Not my rail train fine

[jenniparsell]

Hi help me out I had a court summons for a train journey I never made at which the time I was meant to of been caught I was at my nephew school picking him up.somebody I used my name's and taken my DOB.now iv got court summons and the places I was caught I don't even no where it is any advice pls cos I'm fuming

 

[Huntergreed]

Hi help me out I had a court summons for a train journey I never made at which the time I was meant to of been caught I was at my nephew school picking him up.somebody I used my name's and taken my DOB.now iv got court summons and the places I was caught I don't even no where it is any advice pls cos I'm fuming

Could you write to the prosecutions department of the relevant TOC? It may help if you have proof (such as a bank statement showing a purchase in a different location near the relevant time) to prove you couldn’t possibly be the person in question.

I’m sure the experts on here will be able to advise you on what to write.

 

[Gloster]

***I am not one of the experts, who should be along to give advice, although this may be slow because it is the weekend. You need to make a Statutory Declaration (to the court, I think) which will set the case back to just before the court proceedings. You must do this within a limited time. I would suggest that you do a search on this forum for ‘declaration’ to read up on it.*** THIS IS IRRELEVANT IF THE CASE HAS NOT BEEN HEARD: I MAY HAVE MISREAD #1.

I may add more if I can find a thread.

Do not worry.

MORE TO COME BELOW.

 

[Snow1964]

If you were clearly somewhere else, gather up some proof (eg witnesses, teacher at the school where you were etc).

Is the journey local to you, or is between two stations miles away.

There have been cases where someone has missing information, and done searches and found someone with a similar name or birth date, and got the court to summon those instead, mistaken idenity.

If you have a letter from a court, you will normally need to write back, and say although some details are same (eg name), it wasn’t you as you were at X and have witnesses. Sometimes a photo can sort it out, especially if prosecutors have image of someone else (it’s a bit pointless having to go to court for someone to say that is not same person)

Whoever annoyingly gave your details is the cause of this, but obviously the clerk and admin staff at the court aren’t going to know this until you tell them. Unfortunately if no one tells them the case will eventually get to court, they might they convict in defendants absence, which then causes further problems. If there is a phone number for the court might be worth ringing them (probably have to wait until Monday) and asking for who is procescuting as you were clearly somewhere else and haven’t made such a journey, and can they also inform them or give you the contact details.

I am sure, someone with more knowledge will be along soon to help.

 

[Gloster]

Addition to what I wrote. If the case has not already been heard by the court, you will not need to make a declaration.

Are you sure that you have not had any previous letters from the rail company concerned.

As said, see what information you have to show that you were elsewhere on that day and at that time.

Does it indicate which railway company is concerned? Do you mean that the locations given are probably not in the area you were in that day?

 

[skyhigh]

You need to make a Statutory Declaration (to the court, I think) which will set the case back to just before the court proceedings. You must do this within a limited time. I would suggest that you do a search on this forum for ‘declaration’ to read up on it.

You cannot make a Statutory Declaration if you haven't been convicted. It sounds like a summons has been issued rather than the case being heard, so there is no conviction yet.

 

[Hadders]

Welcome to the forum.

What exactly have you received? Can you post a copy of the letter in this thread with personal details redacted. It is very unusual for a train company to proceed straight to a court summons without having written to you first asking for your version of events before deciding whether or not to so so.

I suspect that you've either got the initial letter asking for your version of events; or
you've receive previous correspondance from the rail company which you haven't replied to.

 

[Edsmith]

Hi help me out I had a court summons for a train journey I never made at which the time I was meant to of been caught I was at my nephew school picking him up.somebody I used my name's and taken my DOB.now iv got court summons and the places I was caught I don't even no where it is any advice pls cos I'm fuming

I'd be fuming as well and I would imagine this must happen regularly with people giving false details and there should be no burden of proof for you to show that it wasn't you. I can only suggest contacting the court in question.

 

[Gloster]

I'd be fuming as well and I would imagine this must happen regularly with people giving false details and there should be no burden of proof for you to show that it wasn't you. I can only suggest contacting the court in question.

I would think that just writing back or going to the court and saying that it wasn’t you would not be enough. You really need to satisfy the railway company (or their agents) that it wasn’t you and get them to withdraw the case against you. Otherwise you would probably have to attend the actual hearing and satisfy the court then. (I am not an expert.)

Is the given court near you?

