Mysterious Fare Evasion

[Serengettisun]

Hi

Hope everyone is keeping well and safe in these challenging times!

I have discovered that following a standard conviction check, I received a fine on 4/1/2019 for travelling on the railway without paying. I didn't use the train that day and never received a fine. I haven't received any convictions for not paying my fare. I supposed my records could have been confused with someone else - I am asking for a review.


In the mean time, can I check this myself? And how?


All the best

 

[swt_passenger]

Seems from what you’ve found so far that 4 Jan 2019 would be the day of the court case, it could quite easily refer to travel over 6 months before that...

 

[Llanigraham]

As above.
The date mentioned will have been the date of the Court hearing, so the offence could have taken at any time in at least the preceding 6 months.
If you honestly know nothing about this you need to contact the Court that issued the fine urgently

 

[Serengettisun]

Court Case!? Sorry if I'm being dim but I assumed this was an on the spot fine not a court case.

Regardless I have not received any fines, I have always had a ticket. I have a rail card and always buy my ticket

The only information I have is
'A standard convictions check is done ..... this has now been returned advising you received a fine on 4/1/2019 for travelling on the railway without paying ...'

would this be permanently on my record??

 

[PeterC]

The word "fine" has a stict technical meaning and can only be issued by a court. Attendance isn't always required, depending on the offence a plea of guilty can be entered by post (as I have done for a speeding offence).

 

[Serengettisun]

An update!

I've gone back to the source. It seems the conviction is about someone with the same name or a similar but the address is incorrect and not somewhere I have ever lived. Berkshire court judged the case on 4/1/2019 as you said and the offence took place on 8/6/2018.

So it wasn't me afterall! Phew! My source has been misinformed so I need to get to the bottom of this. I hope this is as easy as it sounds!

Many thanks for your help and clarification, swt_passenger and Llanigraham.

 

[Serengettisun]

Thank you, PeterC

 

[Fawkes Cat]

I think that there are three possibilities here

1) That someone of a similar name but different address has been charged and convicted, but for some reason the conviction has been noted against you.
2) That someone of a similar name was reported for the offence, but the charge was made against you: for some reason you didn't become aware of this, and you were convicted in your absence
3) That actually you were fare-dodging, and you were caught, and you have been lying to us. If that's the case, there's nothing we can do to help. But on the basis of what you have told us, I think this is staggeringly unlikely so I apologise for putting this point so baldly, and I won't consider it further.

What you should do about the first two possibilities starts off the same, but then diverges. To start with, you need to contact the court to find out quite what has happened. It looks as if you have started in on this - but you should aim to do this quite quickly, because if (my option (2)) you were wrongly convicted then you have only 21 days to formally let the court know by making a 'statutory declaration' that you didn't know about the prosecution. What a 'statutory declaration' does is to set the conviction aside, and it will be relisted and heard again - but in practice what we see here is that if the wrong person was prosecuted, then the railway withdraw their prosecution and you can walk away with a clean record. If (option (1)) it's just that the records are a bit muddled then hopefully getting in touch will be enough for the court to put their records right.

So get in touch with the court. Given the current Covid-19 position there is probably a lot to be said for emailing them ( TV-BerkshireMCEnq@Justice.gov.uk seems to be the address for both Reading and East Berkshire (i.e. Slough) magistrates' courts). If you don't get a response by the time the 21 days are running a bit short, you might want to phone (0118 980 1800, 10.00 am - 2.00 pm) or maybe send a letter with proof of posting from a post office to make sure that you get your argument in.

 

[Elecman]

If you have been fined and not paid the fine you can also expect the bailiffs to be calling at some point.

 

[matt_world2004]

Do you live anywhere near the address in questio

 

[packermac]

If you have been fined and not paid the fine you can also expect the bailiffs to be calling at some point.

From January 2019 I would thought that would have happened by now.

 

[island]

Depends how busy the courts and bailiffs are.

 

[dvboy]

If this came up on a DBS check there is a disputes process for that.

 

[Fawkes Cat]

So there is: https://www.gov.uk/report-problem-criminal-record-certificate/dispute-a-mistake

Note the need to do something different if it is a basic DBS check.

 

[Cricketer8for9]

And be prepared the the possibility (albeit only possibility) that you will be asked to provide fingerprints as part of the process to correct your record.

If “your” conviction has been recorded on the Police National Computer then it should only have happened if it was a recordable one (as defined in Statutory Instrument 2000 number 1139). Recordable offences are those for which fingerprints and DNA may be taken on arrest. So if it was from PNC there will be an arrest print set (which we assume won’t be from you). Providing your fingerprints, if asked, proves that the person arrested was not you (fingerprints are incredibly individual).

And by the way do you mean a standard check (all convictions recorded on the PNC) or a basic one (all unspent convictions recorded on PNC)?

 

[island]

And be prepared the the possibility (albeit only possibility) that you will be asked to provide fingerprints as part of the process to correct your record.

If “your” conviction has been recorded on the Police National Computer then it should only have happened if it was a recordable one (as defined in Statutory Instrument 2000 number 1139). Recordable offences are those for which fingerprints and DNA may be taken on arrest. So if it was from PNC there will be an arrest print set (which we assume won’t be from you). Providing your fingerprints, if asked, proves that the person arrested was not you (fingerprints are incredibly individual).

It is most unlikely this will arise; prosecutions for fare evasion are just about always by report and summons/single justice procedure, and nobody will have been arrested.

And by the way do you mean a standard check (all convictions recorded on the PNC) or a basic one (all unspent convictions recorded on PNC)?

One assumes a standard check; the conviction is more than a year old and thus already spent.

 

[Cricketer8for9]

I agree. That said if it had been included on the standard disclosure then it will have been on PNC (which I accept is unusual for a fare evasion case).