Unwarranted penalty fare

[Mrsmajortom]

My 15 year old son received a letter yesterday demanding payment for an unpaid rail fare. It was not his fare and I am absolutely positive about this. I have come to the conclusion that it is probably the fare of someone who knows my son and our address and has used his identity when asked for name and address by a ticket inspector. I have tried to contact the penalty fares people but they make it impossible to actually speak to a person and say that appeals must be dealt with in writing. Clearly I do not want to make an appeal, I want them to admit that it was not my son and to delete his details from their files. You can imagine the tone of the letter - if you do not pay within 2 weeks there will be an additional £20 admin fee - Help! What can I do to get my voice heard?

 

[bb21]

How can you be sure that it is not your son? Do you have proof that he was not travelling at the time of the alleged offence?

 

[Mrsmajortom]

He has never travelled on a train or bus without an adult and he was at school all day on the date of the offence and at home with me in the evening. The school could clearly prove he was there but surely it's the rail company that should be proving that it was my son and not him who has to prove it wasn't him? If you see what I mean . . .

 

[Rich McLean]

He has never travelled on a train or bus without an adult and he was at school all day on the date of the offence and at home with me in the evening. The school could clearly prove he was there but surely it's the rail company that should be proving that it was my son and not him who has to prove it wasn't him? If you see what I mean . . .

Get the school to write a letter for you, confirming that he was infact in school that day and at the time and date shown, and not travelling. Send that in with the appeal, stating the same, and they should (I hope) drop the case.

 

[bb21]

I guess he does not use public transport on the way home from school?

If you are certain that it was not him, write back to them stating the exact facts that you have just told us. There should not be anything to worry about if so.

 

[Mrsmajortom]

Yes I will do that. My concern is that the time of travel may be in the evening - the letter doesn't mention a time only a date - and if that's the case it will be my word against theirs.

 

[Trog]

Innocent until proven guilty, but proof he was not on the train involved would probably be the quickest way of ending the matter.

 

[Mrsmajortom]

No he walks home from school and never has cause to use public transport.

 

[Swirlz]

Would I be right in thinking that a description of the person is recorded on a Penalty Fare?

I would also imagine that if the Penalty Fare was addressed to the parent/guardian, rather than the child, it is very likely the child has been up to no good! If so, who would know parents name, your sons name, their address etc?

Surely this is all verified in some way too, maybe with Transport Police?

 

[wintonian]

Is it normal for these letters to omit the exact service travelled on or the time the passenger was stopped at the station for instance?

Surely they are obliged to provide such details in order to allow the 'accused' chance to mount a defence? How can you deny being somewhere if you don't know when you were supposed to be there?

 

[Swirlz]

Is it normal for these letters to omit the exact service travelled on or the time the passenger was stopped at the station for instance?

Surely they are obliged to provide such details in order to allow the 'accused' chance to mount a defence?

Presumably the Penalty Fare just has a date/time/location that the "offence" occurred.

Follow up letters may just refer to the "Penalty Fare" on xx date??

 

[Mrsmajortom]

That would be interesting if a description had been recorded. The letter was addressed directly to my son with our full address. It could be any number of boys - he has 'friends' who would quickly be able to quote his name and address - unfortunately.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Presumably the Penalty Fare just has a date/time/location that the "offence" occurred.

Follow up letters may just refer to the "Penalty Fare" on xx date??

Yes clearly we have just received a follow up letter as the fare remains unpaid, which details a date and a route but no time. Having never seen the actual penalty fare we are in the dark as to further details.

 

[wintonian]

Presumably the Penalty Fare just has a date/time/location that the "offence" occurred.

Follow up letters may just refer to the "Penalty Fare" on xx date??

Possibly, being a good boy I wouldn't know , but that still doesn’t provide the information in order to mount a defence if they are accusing the wrong person or requesting payment the wrong person.

 

[Swirlz]

Subject Access Request to the Data Controller for that company to release a copy of the PF and any other data held on your son. Enclose £10 cheque.

Description does not match child.

Appeal successful.

Claim £10 admin fee back, if no luck, threaten to pursue in small claims.

(only if the initial written appeal is declined though)

 

[RJ]

Innocent until proven guilty

Anyone who knows anything about revenue protection knows that it's based on a guilty until proven innocent principle.

 

[wintonian]

Subject Access Request to the Data Controller for that company to release a copy of the PF and any other data held on your son. Enclose £10 cheque.

Description does not match child.

Appeal successful.

Claim £10 admin fee back, if no luck, threaten to pursue in small claims.

(only if the initial written appeal is declined though)

You seem to forget that it would be illegal for them to disclose information about another individual and as such will be required to confirm the ID of the subject before complying with the request.

 

[185]

You seem to forget that it would be illegal for them to disclose information about another individual and as such will be required to confirm the ID of the subject before complying with the request.

By issuing the penalty fare, the train company, who are custodians of the data are confident that the person named in the PF is infact her son, so they have effectively confirmed (possibly wrongly) that he was in the footage.

An authorised person should only issue a penalty fare if they are confident the identity of the person stopped is who they say they are. If not then ID, other methods of questioning, and as a last resort the police with a Blackberry fingerprint scanner would be requested.

 

[steadmane]

Seriously, there has got to be a back up plan that the railways use - I can't believe it's that uncommon that someone caught gives the personal details of someone else. How does the railways prove a person was the actual offender if it gets to court? I am pretty sure that CCTV is not always available.

 

[LexyBoy]

Seriously, there has got to be a back up plan that the railways use - I can't believe it's that uncommon that someone caught gives the personal details of someone else. How does the railways prove a person was the actual offender if it gets to court? I am pretty sure that CCTV is not always available.

