Someone has used my name for a fine on the London tube

[Old-CodJA]

The theory here is indeed correct. However, I find that in reality, the Magistrates' (certainly in the areas I operate) tend to place great emphasis on the defendant proving their innocence, rather than looking at my evidence (which is known to be, and is, usually of a reliable and high quality). I find that this is especially true towards the end of the day.

 

So what I am saying is that , although it is up to the prosecution to prove the offence to the satisfaction of the Court, the court is satisfied fairly (or very) easily in my experience, which sometimes mean I get some convictions I wouldn't have expected when my evidence has an issue (e.g. something missing).

 

 

I find that astounding. Clearly I and many others have been doing it wrongly for half a lifetime.

 

If I know that a case has 'something missing' in the essential evidential trail, I much prefer to use the well-known principle of 'innocent until proven guilty' as the accepted basis of English law and the case would never be summonsed in the first place!

 

 

For the OP:

 

Halflfe2, it is not the purpose of this or any other forum just to agree with you. If you do not like the views being expressed I cannot help that, but there is a process that the Court will follow in these cases.

 

Personally, I am of the opinion that you may well get the result that you desire following the Statutory Declaration and it will be good of you to come back and let us know, but there is no point in getting angry with those who volunteer help on here.

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

I don't know if our OP is still here and it would be a shame if s/he doesn't use some or all of the advice given in good faith. I don't see fighting the system doing anything but cause more trouble.

 

I just have one question please. Am I right in thinking that the officer who stopped the fare evader would have made handwritten notes and asked the person to sign it? If so, then that signature could be compared with the OP's in court. Could that happen?

 

My best, HB

[dreadpiratesteve]

It's normal for the Revenue Protection Officer/ Inspector to ask the person they have stopped to sign the notes to confirm everything written down is correct.

 

In theory, if the OP went to court with something with his signature on (passport/ driving licence) it would only add to his defence and have the case struck out.

 

TfL have done nothing wrong, they have acted on the information given by the person they stopped in April. To me it's one of two things

 

1: The OP is completely innocent and is the victim of someone giving his details or

2: The OP was actually stopped by TfL and gave a false address in the hope they couldn't track him to actually serve a summons and this has now come to "bite him in his backside".

[Halflfe2]

I now know what I was doing that day. And I am 100% sure/certain I have never been to or needed to to go to that station in my life. The station is nowhere near me by the way. I just needed to know what I was doing and now I do, I am not worrying about any of this now.

 

I do think this is all pointless how they arrived at me because of my name. If that is the case anyone can use anyone's name and another address. Anyone you know, anyone that does not like someone else this system what does it value? the truth? For if it did they would allow me to talk to them in person, I could tell them there has been a mistake an error on their part but no was their answer.

 

But I may return here or I may not with the verdict which will be innocent. I cannot believe how this has happened to me.

 

I may also add once again and say tax payers money now gone, wasted it is a joke and then people complain about tax usage well here is an example of waste. Of people that work hard paying people to find a person based on their name.

 

I have an idea why does not the officers carry cameras and take pictures of the evaders. You do realise words can get corrupt, they can turn into errors in mind, as the neurons calculate the meaning of the words that are not clear.

 

Though I may prosecute the attackers for taking it this far, and causing me all this stress though now I feel better I may not.

 

Thank you

 

Kind regards

[Old-CodJA]

Hello there.

 

I don't know if our OP is still here and it would be a shame if s/he doesn't use some or all of the advice given in good faith. I don't see fighting the system doing anything but cause more trouble.

 

I just have one question please. Am I right in thinking that the officer who stopped the fare evader would have made handwritten notes and asked the person to sign it? If so, then that signature could be compared with the OP's in court. Could that happen?

 

My best, HB

 

 

Yes HB, that is the normal accepted procedure in filing an MG11 or statement for prosecution (formerly known as a Section 9 Statement), but a prosecution may ensue from any of the other report types also. Eg; Penalty Fare Notice, Unpaid Fare Notice or Travel Irregularity Report.

