Proof of ID - How do you provide it?

[pitdiver]

I note that it is an offence to fail give name and address to an authorised person. Once a name and address is supplied is it necessary to provide proof of those details. If so how do you do that?

 

[Tevion539]

I note that it is an offence to fail give name and address to an authorised person. Once a name and address is supplied is it necessary to provide proof of those details. If so how do you do that?

I’m confident that ID can be requested if there is a legitimate reason for it, example to prove that someone with a child ticket is under 16. However, it isn’t a legal requirement to carry ID in the UK. Even a driving licence isn’t issued for ID purposes and isn’t expected to be carried by drivers (used to work for the DVLA.)

So they can request it, but if you don’t have it in that moment, then you can’t show it. They just have to take your word at the time that you’re giving correct details. I’m sure though, that transport investigations limited checks things like electoral rolls etc to try and validate details given.

 

[jfollows]

If stopped, for example for not holding a valid ticket, the name and address you give can be validated at the time, but giving someone else’s name and address is perfectly possible and will pass the check. It’s not a friendly or sensible thing to be done, but we’ve helped people here whose details have been given by someone else.
If you can’t or won’t “prove” the name and address, that’s up to you.
At major stations I think the police might get called in if there are suspicions about the information you give.

I have refused to supply ”proof“ of who I am to certain people in the past, but this wouldn’t extend to rail ticket inspectors doing their jobs.

I’ve had someone give my name and address to Manchester Metrolink in the past; I was able to resolve the personal accusation which came in the post subsequently but I fear the original offender got away with it. I guess that it was a former tenant.

 

[Watershed]

There is absolutely no requirement to provide proof to verify the details you are providing. From the threads we see here, it's obvious that a lot of RPIs wrongly think they have the power to force people to produce ID, and wrongly threaten further consequences if not produced.

You only need to provide the following (accurate) details: your name and address if the details are required under the Byelaws or Regulation of Railways Act, or your name, address and date of birth if being issued with a Penalty Fare.

If details are provided then there would generally be no power of detention - see this post I made recently. Staff may decide to conduct checks on the details using the electoral register or similar, but the outcome of such checks is irrelevant in a sense - a 'failure' doesn't give them any additional powers. Similarly they can call the police if they want, but they cannot detain you until they arrive.

Even many legitimate details will not be able to be verified, due to people having moved recently (the electoral register database only gets updated a few times a year) or living abroad. Those under 16 obviously also won't be on the register.

 

[AlterEgo]

I note that it is an offence to fail give name and address to an authorised person. Once a name and address is supplied is it necessary to provide proof of those details.

No.

== Doublepost prevention - post automatically merged: 24 Aug 2025 ==

I’m sure though, that transport investigations limited checks things like electoral rolls etc to try and validate details given.

That doesn't validate anything. It just checks that the details given are on the electoral roll, that's all.

 

[Tevion539]

That doesn't validate anything. It just checks that the details given are on the electoral roll, that's all.

This is information that I was told. But makes sense.

 

[STINT47]

I'm not sure what I could actually produce to prove my address. I don't have a drivers licence. I carry a bank card which has my name on it but that would not show my address.

It's all academic as there is no requirement to carry ID on the UK and certainly no need to provide it to railway staff although some make up their own rules.

 

[soccermad]

You only need to provide the following (accurate) details: your name and address if the details are required under the Byelaws or Regulation of Railways Act, or your name, address and date of birth if being issued with a Penalty Fare.

Except you are wrong in that assertion as per Watershed's post above

 

[ainsworth74]

Except you are wrong in that assertion as per Watershed's post above

Have you quoted the wrong person as you're quoting Watershed?

 

[Cloud Strife]

I note that it is an offence to fail give name and address to an authorised person. Once a name and address is supplied is it necessary to provide proof of those details. If so how do you do that?

It's not necessary, and you're under no obligation to do anything except provide them with a name and address in the event of not having a ticket and not being willing to pay for one. You're certainly not obliged to provide them with any sort of ID, nor can you be published for failing to do so.

The police are very unlikely to attend if someone willingly gave a name and address, even if their own "checks" yielded nothing. There's no system of having a registered address in the UK, so they can only take your word for it, nothing more.

If someone requests more information, then the correct thing to do is decline as there's simply no reason to provide anything more. People, unfortunately, often incriminate themselves by offering more information than is required.

 

[AlterEgo]

It's not necessary, and you're under no obligation to do anything except provide them with a name and address in the event of not having a ticket and not being willing to pay for one.

