Verification of details given to rail staff

[anonymousdxb]

Mod note: split from this thread

Just wondering, but what stops anyone from giving out somebody else's details if it is the case that TfL (or anyone else) will pursue it to its entirety? Surely then every time one gets into trouble they could give the name and address of somebody they don't like and that person has no right of recourse? I struggle to believe that TfL would be able to achieve prosecution by simply saying John Smith at 123 Bond Street just because someone named John has lived there at some point in the past who has no clue about this prosecution, and may well have an alibi (e.g. from work or not being in London etc.).

 

[Haywain]

I struggle to believe that TfL would be able to achieve prosecution by simply saying John Smith at 123 Bond Street just because someone named John has lived there at some point in the past who has no clue about this prosecution,

Prosecutions are obtained in such circumstances all the time, and there doesn't even have to be someone of such a name having lived at the address. For low level offences the prosecution often relies on a genuine name and address being given and the result is that those prosecuted may be unaware of the case, or may not even exist. Without a requirement to carry and provide ID on demand there is little that can be done to prevent it from happening. However, most people aren't devious enough to give completely false details, as the OP has indicated, and many will find that the law catches up with them eventually.

 

[Olivine]

Just wondering, but what stops anyone from giving out somebody else's details if it is the case that TfL (or anyone else) will pursue it to its entirety? Surely then every time one gets into trouble they could give the name and address of somebody they don't like and that person has no right of recourse? I struggle to believe that TfL would be able to achieve prosecution by simply saying John Smith at 123 Bond Street just because someone named John has lived there at some point in the past who has no clue about this prosecution, and may well have an alibi (e.g. from work or not being in London etc.).

This was sort of my point for someone in the know to comment about - I was under the impression that the details are verified on the spot - unless the cousins name and address matched up?

 

[anonymousdxb]

Oh, they definitely can't verify anything on the spot. If the person has no ID, there's nothing anyone can do. The person fare evading might not even live in the UK or be a British citizen, and even if they were, there's no such database that the TOC could look them up on. Plus, they are technically private companies so they have even less authority to do that.

The question is more: what happens to innocent people who have been incorrectly accused? I struggle to believe that the cousin (if traced) would have to suck it up and accept any such criminal conviction that came their way simply because anyone in the whole world who knew their name and former address might have given it. My whole faith in the English justice system will crumble if that is the case ... haha

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 28 Dec 2025 ==

Prosecutions are obtained in such circumstances all the time, and there doesn't even have to be someone of such a name having lived at the address. For low level offences the prosecution often relies on a genuine name and address being given and the result is that those prosecuted may be unaware of the case, or may not even exist. Without a requirement to carry and provide ID on demand there is little that can be done to prevent it from happening. However, most people aren't devious enough to give completely false details, as the OP has indicated, and many will find that the law catches up with them eventually.

I understand the initial prosecution, but my experience/understanding was that you could 'dispel' such a conviction by writing to the court saying 'this is not me, here is the proof/explanation'. I had to do this recently regarding a speeding ticket, which had gone to an outdated address (for reasons I haven't worked out) and therefore had escalated massively (to a criminal offence of failure to provide information and a £1000 fine) without my knowledge of any of it. I just had to fill out a form to the court explaining what happened, and they rectified it and removed the criminal aspect, so I just had to pay the original speeding fine. Luckily, I had proof by way of leases, etc. I know this isn't the exact same situation, but I have to imagine that there must be some way for the cousin to explain this to the court if it were traced to them.

Anyhow, I am sorry to the OP. I haven't interpreted this as 'devious', but perhaps a poor and misguided decision made in a state of panic, which they probably now regret. I imagine they didn't realise the likelihood/possibility of their cousin being implicated, given it is not in the cousin's full name or current address. Whether it will be linked to the cousin or not is really anyone's guess (though it seems like a lot of people are guessing, not sure of the strength of that basis).

 

[Trainbike46]

The question is more: what happens to innocent people who have been incorrectly accused? I struggle to believe that the cousin (if traced) would have to suck it up and accept any such criminal conviction that came their way simply because anyone in the whole world who knew their name and former address might have given it. My whole faith in the English justice system will crumble if that is the case ... haha

Well, what exactly happens depends on when the cousin finds out (if ever). The below is based on my understanding of how criminal justice works in England and Wales, but I am not a legal expert in any way, and the situation in Scotland and NI will be different due to the different legal system. I also need to highlight this is what should happen (AIUI), and what should happen and what does happen are not always the same.

