Can someone advise... My son received a letter from Arriva Rail, basically someone has given his name and address when caught by an inspector on a train. Cut a long story short after supplying his photographic ID Arriva have decided that they are going to carry on the case because his signature is similar, surely the train company requires more evidence than that? What can he do next?
-
Our new ticketing site is now live! Using either this or the original site (both powered by TrainSplit) helps support the running of the forum with every ticket purchase! Find out more and ask any questions/give us feedback in this thread!
Someone else supplied my son's details
- Thread starter Carol T
- Start date
- Status
Sponsor Post - registered members do not see these adverts; click here to register, or click here to log in
R
RailUK Forums
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
Hi and welcome. Have you had a conversation with your son as to his whereabouts when the alleged offence took place?. Can you be absolutely certain that he wasn't travelling with Arriva at the time?
If you are 100% certain he is telling the truth, then your son has nothing to worry about. If he can prove his whereabouts at the time then you need to get in contact with Arriva and tell them. It must be somebody he knows - perhaps one of his friends doing a prank?
If you are 100% certain he is telling the truth, then your son has nothing to worry about. If he can prove his whereabouts at the time then you need to get in contact with Arriva and tell them. It must be somebody he knows - perhaps one of his friends doing a prank?
gray1404
Established Member
The onus is on the train company to prove that it was your son who they stopped and questioned, not the other way around. In most life situations it is not possible to prove were you where at any one point in time. Just because one cannot prove what location they were in on a said point in time, doesn't mean that it must have been then. Again, it is for the TOC to prove it was that person rather then for you (or your son) to prove it wasn't.
gray1404
Established Member
Agreed.
DaveNewcastle
Established Member
It is very difficult to give advice on this question, because to do so reliably challenges your relationship with your son, and it is not my place to do that - and certainly not in a public forum like this.
But robert7111a has got to the heart of it : how could you ever be "100% certain he is telling the truth" ?
We put teenagers in an impossible situation when we ask for "the truth". They will already have developed powerful senses of 'fairness', 'right', what 'should be allowed' and what 'should not be allowed', but we have immersed them in a world where both the 'serious' global commentary is full of deceits, cover-ups, and the re-description of events with hindsight, and also the entertainment world is full of success following clever deceipts and the avoidance of criticism through saying what others want to hear.
The reason for my little 'lecture' is as a caution before you make the decision on his behalf. More than once I have been in the awful position of assisting a parent who is convinced of their child's innocence only to find after a vigourouse defence, that there was an undisclosed fact or two, which quite clearly put the child in the position which they had been denying so vigourously, and left me feeling unable to give the comfort the parent needed when they realised that they had been drawn into the world that was false, but was the world that the child thought everyone else wanted to hear.
Having got all that out of the way, we can move on to your decision.
If you are beyond any doubt that he was not present at the time and place, then simply respond saying so. The Railways Companies are used to receiving false contact details which are, in fact, the name and address of a 'friend'. They may require a further statement from you both on that point, but it shouldn't be difficult or stressful.
If you do have any doubt that he may have been the person concerned in the incident, then please don't try to deny it - there is probably enough of a Witness Statement by the Inspector to proceed with a Prosecution, though if he is under 18 then that may be less likely to be followed though. This is where you should be trying to reach an Out-of-Court settlement (OOC), by writing in a tone that is apologetic, which identifies the points which he has learned from the incident, and your willingness to compensate the Company for its losses and its trouble in investigating the matter.
Hopefully, you won't mind my little 'lecture' and can now see how the outcomes from the two strategies that I and robert7111a have proposed could be so terribly wrong for you, if the facts were not as you believed them to be.
Hope this helps.
Regarding this apparent "advice" from gray1404 :
If you are going to make useful progress, then you really must assume that the Railway Company have adequate evidence to convict (whether or not it really was your sone who was involved in the incident).
But robert7111a has got to the heart of it : how could you ever be "100% certain he is telling the truth" ?
We put teenagers in an impossible situation when we ask for "the truth". They will already have developed powerful senses of 'fairness', 'right', what 'should be allowed' and what 'should not be allowed', but we have immersed them in a world where both the 'serious' global commentary is full of deceits, cover-ups, and the re-description of events with hindsight, and also the entertainment world is full of success following clever deceipts and the avoidance of criticism through saying what others want to hear.