You're obliged to give your name and address under the Railway Bylaws even if you are willing to pay for a ticket, provided you are reasonably suspected of contravening a Bylaw.

 

[Baxenden Bank]

I cannot quote the Railway Byelaws etc but do you have to give YOUR name and address, or do you simply have to give 'an address at which you can be contacted'? That could be a workplace, a parent, or a 'safe place' if you are worried about someone finding out your home address.

 

[Randomer]

I cannot quote the Railway Byelaws etc but do you have to give YOUR name and address, or do you simply have to give 'an address at which you can be contacted'? That could be a workplace, a parent, or a 'safe place' if you are worried about someone finding out your home address.

Whilst that may be true for other bylaws the Railway Bylaws don't say "an address at which summons may be served" or "an address which you can be contacted at" they say this:

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.

As a side note TFL Railway bylaws that cover London Overground etc. have the same as above at 22 (1).

 

[soccermad]

Have you quoted the wrong person as you're quoting Watershed?

Sorry Thats what I intended, the quote was from Watershed

 

[duffield]

...

If someone requests more information, then the correct thing to do is decline as there's simply no reason to provide anything more. People, unfortunately, often incriminate themselves by offering more information than is required.

However, in some circumstances being seen as cooperative beyond what the law requires may mean (for example) being given a penalty fare rather than being reported for investigation, which at best will typically be several times more expensive (if you get an out of court settlement).

 

[RPI]

As others have said, railway staff can request ID if taking your details for a suspected offence, you're under no obligation to show ID, if the member of staff can disprove any of the details given then the BTP may well be summoned to assist.

 

[Watershed]

As others have said, railway staff can request ID if taking your details for a suspected offence, you're under no obligation to show ID, if the member of staff can disprove any of the details given then the BTP may well be summoned to assist.

Indeed but the chances of them turning up within any reasonable amount of time, if it's not a station they already have a presence at, are minimal. It's only really an effective "threat" if done onboard a train where there's enough time to the next stop for them to be there on arrival, or at a combined RPI/BTP blockade.

 

[robbeech]

Indeed but the chances of them turning up within any reasonable amount of time, if it's not a station they already have a presence at, are minimal. It's only really an effective "threat" if done onboard a train where there's enough time to the next stop for them to be there on arrival, or at a combined RPI/BTP blockade.

Which is fine until revenue staff believe they are within their right to detain someone indefinitely, particularly when they only suspect and cannot prove an offence has been committed.

 

[Watershed]

Which is fine until revenue staff believe they are within their right to detain someone indefinitely, particularly when they only suspect and cannot prove an offence has been committed.

Any such detention would be likely to constitute unlawful imprisonment, for which substantial civil damages are available.

Of course we can never rule anything out given how the TOCs see compliance with everything except for safety law as largely optional, and give poor training to their staff. But I would hope that RPIs would know better than to undertake unlawful imprisonment.

 

[island]

It is a requirement to give name and address, and in certain circumstances date of birth, to railway staff when being dealt with for having no valid ticket etc.

It is not a requirement to show railway staff your ID, bank cards, phone apps, etc. nor to wait around whilst they attempt to "verify" the information you have been given, although choosing not to comply with such a request may constitute a failure of the "attitude test" and result in being dealt with more strictly than one otherwise might, such as being reported for prosecution rather than being issued a penalty fare, sold a new ticket, or let off with a warning. If the interaction takes place inside a ticket gateline then it may be difficult to leave without committing a further offence.

 

[Cloud Strife]

Which is fine until revenue staff believe they are within their right to detain someone indefinitely, particularly when they only suspect and cannot prove an offence has been committed.

The legal precedent (in England at least) is very much there concerning unlawful detainment. I can't give specifics as it was the matter of an out of court settlement, but I know someone who received a low five figure payout from one TOC over exactly this situation occurring on a train. It resulted in moderate injury to the victim, and the TOC had very little problem with paying out to avoid it going public. The advice from the solicitors was to take the offer and run, as the TOC also offered to pay their fees as part of the settlement.

If the interaction takes place inside a ticket gateline then it may be difficult to leave without committing a further offence.

One interesting situation that I've heard about involved a passenger who had a perfectly valid ticket, but the RPI believed that they didn't. They vaulted the barriers, but the case was dropped after it was established that the passenger had first requested the staff at the gateline to let them through. As the passenger had a valid ticket *and* had made a request to be let out, the prosecution department at the TOC chose to drop the case, especially as the passenger made it clear that they would be happy to go to court in this situation.