Prosecution but it’s mistaken identity

[northwichcat]

And if they had taken this course of action in the first place, we would not be having this thread.

So it seems someone gave her name and address when asked for a ticket and the RPI did not ask for any ID (unless she has exactly the same name as the person who was caught without a ticket.) If the RPI took a description e.g. woman, mid 20s, long brown hair, medium build and a passport scan was sent to them of a woman, mid 20s, long brown hair and medium build what does that prove or not prove? It could make Northern's evidence stronger even if they've got the wrong person.

One thing I don't think has been stressed is using your debit card isn't itself proof you were at the place where it was used.

 

[najaB]

So it seems someone gave her name and address when asked for a ticket and the RPI did not ask for any ID...

We don't know this. There is no requirement to either carry or to provide ID on request.

 

[Puffing Devil]

I make no qualms that I have no experience, however, one has to start somewhere. I would be happy to have pointed out where you feel I have given advice rather than commenting.

I do feel that there is a strong hostility in this forum to any kind of outsider. As someone with a lot of experience on the passenger side, but little elsewhere, I find this a shame.

A final note. Making an 'admin error' when what is at stake may be someone's potential career or livelihood is something that needs to be taken very seriously, but addressed correctly. I do not think it being an 'admin error' excuses the huge mistake being made.

It's not hostility and it's not the general case across the forum. However, many posters in D&P are facing criminal prosecution and following bad 'advice' (even if it wasn't intended as such) can make the difference between the case being set aside by the TOC and the OP ending up with a criminal record.

As such we ask that anything not intended as advice either be taken to a separate thread or, at the very least, clearly marked as opinion rather than advice.

najaB is correct; there is nothing personal going on here. In this section of the forum there is no place for debate about what could and should be in advice threads. We try to stick to the facts, the law and TOC processes as they are now to help the posters who come here seeking advice.

The forum guidelines are a great starting point: https://www.railforums.co.uk/threads/please-read-before-posting-in-disputes-prosecutions.77759/

If you're not sure of the actual process or what would usually happen, you should be posting in another thread where that debate can be had - see the recent split from this thread about the use of a passport as id: https://www.railforums.co.uk/thread...-stopped-for-fare-evasion-was-not-you.158389/ There is useful discussion that does not distract from the advice being sought.

We are usually friendly and helpful, even to those who have blatantly broken the law and come seeking advice, providing fact is separated from expectation.

 

[northwichcat]

There is no requirement to either carry or to provide ID on request.

Agreed but if Northern didn't do any ID check and don't have a photo or CCTV proof of the offender then I fail to see how they have sufficient evidence to do anything.

 

[talldave]

But they haven't made a "false accusation".
They have a miscreant that has given the OP's name and address when caught, therefore they are asking for proof that the OP is not that miscreant.
There is no falsehood implied or otherwise.

I prefer to deal in facts. They claimed they had a miscreant who gave the OP's name and address, but appear to be heading to court with a statement using another identity.

From this, neither you or I know what ID the miscreant gave, whether the OP's ID was used at any point and whether the TOC are being incompetent or malicious in their pursuit of the OP. However, you seem to know - somehow - that their accusation is not false. So you have more information than the OP?

 

[najaB]

However, you seem to know - somehow - that their accusation is not false. So you have more information than the OP?

I think the point being made was that the accusation isn't false maliciously - they would appear to be genuine in their belief that the OP was in fact the person who was stopped.

 

[richw]

A passport or driving licence is irrelevant and proves nothing, and doesn’t clear any false identity, as it contains the name and address details they presumably have already.
Was the OPs address supplied by the offender, or have they used a tracing service?
They’ve refused to supply evidence citing data protection so they clearly believe the OP isn’t the offender, or this wouldn’t be an issue.

 

[najaB]

They’ve refused to supply evidence citing data protection so they clearly believe the OP isn’t the offender, or this wouldn’t be an issue.

They can't send data about a data subject to someone claiming not to be that data subject.

 

[talldave]

They can't send data about a data subject to someone claiming not to be that data subject.

But, ironically, seem quite happy to send data about someone else to the OP. It would be funny if it didn't make their bleating about "data protection" look so pathetic.

 

[najaB]

But, ironically, seem quite happy to send data about someone else to the OP. It would be funny if it didn't make their bleating about "data protection" look so pathetic.

If you're referring to the witness statement (which appears to refer to someone else) then, absent evidence to the contrary, that would appear to be a mistake. Yes, it was a data protection breach, but it seems that they sent what they thought was the correct data to the right person.

That's in a completely different category to sending data about Person A to someone who is actively claiming to be Person B.

 

[Deafdoggie]

I once had an incorrect court summons (nothing related to this) where there was clear errors made, and incorrect evidence. However, my solicitor was of the view that the more doubt and confusion there is, the better. A court can only convict when it is "beyond all reasonable doubt" my solicitor said the more doubt therefore, the better. It was, of course, thrown out of court at the first hearing. I'm not suggesting this will work in this case, but it certainly can't help Northerns case either.

 

[rs101]

I think the point being made was that the accusation isn't false maliciously - they would appear to be genuine in their belief that the OP was in fact the person who was stopped.

Doesn't appear to be malicious, more a case of incompetence if the supporting documentation does have the name and address of a completely different person.

 

[talltim]

NR have done nothing wrong in this.

Apart from sending random people details about other people's court procedings...

 

[Mathew S]

Apart from sending random people details about other people's court procedings...

From what the OP has said, it sounds to me like Northern were acting in good faith based on false details they've been given by some miscreant. Whatever you think of Northern, I don't think we can really blame them for that.

 

[rs101]

From what the OP has said, it sounds to me like Northern were acting in good faith based on false details they've been given by some miscreant. Whatever you think of Northern, I don't think we can really blame them for that.

The OP clearly states that the witness statement contains the details of a completely different person, not their details.

 

[Puffing Devil]

The OP clearly states that the witness statement contains the details of a completely different person, not their details.

Which is believed to be an admin error - wrong statement in the wrong envelope. I'm pretty sure, for all their faults, NR didn't just go down the electoral roll and pluck the OPs name and address out at random in order to start a case. The details must have entered the system somehow - most likely by a 3rd party passing themselves off as the OP.

 

[robbeech]

Which is believed to be an admin error - wrong statement in the wrong envelope. I'm pretty sure, for all their faults, NR didn't just go down the electoral roll and pluck the OPs name and address out at random in order to start a case. The details must have entered the system somehow - most likely by a 3rd party passing themselves off as the OP.

Fully agree it is incompetence rather than malice but it does show that if they’re going to send other (seemingly random and unrelated) personal data put to people it’s a good enough argument not to send them any of yours. Of course, when identification was requested this was unknown. I’m a firm believer in trying to help out, particularly if not doing so could cause more hassle but there has to be a limit and proving innocence isn’t how we do it here, or at least it shouldn’t be.

 

[najaB]

Fully agree it is incompetence rather than malice but it does show that if they’re going to send other (seemingly random and unrelated) personal data put to people it’s a good enough argument not to send them any of yours.

As above, supplying a scan of the passport with the number blanked out should be enough and would be useless for ID fraud purposes.