If the cousin finds out before any court case happens, they likely would have to attend and plead "not guilty", but they would run the defence that the person stopped wasn't them. It is then up to TfL (or the TOC, or other prosecutor) to prove that it was them*. As the defence was true, TfL wouldn't be able to produce such evidence, and either TfL would drop the case against the cousin, or the court would find them not guilty.

If the cousin finds out after they have been found guilty in their absence (e.g., they get found by debt collectors), they would have to complete a "statutory declaration", which is effectively an affirmation that they were not previously aware of the case. This then resets the process to the beginning, and the court case would have to happen again. If the new courtcase goes ahead, the same as above would happen.

*Remember, the prosecutor has to prove the defendant is guilty, the defendant doesn't have to prove they are innocent. Though if the defendant happens to have a solid piece of evidence it couldn't be them that is helpful, of course!

There are many reasons to have reservations about the criminal justice system of England and Wales, going from the difficulty to get legal aid, to the truly absurd wait times for a trial for certain offences, but this isn't one of them, in my view.

 

[Hadders]

The question is more: what happens to innocent people who have been incorrectly accused?

If you look through this section of the forum you’ll find cases where the wrong person has been accused of fare evasion, normally because false details have been given.

There are procedures in place to sort this, although it does require some ‘leg work’ from the falsely accused person.

Unfortunately these things happen, and not just on the railway, normally because someone stopped gives false details. It’s not a requirement to carry ID in this country (and nor should it be in my opinion).

Anyone found guilty of a crime has several opportunities to engage with the process and get the matter resolved. For example on the railway train companies will:

- send an initial letter asking for an explanation
- often send a follow up
- then send court papers

All of these steps are an opportunity to engage and say ‘it wasn’t you’.

 

[Haywain]

Oh, they definitely can't verify anything on the spot.

They can - most companies will endeavour to check the details given against the electoral register or through credit reference agencies, athough they are likely to be using a third party to do this. If the details are not verified in this way they will seek to have some other form of verification in the form of a driving licence, credit card, passport or other document.

As the defence was true, TfL wouldn't be able to produce such evidence, and either TfL would drop the case against the cousin, or the court would find them not guilty.

It is naive in the extreme to believe that innocent people are never, and cannot be, convicted of crimes in British courts. It is also important to be aware that those accused and found not guilty are unlikely to be able to recover the costs of avoiding conviction.

 

[Trainbike46]

They can - most companies will endeavour to check the details given against the electoral register or through credit reference agencies, athough they are likely to be using a third party to do this. If the details are not verified in this way they will seek to have some other form of verification in the form of a driving licence, credit card, passport or other document.

Relatedly, do all RPIs have body-worn video (BWV) cameras yet? Given even whetherspoons staff have BWV now, it would be really bad for RPIs to not yet have them. Really, every railway staff member who checks tickets should have BWV.

It is naive in the extreme to believe that innocent people are never, and cannot be, convicted of crimes in British courts. It is also important to be aware that those accused and found not guilty are unlikely to be able to recover the costs of avoiding conviction.

Clearly innocent people get convicted of all kinds of crimes, and this happens regularly. My post explicitly refers to one type of situation where this happens, where the defendant isn't aware of the proceedings (which happens worryingly frequently). On to the more specific point, if the defendant claimed that the stopped person wasn't them, the prosecutor (such as TfL) would have to prove the person stopped was the defendant. The obvious way to do this would be by showing BWV or CCTV of the instance the person was stopped. If that isn't available, a witness statement from the railway staff member who stopped them would be an option (though clearly more open to challenge, especially if the case was reopened and the stop may have been a few years ago). Now of course, in the situation of false details, it will in most cases be obvious that the defendant and the person stopped are not the same from video evidence, unless the very unlucky case of them looking very similar applies. Of course, if the defendant has evidence that they couldn't have been the person stopped (e.g., they can prove they were elsewhere), it is good to share that, as it makes a just outcome more likely.

Your second point is entirely fair, and important to raise. However, I never claimed the defendant would be able to recover all their costs in defending a criminal case where they are not guilty. In my experience, direct costs such as travel costs to the court often are recoverable from the prosecutor, but the biggest cost, which is the time involved (such as one, or sometimes even multiple day(s) off work), is not.

Clearly it sucks to be falsely accused or prosecuted, and people really shouldn't give false details (for many reasons). The absolute **** it puts other people in is a major reason.

