Contacted by Debt Recovery Company

[Jinxy]

Hi folks

Just looking for a bit of advice for my Step Son regarding a letter that he received a few weeks ago from a debt recovery company.

They have contacted him regarding a prosecution and fine for fare dodging in October 2023. He contacted them and after a lot of chasing around and speaking to courts it appears that somebody has given his name and dob but a made up address to a ticket inspector. They sent repeated letters, court papers etc to this fictitious address which resulted in a prosecution and a fine being issued. This eventually ended up with the debt collection agency who search the electoral register, came up with his name (very common) and dob matched at his address.

He's contacted the court about the prosecution and has made a statutory declaration as he was advised to do this, logged the details with action fraud as somebody has falsely provided his details again as advised, and was given a court date in mid december. He has finally been contacted by Prosecution department from Railway company and has asked to provide evidence of where he was between 8.30 - 10.30 on the sunday in question of the original offence. As its over a year ago there is limited options for what evidence he'd have (if it'd been earlier we'd have ring camera footage) and being that time on a sunday he wasn't likely to be out of bed. We do know what was going on on that date as unfortunately we had to have the family dog put down at lunchtime on that day and he collected his grandmother on that morning (at about 10.30) to bring her to see the dog before we had to take him to the vet, but still we have very limited evidence to support this.

He has been advised after querying with the railway company that they have no body cam or other evidence, other than the form thats been filled in with the false details and signed with a line.

I just wanted some advice for him as surely its for the railway company to prove it was him rather than for him to prove it wasn't?

 

[Titfield]

Yes it is for the prosecution to prove it was him rather than for him to prove it wasnt.

 

[johnny_t]

Does he have an Android phone, as the Google Maps app always has a surprising amount of location data on its Timeline function (which is usually on by default).

The debt collection agency is just trying it on, though, as he comes up as a likely candidate in the area. The DOB thing could be from someone that knows him, or it could just be plain bad luck.

 

[Haywain]

Yes it is for the prosecution to prove it was him rather than for him to prove it wasnt.

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. In simple terms their evidence is that his name and dob have been given with a 'false' address. If the defence amounts to "it wasn't me" and nothing more it doesn't amount to a great defence.

 

[Titfield]

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. In simple terms their evidence is that his name and dob have been given with a 'false' address. If the defence amounts to "it wasn't me" and nothing more it doesn't amount to a great defence.

But if he over complicates matters he runs the risk inadvertently of reversing the burden of proof and the magistrates, not being alert to this, allow it to happen.

There could be other matters we are not aware of which would make the prosecutions argument stronger and would therefore require a stronger rebuttal. For example is the person a regular traveller by train? If the traveller does have strong evidence it wasn't him then he should produce it in advance so as to avoid an impression of wasting the courts time,

 

[Mogz]

I'm not sure it's quite that simple. In simple terms their evidence is that his name and dob have been given with a 'false' address. If the defence amounts to "it wasn't me" and nothing more it doesn't amount to a great defence.

Sorry, the system is “innocent until proven guilty” in this country and a court can only convict of any offence if it is sure of guilt.

He doesn’t need camera footage to
prove he was elsewhere.

My suggestion would be for every family member or anyone else who was present and can remember the events of that day to write a statement containing their name, address, date of birth and a signed “declaration of truth” the wording of which is:

“This statement consisting of [x] pages is true to the best of my knowledge and belief, and I make it knowing that I may be prosecuted if I have wilfully stated in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true. I am willing to attend court if necessary”.

He should provide one too.

 

[Jinxy]

Hi and thank you

He is a very rare users of trains, once or twice a year tops. From the information the prosecution sheet it was traveling from Bletchley to MK at something like 8.30-8.45am on a Sunday where we live in Northampton and thats where he was on that date. Our problem is that bank details of that age have no time stamps so can't show when he made purchases, we have no ring footage as its 12+ months ago etc. The address on the form is completely fictitious, its not a real address at all so all paper work will have bounced and nothing like our address, the debt collection agency have decide as the name and dob match its him and sent the collection letter which is what set this whole mess in motion.

 

[WesternLancer]

There will be a clear court process for dealing wit this scenario as it must not be uncommon. You just need to find out what it is.

There are some court experts on here who may be well placed to advise on next steps you should take eg @island or @Puffing Devil may have useful advice.

I suspect it doesn’t boil down to relatives and friends stating you were elsewhere at the time.

The railway company usually take a basic description of the person evading so sending them a copy of your id that they can compare with that record might also be useful.

 

[Jinxy]

There will be a clear court process for dealing wit this scenario as it must not be uncommon. You just need to find out what it is.

Thanks, the SD and Action Fraud reporting were what he was advised by the courts to follow and then to speak to the Railway prosecution people once they'd be done to try to get it dealt with without having to go through the whole court process again.

 

[WesternLancer]

Thanks, the SD and Action Fraud reporting were what he was advised by the courts to follow and then to speak to the Railway prosecution people once they'd be done to try to get it dealt with without having to go through the whole court process again.

Thanks. I just edited my post in case what I added is of help.

We had another case on here similar not that long ago. Problem is I can’t recall enough to find it for you to read.

 

[Haywain]

Sorry, the system is “innocent until proven guilty” in this country and a court can only convict of any offence if it is sure of guilt.

You have great faith in our legal system but I do not share your confidence.

 

[AlterEgo]

You have great faith in our legal system but I do not share your confidence.

Quite.

How one can have confidence where some innocent party has had a conviction and fine retrospectively added to their name, based on nothing other than they’re the only person in that town with the name? May as well close your eyes and throw a dartboard at a map.