 

[Edsmith]

I would think that just writing back or going to the court and saying that it wasn’t you would not be enough. You really need to satisfy the railway company (or their agents) that it wasn’t you and get them to withdraw the case against you. Otherwise you would probably have to attend the actual hearing and satisfy the court then. (I am not an expert.)

Is the given court near you?

I'm not an expert either but just saying that it wasn't you should be enough, the burden of proof lays with the accuser. Presumably the staff involved would have been using bodycams?

 

[Snow1964]

It would be perfectly reasonable to ignore correspondence from a train operator if you have never used them. I would in same way probably ignore any letter from a perfume company because I don’t use it.

I am guessing they wrote, got ignored, and instead of checking they are dealing with correct person, decided to move onto issuing a summons.

However until you point out that to whoever sent the summons, you know nothing about it, don’t use the train from A to B and were instead at X and therefore can’t assist, no-one their end will realise something is wrong.

It is also perfectly reasonable to enquire who is raising the prosecution using false information (don’t know if they will tell you) but if not, they they should be requested to relay the information and put it on file against the case number (so it is filed as a defence or reason to drop the case).

 

[Titfield]

It would be perfectly reasonable to ignore correspondence from a train operator if you have never used them. I would in same way probably ignore any letter from a perfume company because I don’t use it.

I am guessing they wrote, got ignored, and instead of checking they are dealing with correct person, decided to move onto issuing a summons.

However until you point out that to whoever sent the summons, you know nothing about it, don’t use the train from A to B and were instead at X and therefore can’t assist. It is also perfectly reasonable to enquire who is raising the prosecution using false information (don’t know if they will tell you) but they would presumably relay the information because it would go on file against the case number.

But surely it is better to try and resolve this now (prior to court action, judgement, bailiff's) than wait until you have the bailiffs on your doorstep seeking to remove your goods for non payment of fines?

Yes it is annoying, frustrating, concerning but far easier to resolve now than when you have a CCJ against you (wrongly) but all the time effort and expense of resolving it lies with you,

 

[Snow1964]

But surely it is better to try and resolve this now (prior to court action, judgement, bailiff's) than wait until you have the bailiffs on your doorstep seeking to remove your goods for non payment of fines?

Yes it is annoying, frustrating, concerning but far easier to resolve now than when you have a CCJ against you (wrongly) but all the time effort and expense of resolving it lies with you,

Sorry, what I was saying is it easy to ignore any letter from a company you haven’t got any dealings with.

But I wouldn’t recommend ignoring a letter from a Court.

 

[Haywain]

just saying that it wasn't you should be enough, the burden of proof lays with the accuser

I don’t think this approach would end well, and I would not recommend it. The evidence the train company have is that a person giving the name and address was stopped and this is quite strong evidence if the only response is ‘it wasn’t me’.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

In practical terms, if the OP wants the problem to go away, then while they are entitled to stand on their rights it may be more sensible to engage with the process.

The OP is clear that they know where they were and what they were doing at the time of the alleged offence (picking their nephew up from school). So my suggestion would be to talk to other people who were there, and ask if they will agree to write a short note confirming where the OP was at the time. There's no need to get anyone to write anything yet - this is just about knowing what proof the OP has available.

Whether anyone is able to vouch for the OP or not, the next stage is to get in touch with whoever sent the letter that has caused the problem. The OP should explain that it wasn't them who committed the alleged offence because they were picking their nephew up from school. If anyone has agreed to confirm this, mention this now (but there's no need to send any evidence yet).

Fare-dodgers giving someone else's details is hardly rare. So I think it's likely that at this point the railway will confirm that they're taking no further action in the case. An apology would be nice, but I wouldn't hold my breath for one - the railway isn't great at apologies, and in this case they have acted in good faith on the information they were given. But with a bit of luck, the problem will at this point go away.

 

[MotCO]

A secondary issue is whether the OP has been the subject of identify fraud. I'm not sure what action they should take, but probably worth taking a close look at the transactions on their bank or credit card statements to ensure they are all valid.

 

[Edsmith]

I don’t think this approach would end well, and I would not recommend it. The evidence the train company have is that a person giving the name and address was stopped and this is quite strong evidence if the only response is ‘it wasn’t me’.

I don't know what else the OP can reasonably be expected to do, this isn't their fault. Fare dodgers giving false details must be quite commonplace.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I don't know what else the OP can reasonably be expected to do, this isn't their fault. Fare dodgers giving false details must be quite commonplace.

See my post #15. In more formal terms, make it clear that you have a defence and will if necessary take steps to prove it.