 

Where there is a signature taken from the traveller at the time of the alleged incident and a dispute regarding identity, then it is normal to ask the alleged defendant to provide something that has their normal signature already on it as an example for comparison. For example a Drivers' licence or other official document that may be used as proof of identity.

 

'Dock identity' is always to be avoided wherever possible. The likelihood of mistaken identity is too great for most Magistrates to convict especially when an incident may have lasted no more than a couple of minutes and an inspector, or other staff, had engaged with the alleged offender many months previously for only such a short time.

 

dreadpiratesteve is spot-on. There are two distinct possibilities and the onus of proof lies with the prosecution as all Courts will confirm.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[Old-CodJA]

I have an idea why does not the officers carry cameras and take pictures of the evaders. You do realise words can get corrupt, they can turn into errors in mind, as the neurons calculate the meaning of the words that are not clear.

 

Though I may prosecute the attackers for taking it this far, and causing me all this stress though now I feel better I may not.

 

Thank you

 

Kind regards

 

 

 

Please put all of this out out of your mind.

 

You cannot prosecute TfL for acting on information given. It appears that you did not attend Court nor answer any correspondence for good reason, but TfL did nothing wrong in acting on a genuinely held belief that you are / were the alleged offender.

 

If you can find the person that you say gave your name, you can pursue a case of identity theft against that person, but all you will get from the Court, if you are acquitted, is your out of pocket expenses.

[Halflfe2]

-You cannot prosecute TfL for acting on information given

 

I think I can prosecute a company that are acting on mis-information

 

-It appears that you did not attend Court nor answer any correspondence for good reason

 

I had no knowledge of the events that took place prior to 14th of September but in fact it was on Monday that I called the courts so it would be, I had no knowledge of the events prior to the 17th of September.

 

but TfL did nothing wrong in acting on a genuinely held belief that you are / were the alleged offender.

 

Well it seems their belief is false, their belief is a belief of a flying teapot in the sky. They are at error and it is the officers fault for not checking or doing his job correctly.

 

Taking a name and an address is not enough as one can clearly see what has happened here.

 

-If you can find the person that you say gave your name, you can pursue a case of identity theft against that person

I could do this the police said return to them if I want to pursue this further after the court case.

 

-but all you will get from the Court, if you are acquitted, is your out of pocket expenses.

 

Well that is at least something apart from wasting everyone's time. Can they pay me that back????

 

Please I do want this thread to be at rest.

[LaughingGirl]

Halflfe2, I understand that you're very angry and I don't blame you - someone else's dishonesty has resulted in you suddenly becoming involved with the courts, which is always going to be an unpleasant experience. However, you really are being given honest advice here - there really isn't anything that you can prosecute them for, because they haven't done anything wrong. The blame lies squarely with the person who chose to dishonestly give your details instead of just paying the penalty fare.

 

If you really want the thread closed, click on the triangle at the bottom of this post and leave a message saying that you'd like the thread locked. One of the site team will do it for you.

[Old-CodJA]

If you can find the person that you say gave your name, you can pursue a case of identity theft against that person

I could do this the police said return to them if I want to pursue this further after the court case.

 

but all you will get from the Court, if you are acquitted, is your out of pocket expenses.

 

Well that is at least something apart from wasting everyone's time. Can they pay me that back????.

 

 

No, the Court cannot order anything other than your out of pocket expenses, if you are successful.

 

If you are not successful and the Magistrates believe the prosecutor. you will have a fine, compensation, victim surcharge & prosecution costs to pay.

[Halflfe2]

Hello Laughing girl

 

For the first time in my life I have to think and concentrate on the court of justice. I had to visit the court. I had to see the courts. I had to see people bowing, I do not want these memories. I did not ask for this event. All because someone, somewhere,something used my name how can this be??

