Northern Rail Fare Evasion letter received - ** CASE CLOSED **

[NJUK88]

Hi guys,

 

Wondering if you could offer some advice please?

 

I received a letter today stating that I evaded a £2.50 fare last October and need to pay an £80 fine within 14 days. I'm 100% sure that this was not me - it said I traveled from Liverpool South Way to Hough Green - I don't think I've ever been to Liverpool South Way in my life.

 

It doesn't say any times or specifics, just says it has evidence. What evidence would this be? I have never ever been stopped by a ticket inspector in my life, and I very rarely get the train.

 

What seems strange is it was sent to my Mum's address (which I haven't lived at for over 2 years) and it even had her post code down wrong on the letter.

 

I have checked and I was in work on that day 9-5:30 (I work nowhere near Liverpool.) Hough Green is one of my local train stations though.

 

How would they even get my details? What can I do here?

 

Many thanks for any advice you could offer.

[BazzaS]

Write back explaining it wasn't you ; your concern is that someone has given your name and your Mum's address.

[Old-CodJA]

Write back explaining it wasn't you ; your concern is that someone has given your name and your Mum's address.

 

Bazza is spot on, but don't expect it to just go away if you don't provide some evidence to confirm it wasn't you.

 

What I would do is get a note from your employer on headed paper stating that you were in work at the material time on that date and send a copy with your letter stating that you have been the victim of an impostor.

[BazzaS]

Bazza is spot on, but don't expect it to just go away if you don't provide some evidence to confirm it wasn't you.

 

What I would do is get a note from your employer on headed paper stating that you were in work at the material time on that date and send a copy with your letter stating that you have been the victim of an impostor.

 

Great advice for the OP.

 

I accept that it would be pointless for the TOC to just give up as soon as they got a reply of "wasn't me, Guv".

 

However, once a reply of "wasn't me" is received : it is all well & good if the recipient can prove it wasn't them - but what if they can't : surely then the TOC should have to prove it was them, if the recipient says it wasn't even if they can't prove it wasn't?

[Old-CodJA]

Great advice for the OP.

 

I accept that it would be pointless for the TOC to just give up as soon as they got a reply of "wasn't me, Guv".

 

However, once a reply of "wasn't me" is received : it is all well & good if the recipient can prove it wasn't them - but what if they can't : surely then the TOC should have to prove it was them, if the recipient says it wasn't even if they can't prove it wasn't?

 

 

Yes, quite right Bazza, but if the only 'evidence' of identity is the inspector's report indicating that an identity check was made and s/he was satisfied that the traveller has been correctly identified (which can be the case) it may well lead to issue of a Summons, the person reported contacts the Court and says 'Not me guv' as you put it and the TOC says ' We have evidence that the identity was checked and confirmed, so we don't accept that'.

 

At worst case scenario there is an impasse and if nothing can be done to resolve the issue before hand, it might ultimately have to be resolved by the person summonsed having to attend Court, the reporting inspector attending Court and visual identity confirmed either way. This should always be avoided if possible.

 

It is in everyone's best interests to avoid that action if someone has genuinely been the victim of an impostor

 

Another sensible course of action might be to send a photocopy of an official document bearing the traveller's signature along with a head & shoulders photograph (such as a driver's licence) to the TOC, with a request that this be returned as soon as the reporting inspector has confirmed that the recipient of the letter is not the person that s/he spoke to. The writer might also ask for confirmation that their name has been removed from any record of allegation.

 

This allows the TOC to check the evidence in the inspector's notes & report, confirm the traveller has been a victim of impostor and cancel the liability thereby avoiding further inconvenience for the person whose identity has been used.

 

I know that some people will immediately jump to the 'litigation culture seeking compensation' procedure that seems to be growing in popularity, but in honesty, if the inspector has done everything possible at the time to identify the offender and is satisfied that the details given have been confirmed, s/he has done nothing wrong. The victim would need to pursue the impostor if they can be identified. The rail company might express regret that the victim has been inconvenienced, but make clear that the inspector acted and reported these confirmed details (if they were) in good faith.

 

I have quite often seen reports land on my desk where a traveller has been identified and there is evidence that the identity was confirmed by a Police Officer who has been called to assist, but it has later turned out that the traveller has been an impostor, so there is no 'fail safe' where this sort of thing is concerned.

Edited April 6, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[BazzaS]

Thanks (as ever, OCJa) for insight into "the process", and good advice for anyone caught up in it.

 

A good balance between the rights of the individual, and the rights of the TOC (and through them, the fare-paying public!) to prevent fare dodgers.

Also, your advice will allow those who have been impersonated to get their names cleared (and get confirmation of that from the TOC)

 

I hadn't thought of the "TOC faces claim for compensation" angle : and I can't see why someone would try to claim off the TOC given there are 2 victims of the identity impersonation : the person impersonated and the TOC.

 

Is it rare for the impersonator to be caught? If caught, surely that is who should face civil action for compensation after their criminal prosecution?

[NJUK88]

Thanks a lot for the advice guys, I will write a letter back. It doesn't say on the letter what time it was - so I'll need them to provide that with me first otherwise there will be no point if it was done outside my working hours.

 

So, just to be clear, is the only reason I have received this letter because someone has give my name and (my Mum's) address in to the ticket inspector when approached?

[BazzaS]

So, just to be clear, is the only reason I have received this letter because someone has give my name and (my Mum's) address in to the ticket inspector when approached?

 

If it wasn't you on the train, then yes.

[NJUK88]

If it wasn't you on the train, then yes.

 

Brilliant, thanks. I'll let you know how I get on.

[Old-CodJA]

I hadn't thought of the "TOC faces claim for compensation" angle : and I can't see why someone would try to claim off the TOC given there are 2 victims of the identity impersonation : the person impersonated and the TOC.

 

 

Yes, I agree, though such claims are all too often these days I'm afraid Bazza, claims that are doomed to failure, but the appalling 'ambulance chaser' mentality creeps in everywhere I'm afraid.

 

 

 

Is it rare for the impersonator to be caught? If caught, surely that is who should face civil action for compensation after their criminal prosecution?

 

 

Yes, it is rare for impersonators to be caught in cases such as this, but much more likely if the victim tries to help too.

 

Sending that photo and signature can help and means that revenue staff and Police can be tipped off so that when the impersonator tries again, they can be detained and brought to book on both counts.

Edited April 7, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[NJUK88]

Hi guys,

 

Sorry to bump an old thread, just thought I'd let you know the outcome of this. After sending them a letter, I received a letter back last week telling me that they will consider the matter closed and not pursue it any further.

 

Looks like I must have argued my case well enough in the original letter. Anyway, happy it's all sorted!

 

Thanks again for the advice

[honeybee13]

Hello again.

 

Thank you for coming back to tell us, I'm pleased it's resolved for you. I'll amend your thread title.

 

My best, HB