 

[some bloke]

I'm not aware of any cases like this on here where the company bothered taking it to court, let alone secured a conviction.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 3 Dec 2024 ==

He's contacted the court about the prosecution and has made a statutory declaration ... and was given a court date in mid december.

Was he told more about the court date?

One thing he might do if it comes to it is to go to the court building early, ask staff where the prosecutor is and try to talk with them before the case is called. Hopefully this will be sorted out before then.

Or - just to check - do you mean that this is an appointment at court to make the declaration?

He has been advised after querying with the railway company that they have no body cam or other evidence, other than the form thats been filled in with the false details and signed with a line.

If you post on here the correspondence with the rail company, with identifying details obscured and dates visible, people may be able to offer more specific advice. Then you can post a draft on here for people to comment on.

If some communications have been by phone, then notes of those could be useful.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Sorry, the system is “innocent until proven guilty” in this country and a court can only convict of any offence if it is sure of guilt.

You have a higher opinion of the competence of Magistrates than I do, it has to be said.

Whilst this is strictly true, it's a braver person than I who would allow something to get to court with a defence of "it wasn't me" without having obtained additional evidence to support their position.

Evidence can be the testimony of the OP and family members in a witness statement, it doesn't have to be phone records and bank statements.

There will be a clear court process for dealing wit this scenario as it must not be uncommon. You just need to find out what it is.

The procedure is that the Statutory Declaration resets the clock. Beyond that it'll be prosecuted in the same way as any other case of "it wasn't me".

The more information you provide the prosecutor, the more likely it is that the prosecutor will withdraw the proceedings as there will no longer sufficient evidence to continue the prosecution. But the OP does need to be careful of not falling into the trap of trying to prove where they were; that's not their responsibility.

How one can have confidence where some innocent party has had a conviction and fine retrospectively added to their name, based on nothing other than they’re the only person in that town with the name? May as well close your eyes and throw a dartboard at a map.

This is a huge problem throughout the system. Bailiffs- who only get paid if they extract money from someone- obviously have an incentive to attach a criminal conviction to someone, anyone, in order to get their money. The trouble is the Courts let them do it with impunity and they make it the innocent person's problem when the bailiffs get it wrong.

 

[Jinxy]

Thanks everyone, so is it worth getting a signed witness statement from people who can state that he was somewhere totally different to on a train at 8.30 am on a sunday 30 odd miles away?.

 

[Hadders]

Thanks everyone, so is it worth getting a signed witness statement from people who can state that he was somewhere totally different to on a train at 8.30 am on a sunday 30 odd miles away?.

Anything that can show where you were at the date and time in question will be helpful.

 

[tixy]

Based on the thread, and please correct me if wrong, it appears to be an Enforcement Agency contracted by HMCTS (the courts) to recover a fine lodged post conviction. If this is the case, has any warrant been issued to the agency for enforcement?

The reason for asking is to ensure that if a statutory Declaration has been made and lodged with the court, that the Fines officer at the court has requested withdrawal of any warrants already issued to prevent further enforcement.

Do you have the most recent letter from the agency as it gives an indication what warrant the agency is (or was) dealing with. (personal info redacted of course?)

 

[jumble]

You have great faith in our legal system but I do not share your confidence.

You are no doubt correct but it is a horrifying thought that you or I may be put up in front of a magistrate and tell them it wasn't me but the magistrate would convict all the same
A simple solution of course would be mandating that the magistrate to demand bodycam footage or else the case should be dismissed owing to lack of evidence and costs awarded to the defendant

 

[island]

A simple solution of course would be mandating that the magistrate to demand bodycam footage or else the case should be dismissed owing to lack of evidence and costs awarded to the defendant

This is anything but a "simple solution" as it would require legislation.

 

[Haywain]

A simple solution of course would be mandating that the magistrate to demand bodycam footage or else the case should be dismissed owing to lack of evidence and costs awarded to the defendant

Would this be for every offence?

 

[Cantab26]

A simple solution of course would be mandating that the magistrate to demand bodycam footage or else the case should be dismissed owing to lack of evidence and costs awarded to the defendant

And if an RPI appears in court in person and identifies the defendant on oath as the person who was travelling?

What then?

 

[Cloud Strife]

And if an RPI appears in court in person and identifies the defendant on oath as the person who was travelling?

Generally speaking, if the defendant has an alibi, the RPI's word is unlikely to be enough. They would need corrobative evidence, such as some documentary proof that it was the defendant who was actually travelling on that day.

 

[1D54]

And surely in that scenario the prosecution would offer no evidence simply because there is none to offer.

 

[Haywain]

Generally speaking, if the defendant has an alibi, the RPI's word is unlikely to be enough. They would need corrobative evidence, such as some documentary proof that it was the defendant who was actually travelling on that day.

Again, blind faith in the legal system.

 

[island]

Generally speaking, if the defendant has an alibi, the RPI's word is unlikely to be enough. They would need corrobative evidence, such as some documentary proof that it was the defendant who was actually travelling on that day.

This of course assumes that the defendant follows the correct court procedure for an alibi defence in line with the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act and regulations made thereunder.

 

[talldave]

Again, blind faith in the legal system.

Indeed, the weight of "authority" sways the decision process. Experienced TOC employee vs fare-dodging chancer - it's a no brainer. I once took points on my licence for a red light jump that I wasn't guilty of, simply because all the advice I received was that when it went to court, my "boy racer" word against that of one of her majesty's finest coppers would be a guaranteed conviction. It's just the way life is.