 

They did not do there job correctly, or the rules of the system is insufficient at finding who they think they know is at error.

 

-there really isn't anything that you can prosecute them for, because they haven't done anything wrong.

 

This company is acting on false information which is very serious is it not. Regardless of the dishonesty of whoever that despicable person was that used my name like this.

 

If I built a space rocket and I built it from the blue prints with wrong calculations and the astronauts died the people who built the rocket that used that information- the blue prints- are at fault the builders should have made sure what they are building before beginning to build THE ROCKET!!

 

I do think I deserve some kind of compensation.

 

-If you are not successful and the Magistrates believe the prosecutor. you will have a fine, compensation, victim surcharge & prosecution costs to pay.

 

Again why mention this, I know where I was I know what I was doing yes by signing a statutory declaration they can further cast me to depths of the justice system, if I lied to their faces. I think it takes a special kind of someone to lie to people like that.

 

Is the closure button a triangle with an explanation mark yes I will close this if I can find the button.

[firstclassx]

Hello Laughing girl

 

For the first time in my life I have to think and concentrate on the court of justice. I had to visit the court. I had to see the courts. I had to see people bowing, I do not want these memories. I did not ask for this event. All because someone, somewhere,something used my name how can this be??

 

They did not do there job correctly, or the rules of the system is insufficient at finding who they think they know is at error.

 

-there really isn't anything that you can prosecute them for, because they haven't done anything wrong.

 

This company is acting on false information which is very serious is it not. Regardless of the dishonesty of whoever that despicable person was that used my name like this.

 

If I built a space rocket and I built it from the blue prints with wrong calculations and the astronauts died the people who built the rocket that used that information- the blue prints- are at fault the builders should have made sure what they are building before beginning to build THE ROCKET!!

 

I do think I deserve some kind of compensation.

 

-If you are not successful and the Magistrates believe the prosecutor. you will have a fine, compensation, victim surcharge & prosecution costs to pay.

 

Again why mention this, I know where I was I know what I was doing yes by signing a statutory declaration they can further cast me to depths of the justice system, if I lied to their faces. I think it takes a special kind of someone to lie to people like that.

 

Is the closure button a triangle with an explanation mark yes I will close this if I can find the button.

 

The point is that you think by just going in and saying "it wasn't me because I was at xyz instead", is going to suddenly clear your name.

 

You got anything to support that?

 

Also, have you requested/received the witness statements etc?

 

Also, why not file a claim at County (Civil) Court for damages for malicious prosecution if you feel so strongly about the situation. You can do this if (when) you win at the Magistrates' Court.

[Consumer dude]

What I understand is, it does appear that anyone can use any ones name and the person wronged has to prove it wasn't them. Doesn't feel right to me..

[Halflfe2]

The point is that you think by just going in and saying "it wasn't me because I was at xyz instead", is going to suddenly clear your name.

 

No not really but it does give me peace of mind of where I was and that is what counts. As I know I have have never been to or have had reason to be at that station.

 

You got anything to support that?

 

Yes I can ring up the people of where I was and get a letter I hope from them stating where I was for that time of day. Though that still is not full evidence as I do not know what time of day this all supposedly took place on.

 

Also, have you requested/received the witness statements etc?

I am not sure what that is but they did give me a Memorandum in court that has the route and date that this occurred but no description of the indivdual it has the officers name and the amount that the company wants

 

Also, why not file a claim at County (Civil) Court for damages for malicious prosecution

 

I did not know I could do this, i would have to inquire more of this but if it is getting lawyers and everything else, that needs perhaps a lot of money and I really cannot deal with that.

 

It could be all anger saying I want to go after this company who are going after me but really this has caused me only grief. I want it over now.

[firstclassx]

What I understand is, it does appear that anyone can use any ones name and the person wronged has to prove it wasn't them. Doesn't feel right to me..

