IRCAS penalty fare notice: not me but they now ask my personal details

[Little Curious]

To Little Curious,

 

I would agree with the comment that you should not be put off, if you were definitely not the traveller you have nothing to fear, but please be very careful how much importance you attach to some of the 'advice' that you are being given on forums and I would be a little more careful about the language that you use too.

 

 

 

 

The quote above is simply not true. The TOC, or their agents will not set out to 'frame' someone as claimed by your quote above.

 

 

They will act on a report from an inspector, or unpaid or penalty fare notice that remains outstanding after the period allowed and advised by the legislation has passed.

 

If there is a report that you were travelling without a ticket contrary to existing legislation, have not responded to correspondence about the matter in due time and simply rang up and said 'It's not me', if they believe they have evidence to suggest it was you, they are not obliged to accept your denial.

 

No Court would accept a simple telephone call denying liability either.

 

If you cannot convince them that you have been the victim of an impostor, the TOC or their agents do have the right to issue a Summons to have their evidence tested. I am not for one minute suggesting that you are the offender and it may be that you have been the victim of an impostor, but it is worth considering the experiences of a great many prosecutors in these cases.

 

It is not unusual for an offender to attempt to avoid a liability by denying responsibility, sometimes by sending back letters marked 'Gone Away' or 'Not Known' or by calling to say 'It's not me' and refusing to assist further.

 

In most cases, if the TOC believe that their evidence is strong and sometimes a person who has been reported has genuinely forgotten that the inspector recorded something that will confirm identity, then the prosecutor will proceed to Summons.

 

In a substantial number of cases the prosecutor will hear nothing further from the defendant once a Summons is issued and the statement & other disclosures are made. In such cases it is frequently a fact that on arrival at Court the Legal Advisor will have received a 'guilty' plea. Magistrates take a dim view of what they perceive to be an attempt to pervert the course of justice by the original denial, which is brought to their attention.

 

I repeat, I am not saying this is what is happening in your case, but I hope that you can see why, without EVIDENCE to the contrary, the prosecution unit may well remain unconvinced.

 

Over the years I have seen a great many such cases and sometimes of course the defendant is proven to be entirely innocent and the charge will be dismissed, but not until the drawn out process of Summons & hearing has inconvenienced everyone.

 

Defendants in such cases often demand compensation beyond the out-of-pocket expenses incurred in travelling to Court and are often very unhappy when the Court says "We have heard from the prosecutor that the company has previously tried to resolve this matter. What did you do when the rail company wrote asking for your assistance to clear up this matter much earlier?"

 

I once heard a defendant reply by saying "I didn't see why I should send anything to help them, they got it wrong, not me"

 

This was swiftly rebuffed by comment from the Chair of the Magistrates who said; "Then your claim is declined as all of this waste of Court time could easily have been avoided and the choice to travel to here today appears to have been yours"

 

 

 

 

 

Yes, you may contact your local Police, but do not be surprised if they tell you that there is absolutely nothing that they can do about it. The position at present is the only allegation of a crime is that you are accused of travelling without a valid ticket. There isn't a crime reference number, but there will be an ASN if you are Summonsed to answer a charge of 'intent to avoid a fare'

 

You would be well advised to get a statement from someone who is prepared to go on oath and give evidence to the fact that you were elsewhere at the time.

 

Maybe, all of this could be best avoided by helping the TOC to confirm you were not the traveller and helping them to try to avoid a repeat in the future. I am sure that if you go and see a Solicitor who may be prepared to give advice pro-bono in such a case, that is what you are most likely to be told

 

These are criminal allegations and the TOCs and their agents do not take out Summonses as lightly as some people like others to believe.

 

Thanks. I have been in contact with a criminal lawyer, will see him tomorrow but your opinion has put things into perspective in the meantime and if I conclude, I have only two choices

- either I send them the evidences they asked for or face the possibility of a successful prosecution by TOC.

I am a busy person and my job requires me to have a clean DBS so whether I was involved or not, I have to comply with them so it's not really worth the hassle of resisting: either send evidence or pay or wait for prosecution!

 

Last question(s) to you - it seems you know them well so how could I be sure that my personal data will not be misused? Can I/how could I ask them to provide me any information/evidence they have about the alleged person for my record in return??

 

By the way, my actual name is say 'Manuel Antonio Mxxx' but they addressed to 'Tony Rxxx' which is my email and social media alias although they got the right address (I kind of guess who could the perpetrator be but that's a different story) but I strongly doubt they would have any other evidence/info i.e. correct signature or dob and not sure how they checked with the electoral register for ID verification as there's been no such person at least for the last 10+ years - how all these could be used against me if a prosecution follows??