 

[AlterEgo]

I'm not an expert either but just saying that it wasn't you should be enough, the burden of proof lays with the accuser. Presumably the staff involved would have been using bodycams?

Well no, the train company won’t just accept that someone writing to them saying “wasn’t me guv” as the gold standard of evidence that it was not, in fact, then.

The OP is best advised to contact the train company and supply some sort of evidence that it could not have been her that was stopped on the train. That is the lowest-friction route out of the problem.

 

[Edsmith]

See my post #15. In more formal terms, make it clear that you have a defence and will if necessary take steps to prove it.

Yes I understand what you're saying but the OP doesn't have to provide an alibi, the burden of proof lays with the accuser.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jul 2022 ==

Well no, the train company won’t just accept that someone writing to them saying “wasn’t me guv” as the gold standard of evidence that it was not, in fact, then.

The OP is best advised to contact the train company and supply some sort of evidence that it could not have been her that was stopped on the train. That is the lowest-friction route out of the problem.

The train company will have to accept that unless they have evidence to the contrary, bodycam footage etc.

 

[Gloster]

Yes I understand what you're saying but the OP doesn't have to provide an alibi, the burden of proof lays with the accuser.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 10 Jul 2022 ==


The train company will have to accept that unless they have evidence to the contrary, bodycam footage etc.

I suggest that you read through some of the previous threads on this section of the forum. You will find that the way the system functions is weighted in favour of the railway being right.

We have not heard more from the OP. I would be interesting to hear from her (I think) with clarifications and answers to some of the points raised, otherwise we may have just about reached the limit of what advice can be given without more details. (The opinion of a non-expert.)

 

[AlterEgo]

The train company will have to accept that unless they have evidence to the contrary, bodycam footage etc.

No, they won’t. How do you think this used to work before body cams were invented, in a country where there is no compulsion to carry ID?

 

[Edsmith]

I suggest that you read through some of the previous threads on this section of the forum. You will find that the way the system functions is weighted in favour of the railway being right.

We have not heard more from the OP. I would be interesting to hear from her (I think) with clarifications and answers to some of the points raised, otherwise we may have just about reached the limit of what advice can be given without more details. (The opinion of a non-expert.)

So just don't pay your fare and if you get caught give the name and address of someone that you don't like and cause them a load of aggro?

 

[jfollows]

So just don't pay your fare and if you get caught give the name and address of someone that you don't like and cause them a load of aggro?

Clearly this happens a lot, and the rail companies ought to be familiar with it and its implications.
I've had it done to me by, I am guessing, a former tenant who was caught without a ticket on the Manchester Metrolink.
I sent a polite but firm letter in response, and in due course received a response that no action would be taken against me. I offered to help them identify the real culprit but they didn't follow up with me on that.
Bottom line is that it's annoying when someone does it to you, but you're in the right and if you proceed logically and calmly there should be no negative implications other than wasting your time and effort.
In my case I simply said it wasn't me, I suspected someone else in particular, but that I had never travelled on Manchester Metrolink without paying for my ticket. Obviously if I'd had relatively simple proof of my whereabouts on the day I was alleged to have travelled without a ticket I'd have provided it, but I didn't.

 

[357]

If you have Google maps on your phone, check out the timeline feature for that day if you have it enabled.

 

[Cantab26]

Yes I understand what you're saying but the OP doesn't have to provide an alibi, the burden of proof lays with the accuser.

There are certain circumstances in which the accused must disclose a special defence of alibi to the prosecution. A failure so to do can have materially prejudicial effects at trial.

The train company will have to accept that unless they have evidence to the contrary, bodycam footage etc.

The company is under no such obligation and is not obliged to seek out any additional corroborative evidence. It is sufficient in law to rely on the name and address given at the time (if lodged in process as evidence or otherwise properly adduced).

If there is a bona fide alibi then ignoring the matter or being unco-operative with the prosecution would generally be both foolish and foolhardy.

 

[Edsmith]

There are certain circumstances in which the accused must disclose a special defence of alibi to the prosecution. A failure so to do can have materially prejudicial effects at trial.


The company is under no such obligation and is not obliged to seek out any additional corroborative evidence. It is sufficient in law to rely on the name and address given at the time (if lodged in process as evidence or otherwise properly adduced).

If there is a bona fide alibi then ignoring the matter or being unco-operative with the prosecution would generally be both foolish and foolhardy.

Post #24 shows how it should be dealt with

 

[yorkie]

I have locked this thread for now.

@jenniparsell if you require any further advice, please report this post and we can reopen the thread.