FWIW perhaps the most obvious answer is that for whatever reason someone at the TOC or TfL has suspected the Op of wrong doing and has followed them on a journey / number of journeys and eventually has been able to identify them through observing a ticket purchase.
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both 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!
HELP, I got a single justice procedure letter without being stopped by an inspector!!!
- Thread starter James2000
- 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
Why wouldn’t they stop them then? That’s how these stings work. How do you track people who aren’t tapping?
I don't know why they didn't stop them, as you say, that is how this is done. I am just surmising that the OP has been followed or there are cameras at the stations the op used.
IMHO there is more to this than the OP is indicating.
To me it sounds like the OP dodges the fare invisibly by not tapping, leaving no trail, but of course a nagging feeling in their conscience. Now someone else has been caught skipping the fare that knows them, they've given their details, and now it's bothering them.
The OP being vague is not helping things either! Only they will know what the truth is I suppose.
cactustwirly
Established Member
If they are not stopped, then how is this proven?
Given that CCTV is unlikely to be clear enough
JBuchananGB
Established Member
If it is the case that you did not travel on any TfL service on 7 June, and were not spoken to by an inspector, then it is irrelevant what offence TfL consider you to have committed. You simply reply to them to the effect that you are entirely unaware of any incident which could have given rise to the report and will respond in that way to any further actions TfL may proceed with.
Fawkes Cat
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 May 2017
- Messages
- 5,347
One answer would be eye-witness evidence: TfL are known to use plain clothes officers who could presumably identify an offender in court.
But it seems to me that the most likely reason that the OP has received the verification letter out of the blue is that someone else gave the OP's name and address. Given that the OP is unable (or at least unwilling) to reassure us that they didn't commit an offence on the day in question, we can't unequivocally advise them to write back saying that they didn't offend that day - as we don't know that to be true.
Of course, the OP may know that they were nowhere near TfL services on that day, in which case explaining this is the right option. Otherwise, it seems to me that silence is the best way forward: I think it is inevitable that a charge (probably by SJPN, possibly by being required to attend court if TfL think there are other offences to take into consideration) would follow - but at that point the OP will know exactly what they are charged with (that at x time at y location you did whatever TfL think you did, and what law or byelaw this broke). The OP will then be in an informed position to decide whether to concede or fight.
And to be clear, if they do press ahead with a charge, it will contain details of the charge and exactly what is alleged and when it is supposed to have happened.
Is the best option here not for the OP to reply stating they they were not stopped on the 7th of June, perhaps wording carefully to avoid both lying and admitting they may have dodged a fare.
I think the theories that facial recognition etc are being used are far fetched, we have not seen it before and TfL has explicitly denied it in the past.
It is highly likely someone else gave the OP’s details, but if the OP truly wasn’t stoped by a revenue officer but it is them TfL has evidence of fare evasion from, TfL have gone to a significant effort acquiring the OPs details, beyond what we have seen before, and not something they would do for a single fare being dodged. It’s therefore very likely, given other cases from TfL, that even if the OP fessed up they would end up in court, and so by denying it as they weren’t stopped they really don’t have anything to lose.
I think the theories that facial recognition etc are being used are far fetched, we have not seen it before and TfL has explicitly denied it in the past.
It is highly likely someone else gave the OP’s details, but if the OP truly wasn’t stoped by a revenue officer but it is them TfL has evidence of fare evasion from, TfL have gone to a significant effort acquiring the OPs details, beyond what we have seen before, and not something they would do for a single fare being dodged. It’s therefore very likely, given other cases from TfL, that even if the OP fessed up they would end up in court, and so by denying it as they weren’t stopped they really don’t have anything to lose.
I think this is the best response I’ve heard so far. Every theory that was presented, from the facial recognition to the getting followed by someone, I’ve been through all those theories in my head. The lack of information on the letter didn’t help either, as all I was given was a date and that I apparently committed an offence on that date. So it left everything up for speculation, how would they find my address if i didn’t tap? Are cameras that advanced that they can track you down? I went down a rabbit hole of endless searching, which is how i stumbled across this forum. I should mention too that I called a helpline on the tfl prosecution page, was left on hold for an hour and 20 mins. So I think my best course of action now would be to reply saying that I wasn’t stopped by an inspector and I don’t know what offence is being stated.
notmyrealname
Member
Good luck, please let us know how it goes.
Please bear in mind that even if someone else gave your details to TfL, you are now known to them. If you truthfully tell them that you weren't stopped, can't assist them in who they might have actually stopped and they decide to let you off, you can be very sure they will bring this back up if they subsequently catch you doing what you have suggested in your hypothetical situation, or any other irregularity. The shaggy defence (it wasn't me) doesn't stick if you are also doing something you shouldn't.
flythetube
Member
Bear in mind that an entry on a Bank Statement dues not necessarily equate to date of travel as funds can. Taken the following day it even a couple of days later if a weekend is involved eg for keygo PAYG Smartcard transactions.
Oyster / contactless accounts with Tfl if registered will be able to show actual dates of travel.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,866
That, of course, assumes that the card is tapped on a reader somewhere. The OP has told us that this is something that they haven't been doing, so they will have no proof of travelling.