 

The name and address given are verified by the ringing a control room who check the details given against the Electoral Roll, or in some companies, it may be done via the Police National Computer (via BTP/Accredited Staff).

 

If unable to verify name and address electronically, using the above methods, the customer is asked to provide recent photo identification with their name and address on, (e.g. driving license). If that is not available, the person is usually detained until the Transport Police arrive and investigate further.

 

Additionally, a description is recorded on all MG11 pads/notepads and on (at least our) Penalty Fare Notices. Additionally, our Inspectors carry personal CCTV cameras, although data is removed on a daily basis, and is only kept if a serious incident occurs during the day.

 

An Inspector is not going to allow a person to go unless they had been totally convinced that the person's identity had been verified.

[Halflfe2]

-The name and address given are verified by the ringing a control room who check the details given against the Electoral Roll, or in some companies, it may be done via the Police National Computer (via BTP/Accredited Staff).

 

So either A- the name given is true and the address given is true are added together.

It goes through the system/control room/National Computer

 

And through that process it adds both together and lets the officer know that person lives at that address

 

Because if that is the case it seems the company made an error as the name given has never

lived at that address. How can it by-pass a computer system if the system is set up correctly a computer can never lie.

 

The company is at error

 

Or B- the name given is true and the address given is true but they are not added together

So then what is the purpose in that, it is pointless!!!!! .As anyone can use anyones name with anyones address

 

-If unable to verify name and address electronically, using the above methods, the customer is asked to provide recent photo identification with their name and address on, (e.g. driving license). If that is not available, the person is usually detained until the Transport Police arrive and investigate further.

 

Obviously none of the above actions were taken

 

-Additionally, our Inspectors carry personal CCTV cameras, although data is removed on a daily basis, and is only kept if a serious incident occurs during the day.

 

So the one true source of evidence which is photo or camera is removed daily, great.

 

-An Inspector is not going to allow a person to go unless they had been totally convinced that the person's identity had been verified.

 

I will hold that to your word till the day of court. I hope as soon as they see me that they will retract their attack on me. We shall see what we shall see.

[Old-CodJA]

What I understand is, it does appear that anyone can use any ones name and the person wronged has to prove it wasn't them. Doesn't feel right to me..

 

 

No, I think some people may have a very important misunderstanding here.

 

It does sometimes happen with some TOCs prosecutions (and other agencies) that a traveller, who has given a false name or address, uses the details of someone who is known to them.

 

That person may have moved home since the offender knew them and therefore correspondence does not get seen by the person accused of being the offender.

 

Because no answer is received to any letters, but it appears that good confirmation of details has been given, this will often lead to the issue of a Summons to Court. The Court office would not authorise the issue of a Summons if it were not an acceptable process.

 

If the person accused (now a 'defendant') does not answer the Summons, the Court will be asked to prove the case in absence. The prosecutor will give a brief summary of the evidence and statement of the reporting inspector and if they are satisfied that evidence supports the prosecutors' claim, the Magistrates will record a conviction and announce their judgement.

 

What may happen then is that if the fine isn't paid within the time period set by the Court (usually 28 days) then the enforcement team will make further attempts to secure payment, and may make further enquiries. This might well reveal the new address of the accused. If that person then says 'Nothing to do with me, I wasn't the person you seek', s/he will need to go to Court to make a Statutory Declaration to that effect and this requires that s/he does swear on oath (or affirm) that they knew nothing of the prosecution.

 

That means that the prosecution is null & void. There is then nothing recorded against the alleged offender.

 

That done, it is not just for the accused to prove they were not the offender.

 

The TOC must start again and it is for the prosecutor to prove that the accused was the traveller and that s/he was an offender.

 

It is also not wholly correct to say "An Inspector is not going to allow a person to go unless they had been totally convinced that the person's identity had been verified"

 

Section 5 of The Regulation of Railways Act [1889] requires that a traveller must present a valid ticket when asked, or pay the fare due if asked and must provide their name and address if asked.

