good luck

 

[bb21]

I'm no expert at this matter but does the letter say the route or what train the offence was committed on?

The time of the alleged offence is not mentioned in the letter the OP received.

 

[eastdyke]

That is a good idea to get a head to try and find the culprit/lier.
...

That is a balance call and is not a requirement. The person responsible may or may not be a pupil at the school. Life has to go on beyond this unfortunate episode.

And the culprit/liar would of course be guilty of a further offence.

 

[Mrsmajortom]

Maybe its different now, but when I was 15 and went to a girlfriends house this meant sneaking in, avoiding her parents, spending some time in her bedroom, then sneaking out again? Can't imagine many fathers of daughters would be happy to write a letter saying that little johnny was with their daughter!

Thankfully it is different now - with a little liberalism and positive parenting we have encouraged honesty and transparency where our children are concerned and we are on very good terms with the girlfriend and family - no sneaking around here! There would be no problem in getting a 'little johnny was with their daughter' letter written.

My real concern is that if I had no recollection or proof of where my son was on a certain day I would also have to suspect him of lying to me. Why was this able to happen? Why should I have to spend time and effort in defending my son from an accusation of criminal behaviour? Surely with the technology available rail operating companies should be able to establish, at the time of the offence, whether a person is telling the truth or not.

 

[Eagle]

The person responsible may or may not be a pupil at the school.

Well it's clearly someone who knows the guy's name and address, a friend of his most likely.

 

[bb21]

My real concern is that if I had no recollection or proof of where my son was on a certain day I would also have to suspect him of lying to me. Why was this able to happen? Why should I have to spend time and effort in defending my son from an accusation of criminal behaviour? Surely with the technology available rail operating companies should be able to establish, at the time of the offence, whether a person is telling the truth or not.

Only a railway company can answer these questions for you. Maybe it is worth a letter of complaint when all this is resolved.

If you get nowhere, it might be worth getting in touch with your MP and see if he/she can help in anyway.

 

[reb0118]

My real concern is that if I had no recollection or proof of where my son was on a certain day I would also have to suspect him of lying to me. Why was this able to happen? Why should I have to spend time and effort in defending my son from an accusation of criminal behaviour? Surely with the technology available rail operating companies should be able to establish, at the time of the offence, whether a person is telling the truth or not.

I think you are missing the point here. This is not the railways fault. The fault lies with the person who gave false details - and by doing so not only defrauded the railway from its rightful fare but has dragged your son, an innocent party, into this situation.

What technology do you think that rail companies posses to correctly verify passengers details? What rights do rail staff hold to detain passengers whilst we check out their details? Think carefully before you answer! Do you want thousands of rail staff across the network acting with quasi police powers? Do you want to pay the extra tax and/or extra in fares to accommodate all this new technology and training required?

In this country we do not have government sponsored identification cards and there is no requirement to carry identification - how then without a change in the law can rail employees verify a suspected fare evaders details? In theory as fraud is a crime at common law it carries common law powers of arrest and therefore any citizen acting with evidence or the evidence of a credible witness can arrest a suspect and hold him (using reasonable force if required) until the officers of the law appear. In practice such a scenario would probably cause more problems than it would solve. Not least the delay & inconvenience to the majority of fare paying passengers on the train.

I say again the person at fault here is the person who supplied false details. Both you, your son, and the railway are innocent parties here. Now, I do not think that the supply of your son's details is a random act - the person supplying them IMO knows your son. This is the person that you should direct your anger towards.

Notwithstanding the above I do have great sympathy with your situation. This is akin to identity theft!

I hope it will be resolved to your satisfaction.

 

[WSW]

Alex - I am positive - it's not possible to get a train home - it's a 15 minute walk. On the day concerned I can prove he was at school all day and my mobile (and his) records show that we were in touch with each other after school and making arrangements for me to collect him from his girlfriends house - which is 3 minutes from the school - at a time we agreed between ourselves. There would not have been time after school and in between me collecting him for him to have made the train journey specified. He was at home with me for the rest of the evening. Clearly he is not on the electoral roll - he is 15.

In which case, it is up to the TOC to prove it was your son. I can't for the life of me understand why you should have to provide a private company with proof that your son was at A and B and C. How dare they make such demands on you and your son? Just write to them saying they are mistaken and if they continue to pester you will be consulting a solicitor.