 

[spotify95]

Mod note: split from this thread

Just wondering, but what stops anyone from giving out somebody else's details if it is the case that TfL (or anyone else) will pursue it to its entirety? Surely then every time one gets into trouble they could give the name and address of somebody they don't like and that person has no right of recourse? I struggle to believe that TfL would be able to achieve prosecution by simply saying John Smith at 123 Bond Street just because someone named John has lived there at some point in the past who has no clue about this prosecution, and may well have an alibi (e.g. from work or not being in London etc.).

I'm pretty sure I've seen some threads on here whereby people have received NIPs from the train companies but it wasn't them that traveled. There was also one where other people gave an incorrect name and address. See here:

Someone used my name and now im being taken to court

As the title of this thread says, im in a very peculiar situation, ive been sent a single justice procedure letter saying im being charged with a criminal offence that took place on the 7th of June. Apparently i was at Manor Park station at 9:30 and was stopped by a ticket inspector, after being...

www.railforums.co.uk

So I'm pretty sure this thing happens all the time. The fact that it's not a requirement to carry ID, doesn't exactly help regarding these mix-ups.

The thing is though - when there are mix-ups, what actually happens? Obviously the person who receives the NIP/Verification Letter says it isn't them, and proces it somehow, but does the case then get dropped, or does TFL/ToC try and find the actual perpetrator?

 

[jfollows]

The thing is though - when there are mix-ups, what actually happens? Obviously the person who receives the NIP/Verification Letter says it isn't them, and proces it somehow, but does the case then get dropped, or does TFL/ToC try and find the actual perpetrator?

I’d expect the case would be dropped on the basis of “too hard”.
I once received an allegation about travelling without a ticket on Manchester Metrolink, so of course I wrote to them to tell them it wasn’t me. I also told them that I might be able to identify the real culprit if they wanted my help, but they weren’t interested, simply writing back to confirm the case against me was closed.

 

[Lg_]

Oh, they definitely can't verify anything on the spot. If the person has no ID, there's nothing anyone can do. The person fare evading might not even live in the UK or be a British citizen, and even if they were, there's no such database that the TOC could look them up on. Plus, they are technically private companies so they have even less authority to do that.

Revenue protection teams generally have access to the full electoral register and search details given against that to verify names and addresses at least match up.

Of course TOC’s can also see any history of PF’s or TIR’s given to you before.

 

[BRX]

If someone says they are John Smith from 123 High St and the RPIs check against the electoral register, or whatever, and say we can't verify the details you've just given us, and the fare evader says oh dear terribly sorry to hear that, what happens next?

 

[CyrusWuff]

If someone says they are John Smith from 123 High St and the RPIs check against the electoral register, or whatever, and say we can't verify the details you've just given us, and the fare evader says oh dear terribly sorry to hear that, what happens next?

If they weren't happy with the details given they could theoretically request Police assistance to establish your identity, and detain you (in line with Section 5(2) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889) until the Police attend.

 

[3rd rail land]

If they weren't happy with the details given they could theoretically request Police assistance to establish your identity, and detain you (in line with Section 5(2) of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889) until the Police attend.

How can they detain someone? If someone is stopped and is suspected of giving false details what is stopping them wandering off before the police arrive? Can RPIs use reasonable force to detain a suspect, i.e. citizens arrest?

 

[z444z]

How can they detain someone? If someone is stopped and is suspected of giving false details what is stopping them wandering off before the police arrive? Can RPIs use reasonable force to detain a suspect, i.e. citizens arrest?

RoRA may give them that power but in practice they’ll use their bodies to make the person feel trapped without actually touching them, and if the person still tries to escape they’ll call police. At major stations police will often be right around the corner, but if this isn’t the case then the person gets away. Often if a e-ticket has been scanned the person can be traced anyway.

 

[WesternLancer]

If someone says they are John Smith from 123 High St and the RPIs check against the electoral register, or whatever, and say we can't verify the details you've just given us, and the fare evader says oh dear terribly sorry to hear that, what happens next?

At least some of the types of people who evade fares aren’t going to consider registering to vote a high priority I suspect.

So this must be fairly common thing for an rpi to encounter (perhaps @RPI or others who work in the area can tell us how often this happens) in terms of being unable to verify a passengers claimed name and address.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I'm pretty sure I've seen some threads on here whereby people have received NIPs from the train companies but it wasn't them that traveled.