 

Section 5.2 of the said Act provides a power of arrest for rail staff if a traveller

 

1) fails to show a valid ticket on demand,

and

2) fails to pay the fare due when asked,

and

3) fails or refuses to give their name and address when asked

 

There is no authority to arrest, or to otherwise detain any traveller who has complied with these requests. There is no authority to detain a traveller whilst verification of details takes place. In order to be arrested under this legislation the traveller must fail on all three counts as listed above.

 

Whilst I agree that it is probably desireable that some strengthened legislation in this area might be beneficial, that is the position at present.

 

If a Police Officer is present and s/he is not satisfied that details have been given correctly, s/he might find just cause to investigate further, but Rail Inspectors and BTP accredited staff have no authority to detain, or arrest beyond that provided by the legislation referred to here.

 

In short, if Mr X gets caught and gives Mr Y's details, unless the rail staff can prove that false details have been given, the inspector will have to accept that the requirements of the Act have been complied with for the purposes of a report.

 

Before everyone goes running off, travelling without paying and giving false details when questioned, it is much easier to catch people out in such attempted deceit these days than was the case years ago and the penalty for being prosecuted for giving false details is severe.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[firstclassx]

Secton 104 Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 gives an additional power of arrest for someone who has (or has attempted to) stay on the train beyond the destination paid for, regardless if they give correct details or not.

 

e.g. You use Zone 1 when you have a Zone 2-4 travelcard etc...

 

But it's academic because we don't know what the person was prosecuted for in the first place.

 

In addition, you can probably stretch to a Section 24A PACE arrest with a little imagination, e.g. detain for Section 2/6 Fraud Act 2006. Even though it is unlikely to be prosecuted as such, the arrest would be justified. This is applicable for transferred/altered passes etc.

 

It gives you enough time to detain them until the police arrive.

 

I have always found the matter of arrest a highly controversial topic on the railways, with people focusing on railway specific legislation, rather than considering the much wider powers available under 24A PACE.

Edited September 23, 2012 by firstclassx

[Old-CodJA]

Secton 104 Railways Clauses Consolidation Act 1845 gives an additional power of arrest for someone who has (or has attempted to) stay on the train beyond the destination paid for, regardless if they give correct details or not.

 

e.g. You use Zone 1 when you have a Zone 2-4 travelcard etc...

 

But it's academic because we don't know what the person was prosecuted for in the first place.

 

In addition, you can probably stretch to a Section 24A PACE arrest with a little imagination, e.g. detain for Section 2/6 Fraud Act 2006. Even though it is unlikely to be prosecuted as such, the arrest would be justified. This is applicable for transferred/altered passes etc.

 

It gives you enough time to detain them until the police arrive.

 

I have always found the matter of arrest a highly controversial topic on the railways, with people focusing on railway specific legislation, rather than considering the much wider powers available under 24A PACE.

 

 

Yes, those legislations are quoted correctly, but as you say, all completely academic in this instance.

 

As an annual percentage of cases the number of charges laid under S.104 RCCA [1845] nationally are miniscule, because the vast majority of prosecutions are brought in line with CPS & Home Office guidelines for prosecutors and the Prosecution Policy of the various TOCs & their agents, only a handful of whom actually seem to make their prosecution policy openly available to the public.

 

I am sure that you will be aware that there are presently talks going on, involving ATOC and other parties, in an effort to ensure a national standard across the industry. This is largely in order to deal with those TOCs who are percieved as taking too hard a line on minor transgressions as well as ensuring that all operators apply the rules fairly, but firmly in all cases.

 

Having written many training courses & guidelines for inspectors & revenue staff over the years, I always maintain that it is essential to stress the importance of taking firm action only on proveable facts and not possibilities or supposition.

 

I often think that much confusion can arise for the lay person when those of us who are wholly familiar with the legislations simply state bland fact and do not openly debate the very real possibilities that have to be considered when faced with only a one sided explanation of any reported incident and the circumstances leading to report.