I believe the RPI would include a written description of the physical appearance of the person. They can only check that the person has given a real identity - i.e. that the name/address is correct - not that they are who they claim to be.

 

[Mrsmajortom]

Thank you for all of the advice and information. I'm sure it will be enormously helpful if I do need to take this case further. I would like to know the exact procedure ticket inspectors are supposed to use if the person they issue the fare to is not carrying identification. Surely being able to verbally recite a person's name and address and possibly date of birth (don't know if that is what happened in my son's case) is no guarantee of a person's actual identity. Not many 15 year olds carry i.d. so how do they verify their identity as surely a written description is not legally enough to prove identity.

 

[wintonian]

By issuing the penalty fare, the train company, who are custodians of the data are confident that the person named in the PF is infact her son, so they have effectively confirmed (possibly wrongly) that he was in the footage.

Even if that is so an applicant for a subject access under the DPA needs to satisfy the data controller that their identity is that of the suject.

It matters not who the penalty fare was issued to (correct or otherwise) what matters is the that the identity of the person subject to the data retention (the person issued the penalty fare and not neccessarly the person nammed on it) and the person requesting access to it are the same.

 

[RPI]

As an RPI myself I will explain, we are required to ask for their name and address, in order for us to get police involved etc then we have to disprove what is being said, we will ring up RPSS to check the name and address on via the electoral role, if someone gives someone elses name and address then this will obviously check out, the TOC have then made a reasonable effort to verify the details. As for writing a description, it depends on the TOC, some TOC's have a section on the rear of one of the carbon copies for a breif description in tick box form, some don't.

 

[185]

As an RPI myself I will explain, we are required to ask for their name and address, in order for us to get police involved etc then we have to disprove what is being said, we will ring up RPSS to check the name and address on via the electoral role, if someone gives someone elses name and address then this will obviously check out, the TOC have then made a reasonable effort to verify the details. As for writing a description, it depends on the TOC, some TOC's have a section on the rear of one of the carbon copies for a breif description in tick box form, some don't.

We do full person descriptions, and similar to RPSS have handheld devices with both 1.Previous History and 2.Electoral Roll; however even that is still not foolproof.

Regularly having the police with us often proves invaluable as a last line of defence.

 

[ATW Alex 101]

Mrsmajortom, Are you absolutely sure your son didn't travel in the train at the time concerned? Are you sure, as you say he walks home, that he didn't try to get a sneaky ride in? I'm not accusing you of anything but the case that he did try to travel without a ticket is always possible. Is there any proof and are you sure your son's telling the truth? Like I say earlier I'm not accusing you of anything

 

[snail]

It matters not who the penalty fare was issued to (correct or otherwise) what matters is the that the identity of the person subject to the data retention (the person issued the penalty fare and not neccessarly the person nammed on it) and the person requesting access to it are the same.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say here. Is it:

1. The TOC should say, "You aren't the person to whom the PF was issued" and therefore withdraw the PF, or

2. Have the TOC provide details to the person named on the PF, then point out that this is a different person and report them to the ICO for breach of data confidentiality?

As far as the TOC is concerned the PF and applicant will be the same person until it is proven otherwise. Isn't one of the principles of data disclosure that you can check to see if you have incorrect data held in your record?

 

[Mrsmajortom]

Alex - I am positive - it's not possible to get a train home - it's a 15 minute walk. On the day concerned I can prove he was at school all day and my mobile (and his) records show that we were in touch with each other after school and making arrangements for me to collect him from his girlfriends house - which is 3 minutes from the school - at a time we agreed between ourselves. There would not have been time after school and in between me collecting him for him to have made the train journey specified. He was at home with me for the rest of the evening. Clearly he is not on the electoral roll - he is 15.

 

[cuccir]

Mrsmajortom - it's maybe not that obvious that your son wouldn't be on the electoral roll - I think 16/17 year olds are included on it!

Back to the topic proper:
Write to the TOC in question. Describe the evidence that you have, as you have described it here - he was at school, then girlfriend's, then with you. No time to have made the journey.

Then, try and make sure you have a record of this evidence: ie get the girlfriend or her family to quickly write and sign something to note when he was at hers? Make sure you have a record of your texts, and possibly any itemized phone bills etc.

But don't spend longer worrying about this than you have to!

 

[34D]

he was at school, then girlfriend's, then with you. No time to have made the journey.

Then, try and make sure you have a record of this evidence: ie get the girlfriend or her family to quickly write and sign something to note when he was at hers?

Maybe its different now, but when I was 15 and went to a girlfriends house this meant sneaking in, avoiding her parents, spending some time in her bedroom, then sneaking out again? Can't imagine many fathers of daughters would be happy to write a letter saying that little johnny was with their daughter!

 

[causton]

I remember some time back this happened with a gentleman and it made it into the local newspaper...

http://www.whtimes.co.uk/news/innocent_welwyn_garden_city_man_threatened_with_prison_1_720940

...not saying that you should go to the local papers in this instance, but it seems to have been effective in that example!

 

[johnnychips]

Alex - I am positive - it's not possible to get a train home - it's a 15 minute walk. On the day concerned I can prove he was at school all day and my mobile (and his) records show that we were in touch with each other after school and making arrangements for me to collect him from his girlfriends house - which is 3 minutes from the school - at a time we agreed between ourselves. There would not have been time after school and in between me collecting him for him to have made the train journey specified. He was at home with me for the rest of the evening. Clearly he is not on the electoral roll - he is 15.

From another point of view (I'm a teacher), if you are absolutely convinced your son could not have done this, he needs to tell as many people at school as possible, and you need to contact his Head of Year (or whatever system his school has) and ask him/her to make a fuss. Usually someone will 'sprag' or 'grass' and the name of the culprit will emerge.