The letter from TfL doesn't say you were stopped, or that they were an inspector, it could be that AI trial that I referenced. Still I think it is reasonable for TfL to disclose the time, location and other details necessary for you to make sense of the letter. In a sense it may not matter much, TfL seems to run this operation like a remorseless sausage machine, so I wouldn't be surprised if the next letter is a SJP pack, which at least will give you some more specific details.
Let’s be absolutely clear here, the AI trial was to help detect who to stop, not to automatically detect and then pull their details from nowhere.
The AI trial identified incidents and alerted staff so they could intervene. It was made very very clear they were not looking for specific people or facially identifying people.
These ideas of TfL using actual facial recognition to identify fare evaders is fanciful, the tech isn’t there and use of it is not entirely on stable legal grounds.
Snow1964
Established Member
Actually the letter starts with : on 7th June you were reported to TfL
No where does it say you were stopped.
As written it doesn't even say if the reporting date was same as any alleged offence date. So could be sometime in past few weeks at an unspecified location.
How anyone is supposed to reply guilty or not guilty to an unknown offence at an unknown date and unknown location is beyond me.
No where does it say you were stopped.
As written it doesn't even say if the reporting date was same as any alleged offence date. So could be sometime in past few weeks at an unspecified location.
How anyone is supposed to reply guilty or not guilty to an unknown offence at an unknown date and unknown location is beyond me.
Haywain
Veteran Member
- Joined
- 3 Feb 2013
- Messages
- 24,866
Nobody is being asked to plead guilty or not guilty, but they are being asked to "return the information requested on the reverse of this letter". As we haven't seen the reverse, in spite of repeated requests, we can only guess what is being asked for.
Snow1964
Established Member
Post #9 said other side asks to plead if guilty or not guilty
We need to see the entirety of both sides of all pages of the letter the OP received (blocking personal information out).
Given that the front of the letter follows the standard TfL verification letter template, so is word-for-word identical to the ones seen in other threads (e.g. here) except for the date (and presumably recipient details and case number, and a "Transport of London" typo having been fixed in the first paragraph), I don't think there's any point in analysing the wording: The person handling the case would likely have used the standard template with no consideration to whether the specifics of the wording match the OP's case perfectly or not.
We do need to see the back of the letter, but it is likely again identical to the template (see link above), which does not ask for a plea, but does (among other things) implicitly ask whether the respondent accepts or denies committing an offence.
Has there ever been a case on this forum of someone receiving a TfL verification letter without them or a person claiming to be them having been stopped by an inspector?
We do need to see the back of the letter, but it is likely again identical to the template (see link above), which does not ask for a plea, but does (among other things) implicitly ask whether the respondent accepts or denies committing an offence.
Has there ever been a case on this forum of someone receiving a TfL verification letter without them or a person claiming to be them having been stopped by an inspector?
Apologies, I thought a description of the back of the letter was enough. I’ve attached a photo. Also I would like to point out @Snow1964 that it does indeed say the offence was committed on the 7th.
Attachments
No. These are sent out only to people who have been stopped.
The scaremongering about the AI panopticon, downloading your face, address, everything from not even a card tap is entirely invented and has caused the thread to run off course.
If the OP was not stopped, they should reply so.
As has the description of the letter received as a single justice procedure letter, if as seems to be the case it is not such a letter.
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
As always, the only advice is to specifically answer the specific question(s) asked, but not to answers things which have not been asked.
The OP must not lie, but if they were not stopped on that date and therefore do not know what- if anything- the matter refers to, it would be entirely reasonable for the OP to say so and request further details of any alleged contravention. There’s nothing to be gained by the OP attempting to guess what the matter might refer to, and there’s nothing to be gained by us talking about hypothetical situations.
As an aside, I don’t understand why operators generally aren’t more forthcoming in initial correspondence about what they think has happened. It makes things so much easier when everyone knows where they stand. The only reason I can see for being coy is that an operator doesn’t have evidence and is going on a fishing trip.
The OP must not lie, but if they were not stopped on that date and therefore do not know what- if anything- the matter refers to, it would be entirely reasonable for the OP to say so and request further details of any alleged contravention. There’s nothing to be gained by the OP attempting to guess what the matter might refer to, and there’s nothing to be gained by us talking about hypothetical situations.
As an aside, I don’t understand why operators generally aren’t more forthcoming in initial correspondence about what they think has happened. It makes things so much easier when everyone knows where they stand. The only reason I can see for being coy is that an operator doesn’t have evidence and is going on a fishing trip.
Fawkes Cat
Established Member
- Joined
- 8 May 2017
- Messages
- 5,347
Or they can use an almost entirely standard letter for everything. All that needs to be varied in TfL's template is the date of report - which means that the letters are very easy (=cheap) to send out.
How on earth is someone supposed to respond to one of those unless they know they were stopped?
Tetchytyke
Veteran Member
You can use proformas and still tell someone what they are alleged to have done. In most cases it’ll be “on x date you were stopped at y with no ticket/railcard- please explain yourself”. You can even do it through mail merge if that data is stored in a database, it’s not hard.
Last edited:
Snow1964
Established Member
Op added page 2 in post #53
Horrible letter, first it insists on a UK address (how is anyone visiting UK going to be able to do that)
Then it asks for deny or accept (the unknown event)
Then asks for exceptional circumstances (to the unknown event)
Then third bit about ticketing irregularities (no idea if this is relevant here)
- Status