And yes, forum members, I know the TOCs have a lot of problems with fare evaders. Perhaps TOCs should make more effort to prevent people boarding trains without first having a valid ticket checked at the gate.

Steve

 

[Flamingo]

In which case, it is up to the TOC to prove it was your son. I can't for the life of me understand why you should have to provide a private company with proof that your son was at A and B and C. How dare they make such demands on you and your son? Just write to them saying they are mistaken and if they continue to pester you will be consulting a solicitor.

And yes, forum members, I know the TOCs have a lot of problems with fare evaders. Perhaps TOCs should make more effort to prevent people boarding trains without first having a valid ticket checked at the gate.

Steve

It may be a private company, but they have the backing of parliament to do so, so if you want the law changed, talk to your MP, the railway companies are doing what the law demands.

And regarding ticket checks at boarding, that only proves that the person has a ticket to a destination - not that they are on the correct train, at the correct time, with the correct supporting documentation if required.

As said, this whole situation was caused by a fare evader (criminal) who knew the OP's son well enough to be able to rattle off their name, address, postcode (and possibly DoB) on demand. That's who posters should be directing their anger at, not the TOC.

 

[Temple Meads]

The culprit has to be a friend (probably a pretty "good" friend) of the OP's son to know the details about him, so in this case, if you have any suspicions about the possible culprit, they need to be asked (nicely), you can usually unmask a liar pretty quickly by looking at their body language.

 

[38Cto15E]

The 'OP' should be rightly furious of having to prove her sons innocence, and I suppose there are a 1001 different answers on this forum.
What would I do if a similar problem befell me?
Maybe ignore everything until a court date drops on the mat, prove to the magistrates that it was impossible to be on the train, and then let the magistrates tear into the CPS and Rail company for bringing the matter to court.
The 'OP' could brief AP to cover the case for max publicity.

 

[Deerfold]

The 'OP' should be rightly furious of having to prove her sons innocence, and I suppose there are a 1001 different answers on this forum.
What would I do if a similar problem befell me?
Maybe ignore everything until a court date drops on the mat, prove to the magistrates that it was impossible to be on the train, and then let the magistrates tear into the CPS and Rail company for bringing the matter to court.
The 'OP' could brief AP to cover the case for max publicity.

I can't see a Court being impressed at its time being wasted because someone chose not to try and sort out a case like this beforehand. Yes, it's unfair that the OP has to take the time and effort to sort this out but I suspect that the best thing for them to do.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Well it's clearly someone who knows the guy's name and address, a friend of his most likely.

I think that's a very likely possibility too.
And if so, then the culprit is likely to be of a similar age and from the same neighbourhood.

Though there is another possibility, that this is a mild consequence of identity theft, in which case the details may have been obtained from some discarded documents, an internet transaction or even overheard or abused when giving personal details in a shop, and then used by someone who is otherwise quite unconnected. There will then be a risk that his personal details may be used again, perhaps in another context.

If, Mrsmajortom, you feel that this is a possibility, then I would advise you to contact the Police - they offer an on-line system for reporting suspected fraud if you'd prefer. Only you, your son and any other family members will be able to decide if this action is appropriate.

I will say that fraudulent use of personal details are not likely to be used for such comparitively minor matters as a railway fare and not likely to be available to reel off the top of someone's head when questioned on a station, so I remain unpersuaded that this is likely to be a matter of identity theft.

 

[snail]

In which case, it is up to the TOC to prove it was your son.

They have someone who gave the son's name and address when asked. We don't know what other questions were asked. It can't be the TOCs responsibility to prove the child was not in school at the time - would you expect that level of ID check for all PFs issued?

Perfectly reasonable in these circumstances for the OP to show that the person receiving the PF can't be her son. If the TOC is sensible (!) they will accept the proof and withdraw the notice.

To the OP, have you checked Twitter or Facebook (or got your son to do it)? This kind of thing often gets bragged about on social media in order to look cool.

 

[maniacmartin]

Perhaps RPIs should be required to photograph everyone whose details they report and produce a copy when writing to the accused and in court. This would make giving false details much less successful.

 

[jon0844]

That would likely increase assaults on staff, given how many people take offence at being photographed even when it is 100% legal.

 

[MCR247]

Yeah I can't that being popular

 

[steadmane]

Mrsmajortom should not have to feel that she needs to defend herself or her family from an apparent mistake the Railway has made in accepting incorrect personal information from a fare dodger.