Someone with more time than me to check may be able to correct me, but when we've had 'someone else gave my details instead of their's and now the railway wants to prosecute' threads I don't think anyone has ever come back to say that the railway is prosecuting after they've sent evidence to show it wasn't them. So evidencing that you can't be the offender seems to work.

 

[jumble]

Revenue protection teams generally have access to the full electoral register and search details given against that to verify names and addresses at least match up.

Of course TOC’s can also see any history of PF’s or TIR’s given to you before.

This of course assumes that the type of person who gives false name and address will be the type who bothers to put themselves on the electoral roll

 

[AlterEgo]

There's also no evidence the railway has ever prosecuted anyone who gave the wrong details and that third party denied it was them. The proof train companies require to show it was someone else is also extremely low, and it is proof they cannot even verify. Mostly, the law takes effect against the compliant and the supine, and rarely truly hardened fare evaders who know what they're doing.

 

[z444z]

There's also no evidence the railway has ever prosecuted anyone who gave the wrong details and that third party denied it was them. The proof train companies require to show it was someone else is also extremely low, and it is proof they cannot even verify. Mostly, the law takes effect against the compliant and the supine, and rarely truly hardened fare evaders who know what they're doing.

Watching the latest season of Fare Dodgers I’m so often just shaking my head, don’t answer that question, don’t say that, this interview is voluntary so leave, if you’re gonna run away anyway why give them your details first. It’s comical.

 

[jfollows]

Watching the latest season of Fare Dodgers I’m so often just shaking my head, don’t answer that question, don’t say that, this interview is voluntary so leave, if you’re gonna run away anyway why give them your details first. It’s comical.

Not helped by the railway staff telling untruths as well, such as inventing a requirement to scan a barcode ticket at the starting station.

 

[z444z]

Not helped by the railway staff telling untruths as well, such as inventing a requirement to scan a barcode ticket at the starting station.

Absolutely. In the latest episode I watched (10 I believe), after providing his details, someone under interview by TfL investigators asked if he could leave and was told “no”.

 

[3rd rail land]

Do people have the right to answer 'no comment' to all questions? I suspect you could to an RPI but you would have to at least disclose your name etc to the police or get taken to a police station under arrest.

 

[jfollows]

23. Name and address
(1) Any person reasonably suspected by an authorised person of breaching or attempting to breach any of these Byelaws shall give his name and address when asked by an authorised person.
(2) The authorised person asking for details under Byelaw 23(1) shall state the nature of the breach of any of these Byelaws in general terms at the time of the request.

That’s different from the police, to whom you do not have to identify yourself. If you travel by train you implicitly agree to their terms and conditions.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a79c14b40f0b66d161ade8c/railway-byelaws.pdf

 

[Trainbike46]

Do people have the right to answer 'no comment' to all questions? I suspect you could to an RPI but you would have to at least disclose your name etc to the police or get taken to a police station under arrest.

To RPIs, you do have to provide details under the railway specific powers quoted above.

The police has very limited powers to get your details before arrest. There is an Anti-social behaviour related power, but that is it.

 

[AlterEgo]

Do people have the right to answer 'no comment' to all questions? I suspect you could to an RPI but you would have to at least disclose your name etc to the police or get taken to a police station under arrest.

One always has the right to no comment an interview, but you do have a legal obligation to identify yourself to authorised rail staff.

That’s different from the police, to whom you do not have to identify yourself. If you travel by train you implicitly agree to their terms and conditions.

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5a79c14b40f0b66d161ade8c/railway-byelaws.pdf

Bylaws are not terms and conditions! They are the law and you don't "agree to them".

 

[BRX]

To RPIs, you do have to provide details under the railway specific powers quoted above.

The police has very limited powers to get your details before arrest. There is an Anti-social behaviour related power, but that is it.

So, the people you have to provide details to can't detain you, and the people who can detain you, can't demand your details?

 

[Trainbike46]

So, the people you have to provide details to can't detain you, and the people who can detain you, can't demand your details?

The police can ask, you're just not obliged to answer.

But generally, that is correct (unless specific powers that are unlikely to apply in a railway context apply)

 

[jfollows]

Bylaws are not terms and conditions! They are the law and you don't "agree to them".

Of course.
But if you don’t travel by train they’re irrelevant.

 

[Haywain]

So, the people you have to provide details to can't detain you, and the people who can detain you, can't demand your details?

However, the police may detain you and advise you to give your details to the railway official.