 

I don't believe that the OP is doing themself any favours by expressing such an aggressive manner in replying to comments on this thread. S/he obviously came on here with a desire to seek help, but does not seem to concede that the case has been fairly brought on the evidence available to TfL and the Court.

 

As you and I well know, for the OP to continue to display such an attitude before the Court can be counter-productive and very damaging to their own case, however if someone is wholly innocent and has genuinely been the victim of an impostor, a little frustration might be understood.

Edited September 23, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[Halflfe2]

I am sorry for my continuation of anger I really do not mean to be this way.

 

I am a good person and I do not see why I have to go through these problems when clearly I have done no wrong. Someone has done this to me, perhaps someone I know or knew has done this to spite me. They used my name in this way I cannot believe it, why do people do this to one another? But this is the world that exists.

 

If the company had done there job correctly and found out that the name given does not match the address given then all of this would never have happened.

 

This started in April and now it is September how many months has passed that I knew nothing of this 6 months someone 6 months ago done this to me why should I pay for someone's dishonesty in the past?

 

I do not mean to be on the attack but this company and the court attacked me first for no reason. Why should I be constantly thinking about this court day when I have done no wrong.

 

If I was ever stopped and an officer said I have an invalid ticket and issued a fine. I would pay the fine there and then, I do not like to own something to someone.

 

In the end the company is offering a service and in a money system I understand things need to be paid people need to be paid. I do get that.

 

I have never been accused of anything before nothing ever like this.

 

The company is at error not me I have done no wrong but they are doing me wrong because now I feel agitated frustrated stressed cannot concentrate even knowing I am innocent because now I think about all these things, who, why and then I have to prove that I did not exist at that station, or they have to prove that I existed at that station. If I could talk to them they could see in their CCTV that I was never there but they refuse this.

 

Can you not see how and why conflicts are created in the world.

[firstclassx]

My issue with you is that you are being so sensationalist about your problem.

 

You are distracted by anger and probably a little bit scared, which is wholly understandable if you are innocent.

 

However, you must put this anger behind you and think logically. If you go on the offensive in court, the court will go against you.

 

So we must forget about anything that has happened so far. No more mention of suing people for starters.

 

Please read these questions carefully. Refer to the information from the court to help you answer them:

 

1) What offence(s) are you being prosecuted under? This will typically be Section 5 of the Regulation of Railways Act 1889 or an offence contrary to Railway Byelaw 18(1), confirmed by Transport Act 2000/Railways Act 2005.

 

2) Have you passed, or "lent" a ticket or Oyster card to somebody else who travels on the railway? If so, this may be why you are involved, if somebody gave your name or they found your name through Oyster records. (Check for a reference to Railway Byelaw 22). Have you ever lost an Oyster card or a season ticket?

 

3) In the prosecution bundle, which you should have, there will be at least one witness statement from an Inspector. In that witness statement, it will describe the location, time and date of the offence. It will also have a description of the person they stopped. It would be helpful for you to tell us what the description in the statement is, and then give us an accurate description of yourself.

 

4) If the description in the statement resembles you in someway, you are going to need to counter that it could not be referring to you. To do this you need to prepare a defence, specifically, that it could not be you because you were somewhere else. This needs to be confirm the TIME, not just the date. Therefore a timed receipt or accurate witness testimony/statement would be hugely beneficial to your defence.

 

5) You should then turn to the "false" address originally given, (usually provided in the Inspector's statement). Do you know the address? Do you know who lives there? Have you ever been there? Perhaps you could look the address up on http://www.192.com and see if any names pop up that you recognise.

 

6) If the description in the statement resembles you in someway, and you are unable to accurately provide evidence of your whereabouts, and the fact it is your name which has been provided, and if the address that was provided is in the same sort of area where you currently live, or the station at which the incident occurred is near your house etc, then there is quite a bit of circumstantial evidence, so it is possible that you will be successfully convicted. If this happens, you should remain calm in court, and should definitely not become angry. You can usually appeal to the Crown Court.