If I was in the same position and was confident it was not my child I would want them to take me to court. I would keep a record of every single minute of my time that was wasted by the accusation and if it was obvious the operator was going to take it to the courts I would employ the services of a lawyer.

 

[snail]

If I was in the same position and was confident it was not my child I would want them to take me to court. I would keep a record of every single minute of my time that was wasted by the accusation and if it was obvious the operator was going to take it to the courts I would employ the services of a lawyer.

The TOC haven't issued court proceedings, they have issued a UFN by the sound of the OP (others have referred to a PF). She wants to know what to do about it. Is your advice really to say nothing to them and let them take her son to court? That is one of the most unhelpful posts I've read so far.

 

[MichaelAMW]

The TOC haven't issued court proceedings, they have issued a UFN by the sound of the OP (others have referred to a PF). She wants to know what to do about it. Is your advice really to say nothing to them and let them take her son to court? That is one of the most unhelpful posts I've read so far.

I disagree strongly. I am rather surprised at how many people on this thread seem, at least by implication, seem to think it'a all very reasonable to have to deal with this in a way that requires the OP and her son to *prove* it wasn't him travelling. The TOC have done absolutely nothing whatsoever - and made no significant effort in this direction - to prove it *was* him. I could rattle off a dozen sets of personal information including DOB if I was asked and the fact that this has apparently happened doesn't suddenly make it the OP's fault.

Now, I am perectly well aware that things happen in life that we get dragged into and have to deal with, but the expectation of several of these posts that it's all the OP's + son's problem, and that the TOC is somehow entirely without fault here, is IMHO outrageous. The OP should be able to simply reply to the TOC to say it was not her son travelling and that should be an end to the matter. She would have provided the same level of proof that the TOC has already done.

 

[PIDD]

The OP should be able to simply reply to the TOC to say it was not her son travelling and that should be an end to the matter.

If this were the case kids will then always give their mate's information when caught and then the person whose information was given instructs their mother to 'simply reply' to the TOC to say it was not their child travelling.

Hey presto, free travel for children in the UK.

 

[jon0844]

Perhaps say to the TOC that if they require any proof, they'll be billed at £nn per hour for the time to do so. Why put yourself out for a simple 'sorry' letter later on, assuming they even apologise.

More likely they'll just say they're not going to pursue things as a goodwill gesture, leaving things open to the assumption you might be lying.

 

[steadmane]

The TOC haven't issued court proceedings, they have issued a UFN by the sound of the OP (others have referred to a PF). She wants to know what to do about it. Is your advice really to say nothing to them and let them take her son to court? That is one of the most unhelpful posts I've read so far.

That was not my advice. Read my post again perhaps.

My advice was to keep a record of everything she does about the issue. It's the operator's problem - not hers and if she is absolutely sure it was not her son let them roll the dice.
Take the control back, if you are not in the wrong then you don't sit and worry about the issue.

 

[MichaelAMW]

If this were the case kids will then always give their mate's information when caught and then the person whose information was given instructs their mother to 'simply reply' to the TOC to say it was not their child travelling.

Hey presto, free travel for children in the UK.

Sure, you're probably right, at least for some situations. However, the poor evidence-gathering process of the TOC, which might easily lead to lots of people providing false details, still doesn't give them the right to assume that everyone is guilty. As I said, in the explanatory part of my post that you didn't quote, Mrsmajortom should not have to respond with evidence that is of a higher standard than that used by the TOC. Goose, gander, sauce etc.

 

[snail]

That was not my advice. Read my post again perhaps.

Ok. I still think your advice is not helpful. This kind of issue does not need to go to court, with all the stress that brings.

 

[maniacmartin]

I don't think mrsmajortom should have to, but I think it's in her best interests to clear this up before it gets to the stage of going to court

 

[island]

The TOC haven't issued court proceedings, they have issued a UFN by the sound of the OP (others have referred to a PF). She wants to know what to do about it. Is your advice really to say nothing to them and let them take her son to court? That is one of the most unhelpful posts I've read so far.

I didn't think minors could be UPFNed.

 

[221129]

I didn't think minors could be UPFNed.

It appears theycan be UPFNed as I have been when I was 14.

 

[455driver]

That would likely increase assaults on staff, given how many people take offence at being photographed even when it is 100% legal.

But those same people are quite happy to photograph/ video staff members when they are not happy about something.
You cant have it both ways.