The reason for my little 'lecture' is as a caution before you make the decision on his behalf. More than once I have been in the awful position of assisting a parent who is convinced of their child's innocence only to find after a vigourouse defence, that there was an undisclosed fact or two, which quite clearly put the child in the position which they had been denying so vigourously, and left me feeling unable to give the comfort the parent needed when they realised that they had been drawn into the world that was false, but was the world that the child thought everyone else wanted to hear.
Having got all that out of the way, we can move on to your decision.
If you are beyond any doubt that he was not present at the time and place, then simply respond saying so. The Railways Companies are used to receiving false contact details which are, in fact, the name and address of a 'friend'. They may require a further statement from you both on that point, but it shouldn't be difficult or stressful.
If you do have any doubt that he may have been the person concerned in the incident, then please don't try to deny it - there is probably enough of a Witness Statement by the Inspector to proceed with a Prosecution, though if he is under 18 then that may be less likely to be followed though. This is where you should be trying to reach an Out-of-Court settlement (OOC), by writing in a tone that is apologetic, which identifies the points which he has learned from the incident, and your willingness to compensate the Company for its losses and its trouble in investigating the matter.
Hopefully, you won't mind my little 'lecture' and can now see how the outcomes from the two strategies that I and robert7111a have proposed could be so terribly wrong for you, if the facts were not as you believed them to be.
Hope this helps.
Regarding this apparent "advice" from gray1404 :
That is technically quite correct, but knowing that you have already received a letter concerning an incident involving your son (by name and address), then it is poor advice. We can be sure that there is already a Witness Statement bearing those facts which, if neccessary, will be presented as sworn evidence, and has been assessed to be adequatly robust to succeed in Court. In the event that you did let it get to the position that gray1404 proposes (and my advice to you is, very strongly, to avoid that position, just as it would be if I was advising the Railway Company) then it would be a perverse waste of your time, money and stress to attempt a challenge in a Court by putting a Prosecutor's Evidence to proof in front of the Magistrates and others who won't have a clue what really happened, and will just be baffled and annoyed that a matter of mistaken identy was not resolved OOC.
If you are going to make useful progress, then you really must assume that the Railway Company have adequate evidence to convict (whether or not it really was your sone who was involved in the incident).
Last edited:
gray1404
Established Member
DaveNewcastle I have NOT given any advice as per what you state. I was merely stating on whom the burden of proof lies, and that is onus was on the TOC to prove who it was. I have also not suggested that the OP lets the matter get to Court.
Last edited:
scott118
Member
...some of us choose, to turn off, their google timeline.
And? Those people wouldn't then have such an opportunity.
Of course someone could fake their movements with the help of someone else, perhaps to provide an alibi when arrested for a crime, but in cases like the above, such data would be very useful and unlikely to be fake - unless someone knew they were going to get a letter in the future.
Do you have details of the alleged travel?
If they claim he was stopped at (say) Cardiff at 09.02 and you have a witness who saw him leaving work in (say) Bridgend at 08.00 and coming through the front door in (say) Barry at 08.35 then you're in a very strong position.
If he left work at 8 and saw no-one else until mid-afternoon then it's a bit trickier.
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
Then I would advise you to read again the excellent advice by Dave Newcastle and write to the TOC without delay explaining where your son was at the exact time of the alleged offence.
Can his employer provide evidence to the fact that he was actually in work at or near the alleged time of the incident?
Last edited:
Is there a case for revenue inspectors taking a photograph of the offender to avoid situations like this - or does that just open another can of worms?
Bletchleyite
Veteran Member
Station CCTV probably did, but accessing it is a can of worms in its own right.
There's a case for asking for a photograph, but there's no grounds for compelling the passenger to let it be taken, and I can't imagine that a miscreant will volunteer for something that makes it easier for them to be identified.
Much simpler and easier would be a GoPro camera, similar to what the police and bailiffs wear.
Islineclear3_1
Established Member
As we haven't heard from Carol T for a while, I hope she has taken swift action to contact the TOC
I was thinking this too. If they had some kind of photographic evidence as the OP states and they are still going ahead with a potential case they must have a degree of certainty as to the identity of the individual.
We don't need discussions on photographs, mobile phones and Google tracking in this thread, thank you. Anyone can start a new thread to discuss these topics if they want to, but we need to focus the discussion here on the OP and their son's situation.
- Status