 

7) You've left it quite late now, but you could ask the court to make the Inspector(s) who dealt with the incident attend court for questioning. However - this may be risky for you. If they identify you (rightly or wrongly) then you will probably lose the case, especially if more than one of them confirms this. If they say they can't remember, or that it isn't you, then it puts you in a very strong position. You should ideally have a solicitor present that can question them in a manner that would "best suit the defence".

 

8) In any event, you should instruct a solicitor. It is foolish to expect to be able to walk into a court room, state "it wasn't me", and all to be well. You will become nervous, the prosecutor may get under your skin, make you angry, make you look guilty. Your responses may be manipulated and challenged by the prosecutor (or even the Magistrates'). At least if you have a solicitor they can help to redress the balance. If you win, the costs will be covered.

 

SO- read through your bundle and documentation, read my questions carefully, and compose your answers. Don't add anything else, we all know your feelings on the matter. Feelings won't help you, only solid facts.

[Halflfe2]

1-RW89004

 

On the memorandum it says the route traveled, it says with which company it says without having previously

paid your fare of unknown and with intent to avoid payment thereof Contrary to section 5(3)

 

Then it says Verdict: Proved in Absence in June

 

2-I have not lent any tickets or bus passes or oyster cards to anyone I know in the past or recently

 

3-I do not have a prosecution bundle I have not seen a witness statement. I do not know what time this has taken place no one has said anything me. I have one paper given to me and that is the Memorandum

 

4-No description is given and is known to me.

 

5- The false address given- I once knew someone and their family that lived on that road a long time ago but I do not remember the number they lived at but I have not been in contact with that person and their family for over 6 years.

 

6-The decription I do not know what they wrote. How can it match me I have not been to that station

 

7-Yes I would do this because there is no way that I am the person on that day that they say.

 

8- I am thinking to get a solictor if the courts can pay for a solictor that would help me but at the same time if I am innocent I do not need someone to defend me because I have done nothing wrong this company is doing me wrong.

 

How can they manipulate the truth to turn it into a lie? Why would they do this to me? I thought the courts is a place for the truth if truth is what they want that is. For their evidence to point at me, they will have to lie to such a great extent which is insane, that cannot be.

 

And really this is a serious matter, they are playing with someone's life, my life.

[honeybee13]

8- I am thinking to get a solictor if the courts can pay for a solictor that would help me but at the same time if I am innocent I do not need someone to defend me because I have done nothing wrong this company is doing me wrong.

 

How can they manipulate the truth to turn it into a lie? Why would they do this to me? I thought the courts is a place for the truth if truth is what they want that is. For their evidence to point at me, they will have to lie to such a great extent which is insane, that cannot be.

 

Hello again.

 

I don't know very much about courts and procedures, but I'm not sure if the court is going to pay for a lawyer or if this would be covered under Legal Aid. It seems to me that very few people qualify for legal aid, because it's means tested.

 

Have you spoken to your local CAB? They may be able to advise you and should have local contacts with lawyers who might let you have a free initial interview of about 30 minutes about your case. If you do end up taking on a lawyer, I would be looking for someone who has experience of similar cases.

 

Also, for free legal advice, you could see if you have a local Community Law centre.

 

In terms of manipulating the truth, my view is that it has been manipulated by the person who gave your details to the train company. I wonder if you can get hold of more information about the case, because this would be helpful to you and to us, I think.

 

HB

[Old-CodJA]

8- I am thinking to get a solictor if the courts can pay for a solictor that would help me but at the same time if I am innocent I do not need someone to defend me because I have done nothing wrong this company is doing me wrong.

 

How can they manipulate the truth to turn it into a lie? Why would they do this to me? I thought the courts is a place for the truth if truth is what they want that is. For their evidence to point at me, they will have to lie to such a great extent which is insane, that cannot be.

