Incorrect name on prosecution letter

[barlimo3444]

Hi all,

Someone in my family has received a letter in the post from GTR with the intention to prosecute. The letter has since been forwarded on to me as I am the one that committed said offence.

I purchased a ticket from Hitchin to Stevenage with the intention of travelling to Finsbury park (1 stop further) When the incident occurred, I gave them my full name and even showed them a picture of my email address. However they selected someone else’s name in their system with the same surname (related to me) as he had been cautioned before and was in their system. After the caution was given to me, I realised it didn’t have my name on and explained this to the officer. He didn’t care to listen and walk away. I think he thought I was being difficult.

Since the incident I haven’t heard anything until now, when the person whose name got put on the caution, forwarded it me.

Should I go back to them and explain how they have put the wrong persons name on and say how I would be more than happy to help assist? Or does the person who the letter is addressed to need to reply and state how they were not the one that committed the offence?

Thanks!

 

[jfollows]

I suggest that the person named on the letter responds to the effect that

1. it wasn’t them
2. it was you
3. you are aware of this and expect to hear from GTR directly in due course

First priority is to get GTR off the back of the wrong person, I suggest

 

[Hadders]

I agree with @jfollows GTR will almost certainly offer you an out of court settlement but you do need to co-operate with them.

 

[AlterEgo]

I suggest that the person named on the letter responds to the effect that

1. it wasn’t them
2. it was you
3. you are aware of this and expect to hear from GTR directly in due course

First priority is to get GTR off the back of the wrong person, I suggest

I recommend only doing 1). They don’t have to incriminate anyone else. Don’t do the investigators’ work for them and don’t correct their own slovenly work.

 

[barlimo3444]

I recommend only doing 1). They don’t have to incriminate anyone else. Don’t do the investigators’ work for them and don’t correct their own slovenly work.

Would they not see that as me not cooperating further down the line? @Hadders what do you think about this?

 

[AlterEgo]

Would they not see that as me not cooperating further down the line?

They don't know who you are. They haven't even sent you a letter, so how can they expect cooperation? They recorded your details wrongly.

 

[Hadders]

It's a bit of a tricky one.

Firstly, the person who has been sent the letter needs to reply to it. They need to say it wasn't them. So far, so good - people do give false details and train companies are used to peole replying saying 'it wasn't me'. GTR might write back to them asking for a description or for some other evidence that they weren't travelling by train at the time of the incident.

Fundamentally, your family member isn't required to incriminate anyone else. @AlterEgo is correct that it is the job of the investigator to find out who the offender is. What you do have to consider is if the investigator does their job correctly and tracks you down (this shouldn't be that hard as you did give them your details when you were stopped) they might be less inclined to offer you a settlement.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's a bit of a tricky one.

Firstly, the person who has been sent the letter needs to reply to it. They need to say it wasn't them. So far, so good - people do give false details and train companies are used to peole replying saying 'it wasn't me'. GTR might write back to them asking for a description or for some other evidence that they weren't travelling by train at the time of the incident.

Fundamentally, your family member isn't required to incriminate anyone else. @AlterEgo is correct that it is the job of the investigator to find out who the offender is. What you do have to consider is if the investigator does their job correctly and tracks you down (this shouldn't be that hard as you did give them your details when you were stopped) they might be less inclined to offer you a settlement.

Why would the company be less inclined to offer a settlement? They settle all the time, for a start.

Secondly, this admin foul up is the train company’s own fault. The OP gave their correct details but the officer recorded them wrongly. That’s too bad for GTR. 9 times out of 10 the person who gets the incorrect letter has no idea who the intended recipient is and the traveller never gets contacted.

Nah I’d be waiting for them to write to me. It’s not the OP’s job to get ahead of the company’s sloppy admin, or to chase them reminding them how naughty they’ve been and can they please pay a large sum of money.

 

[Volvictof]

Why would the company be less inclined to offer a settlement?

I think the implication is that when it comes down to it, the officer who issued the ticket will have no memory of OP telling him it had the wrong name on, and the investigator will think that OP was actively giving false details, which would be backed up when they realise he’s at the same address and hasn’t been in contact to own up.

 

[AlterEgo]

I think the implication is that when it comes down to it, the officer who issued the ticket will have no memory of OP telling him it had the wrong name on, and the investigator will think that OP was actively giving false details, which would be backed up when they realise he’s at the same address and hasn’t been in contact to own up.

They don't know who the OP is! They failed to record who the traveller was.

They still just want their money. Bet they don't get it in this case if the OP just shuts up and their relative doesn't dob them in. Honestly it really is not up to us or the OP to make these people's jobs easier when they are incompetent.

 

[barlimo3444]

I think the implication is that when it comes down to it, the officer who issued the ticket will have no memory of OP telling him it had the wrong name on, and the investigator will think that OP was actively giving false details, which would be backed up when they realise he’s at the same address and hasn’t been in contact to own up.

the train inspector even took a picture of my phone that had my email on it and my full name and still put my details in incorrectly so they can’t say I was giving false details

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2025 ==

How should my family member lay out their reply?

Dear Fare Evasion Manager,

The alleged offence was not me however I would be happy to help assist further in regards to where I was at the time of said offence.


What else should they even say or just leave it at that?

 

[Hadders]

the train inspector even took a picture of my phone that had my email on it and my full name and still put my details in incorrectly so they can’t say I was giving false details

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2025 ==

How should my family member lay out their reply?

Dear Fare Evasion Manager,

The alleged offence was not me however I would be happy to help assist further in regards to where I was at the time of said offence.


What else should they even say or just leave it at that?

While you don't have to say anything more than that they could say where they were at the time.

 

[WesternLancer]

the train inspector even took a picture of my phone that had my email on it and my full name and still put my details in incorrectly so they can’t say I was giving false details

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2025 ==

How should my family member lay out their reply?

Dear Fare Evasion Manager,

The alleged offence was not me however I would be happy to help assist further in regards to where I was at the time of said offence.


What else should they even say or just leave it at that?

Include their reference number in your reply.

 

[AlterEgo]

the train inspector even took a picture of my phone that had my email on it and my full name and still put my details in incorrectly so they can’t say I was giving false details

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 29 Jan 2025 ==

How should my family member lay out their reply?

Dear Fare Evasion Manager,

The alleged offence was not me however I would be happy to help assist further in regards to where I was at the time of said offence.


What else should they even say or just leave it at that?

It might be helpful for your relative to say where they were rather than prompting even more correspondence. Also note “the alleged offence was not me” doesn’t make grammatical sense. An offence cannot be a person.

You mean “I was not the person stopped”.

The letter should open by referencing the correspondence received “I acknowledge your letter of [date]” and if there is a reference number, quote it.