 

Appreciate your advice and time.

Edited September 22, 2015 by honeybee13
Surname removed.

[Little Curious]

Don't let some posters put you off.

 

Was anyone with you when you were at home?

 

If they attempt to take court action they will have to send you a MG11 which should include a description of the offender. A vague one shouldn't cut it in court. You could submit your own witness statement and I will help you if necessary. Witness statements from others would help to.

 

For now I would write to them again advising that you do not live in London have never travelled this route and have reported the incident to the police. Advise them if they take court action you will provide independent witness statements and defend. Request a copy of the MG11 and consider making a statutory declaration. If you want me to draft something let me know.

 

Thank you. I am seeing a lawyer tomorrow, see what he says then weigh all the options and proceed with the best course of action for me. I may need your advice anyway at some point.

 

Regards.

[goodatresearch]

Thank you. I am seeing a lawyer tomorrow, see what he says then weigh all the options and proceed with the best course of action for me. I may need your advice anyway at some point.

 

Regards.

 

Ok

[BazzaS]

 

or face the possibility of a successful prosecution by TOC.

 

 

Why would it be a "successful prosecution"?

 

If it wasn't you who fare evaded, it shouldn't be a successful prosecution.

 

The issue is that you can avoid it reaching prosecution by cooperating before it reaches the stage of prosecution (successful or otherwise!)

[honeybee13]

I've removed the surnames from your post higher up, for reasons of your confidentiality.

 

HB

[Little Curious]

I've removed the surnames from your post higher up, for reasons of your confidentiality.

 

HB

 

It's not my real name - I just mentioned to give an idea.

[Little Curious]

hi goodatresearch,

 

Just a quick question: my name is for example 'Manuel Antonio Rxxxxxxez' but they addressed to 'Tony Rxxxxxxez' which is my email and social media alias although they got the right address (I kind of guess who could the perpetrator be but that's a different story) but I strongly doubt they would have any other evidence/info i.e. correct signature or dob and not sure how they checked with the electoral register for ID verification as there's been no such person at least for the last 10+ years - how all these could be used against me if a prosecution follows as it seems from one of the posters that the court is on the prosecutor's SIDE?

Edited September 22, 2015 by Little Curious

[Old-CodJA]

it seems from one of the posters that the court is on the prosecutor's SIDE?

 

 

I have selected this part of your post because this does need a response and it seems to be an obsession that 'someone has it in for you'.

 

I have worked in revenue protection & prosecutions for well over 30 years and can categorically state that the only thing the Court is actually interested in is EVIDENCE leading to justice.

 

If you were not the traveller, you will be able to show a Court that. Your posts have strayed away from the fact that you have repeatedly been given opportunity to show that you are not the offender and thereby to avoid wasting a Court's time.

 

If you are unwilling to help yourself to avoid future similar problems then there seems to be very little that we can do to help you further.

[honeybee13]

How did it go with the lawyer today, Little Curious?

 

HB

[goodatresearch]

I have selected this part of your post because this does need a response and it seems to be an obsession that 'someone has it in for you'.

 

I have worked in revenue protection & prosecutions for well over 30 years and can categorically state that the only thing the Court is actually interested in is EVIDENCE leading to justice.

 

If you were not the traveller, you will be able to show a Court that. Your posts have strayed away from the fact that you have repeatedly been given opportunity to show that you are not the offender and thereby to avoid wasting a Court's time.

 

If you are unwilling to help yourself to avoid future similar problems then there seems to be very little that we can do to help you further.

 

Such touching faith in magistrates. They frequently look bored and sleepy to me.

 

As previously stated, one innocent offender provided all the id evidence requested but the IRCAS rep still said it was her (should have gone to Specsavers). If she hadnt provided evidence that she was on a beach abroad she would have been prosecuted.

 

In this case they have the wrong name and the have refused to provide the evidence they have. This evidence would have to be provided by way of an MG11 if they try to prosecute, so if the OP is wasting time, wouldnt you say the same of IRCAS?

[goodatresearch]

How did it go with the lawyer today, Little Curious?

 

HB

 

Yes please, do get back to us.

[Old-CodJA]

Such touching faith in magistrates. They frequently look bored and sleepy to me.