 

Hello again.

 

I don't know very much about courts and procedures, but I'm not sure if the court is going to pay for a lawyer or if this would be covered under Legal Aid. It seems to me that very few people qualify for legal aid, because it's means tested.

 

Have you spoken to your local CAB? They may be able to advise you and should have local contacts with lawyers who might let you have a free initial interview of about 30 minutes about your case. If you do end up taking on a lawyer, I would be looking for someone who has experience of similar cases.

 

Also, for free legal advice, you could see if you have a local Community Law centre.

 

In terms of manipulating the truth, my view is that it has been manipulated by the person who gave your details to the train company. I wonder if you can get hold of more information about the case, because this would be helpful to you and to us, I think.

 

HB

 

You're right HB, the Courts will not pay for a defendant's representation, if the OP wants a solicitor to represent him in this instance, he will have to pay for it.

 

This is not a matter that attracts Legal aid in any but truly exceptional cases. He might be able to get a sympathetic lawyer to act 'pro-bono'.

 

I really do think that the OP needs to stop ranting accusations and concentrate on the main issue, which is dealing with a direct response to the charge.

 

If he attends Court and pleads 'Not Guilty' the Legal Advisor will ask what is the basis of that plea?

 

The OP will say that he has been the victim of an impostor, was not the person travelling and has no knowledge of the offence.

 

The Legal Advisor will ask the LOL Prosecutor what evidence of identity was confirmed and what the issues are. The Prosecutor will be required to respond

 

If the Court is satisfied that the case should proceed a trial date may be set and the Prosecution will have to produce their evidence.

 

This means that the reporting inspector, the person that submitted the statement claiming that the OP was the person reported, will be called to give evidence before the Court.

 

It isn't a complicated process.

Edited September 25, 2012 by Old-CodJA

[Halflfe2]

Thanks to everyone that has offered advice I am grateful it may not seem it but I am

 

I do plan to delete this thread though after the court date or perhaps before. I have been too angry and it is best if this thread was eradicated it will help no one.

 

I was confused fearful and angry all the traits that lead to the dark side when this all began.

I had done nothing wrong to anyone, to this company they appeared to me from nowhere really unbelievable but there was no need for me to be this way. Though I do not like being accused of something that I have not done or have any knowledge of that really is not a good thing to happen to anyone. I think most would agree.

 

The person at fault and the person that should be questioned is the person who used my name that is the underlining truth of the matter. This has nothing to do with me it has everything to do with the person that gave false information at that station on that day using the services of the company and not paying the travel fare it is as simple as that.

 

Kind regards

[honeybee13]

Thanks to everyone that has offered advice I am grateful it may not seem it but I am

 

I do plan to delete this thread though after the court date or perhaps before. I have been too angry and it is best if this thread was eradicated it will help no one.

 

I was confused fearful and angry all the traits that lead to the dark side when this all began.

I had done nothing wrong to anyone, to this company they appeared to me from nowhere really unbelievable but there was no need for me to be this way. Though I do not like being accused of something that I have not done or have any knowledge of that really is not a good thing to happen to anyone. I think most would agree.

 

The person at fault and the person that should be questioned is the person who used my name that is the underlining truth of the matter. This has nothing to do with me it has everything to do with the person that gave false information at that station on that day using the services of the company and not paying the travel fare it is as simple as that.

 

Kind regards

 

Hello again.

 

I think the guys understand about being angry, we've seen it before here. I can see that you have no-one to direct your anger at, if you don't know who did this.

 

I believe this thread could help others who arrive here in the future with a similar problem. From memory, we don't see many impersonation cases here, so the thread could be a useful reference.

 

I hope you'll let us know how you get on and ask any further questions that may crop up. And I hope you found Old-CodJA's resume of how the court hearing should go useful.

 

My best, HB