 

As previously stated, one innocent offender provided all the id evidence requested but the IRCAS rep still said it was her (should have gone to Specsavers). If she hadnt provided evidence that she was on a beach abroad she would have been prosecuted.

 

In this case they have the wrong name and the have refused to provide the evidence they have. This evidence would have to be provided by way of an MG11 if they try to prosecute, so if the OP is wasting time, wouldnt you say the same of IRCAS?

 

 

 

If you do bother to read my comments in detail you will see throughout that I have said I do not doubt the OPs version of events, but have also explained why the process is designed and operated in the way that it is.

 

It appears to me however, from your comments that you MUST have SEEN FIRST HAND all of the EVIDENCE in this case to be able to categorically state as you have done:

 

"In this case they have the wrong name and the have refused to provide the evidence they have".

If not, on what do you base that exact statement?? Perhaps you are the lawyer that the OP has consulted??

 

I actually believe the OP, but have SEEN NO EVIDENCE, so will never make absolute statements of this nature.

 

Following your example no-one would ever be brought to book because all they would have to do when charged with an offence would be to say "Not me guv" and the law would have to accept it!!

 

How ludicrous is that??

 

Now, it appears that you also have a very clear misunderstanding of the rules of disclosure too.

 

If not, you would know that the prosecution is under no obligation to provide the evidence and schedule of unused material until AFTER a Summons has been issued. That is when the allegation is made.

 

Of course you also seem to miss the obvious in your example of the case that you quote where the lady provided evidence that it wasn't her because she was elsewhere at the material time. I'm not an employee of, nor do I have any direct connection with, or interest in IRCAS, but it seems that is all that IRCAS have asked our OP to do. The OP said 'It's not me" and IRCAS asked for confirmation.

 

My posts have been an attempt to help the OP avoid that Summons issue altogether and to avoid any repeat in the future!!

[goodatresearch]

Thanks for the amusement and telling me how to suck eggs (disclosure comment).

 

Non payment of a penalty fare is not in it self a criminal matter, its a civil offence. I am aware however that it can be used as evidence to support the case for the intention to avoid paying a fare which is a criminal offence. At the moment this is a civil matter so the OP is entitled to ask for the evidence at this stage. The rules of criminal disclosure are irrelevant at the moment. I only mentioned the MG11 because they would have to disclose their evidence if they decided to take the criminal rather than civil route. It seems to me that it would be sensible for IRCAS to disclose this evidence before the matter escalates beyond civil remedies.

 

You are quite right in that I haven't seen any evidence, my advice is based on his version of events i.e. it wasnt him, they havent got his correct name and they wont provide any evidence. At this point this is all I can do without any further information which may be revealed as the thread develops.

 

Now it may have been sensible for the OP to comply with their requests but the example I gave is worrying. You've missed the point and have twisted what I said. She complied and provided id evidence BEFORE they tried to prosecute and they still proceeded with court action.

 

As for your "not me gov comment" if you'd bothered to read my comments you will see I have asked the OP more the once to confirm if he can provide evidence of his whereabouts at the time of the incident.

 

Can we get back to helping the OP. I think we've put him off.

 

If the OP is still reading this thread, how did you get on with the solicitor? Did IRCAS send you a copy of the appeals procedure?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

If you do bother to read my comments in detail you will see throughout that I have said I do not doubt the OPs version of events, but have also explained why the process is designed and operated in the way that it is.

 

It appears to me however, from your comments that you MUST have SEEN FIRST HAND all of the EVIDENCE in this case to be able to categorically state as you have done:

 

"In this case they have the wrong name and the have refused to provide the evidence they have".

If not, on what do you base that exact statement?? Perhaps you are the lawyer that the OP has consulted??

 

I actually believe the OP, but have SEEN NO EVIDENCE, so will never make absolute statements of this nature.

 

Following your example no-one would ever be brought to book because all they would have to do when charged with an offence would be to say "Not me guv" and the law would have to accept it!!

 

How ludicrous is that??

 

Now, it appears that you also have a very clear misunderstanding of the rules of disclosure too.

 

If not, you would know that the prosecution is under no obligation to provide the evidence and schedule of unused material until AFTER a Summons has been issued. That is when the allegation is made.

 

Of course you also seem to miss the obvious in your example of the case that you quote where the lady provided evidence that it wasn't her because she was elsewhere at the material time. I'm not an employee of, nor do I have any direct connection with, or interest in IRCAS, but it seems that is all that IRCAS have asked our OP to do. The OP said 'It's not me" and IRCAS asked for confirmation.

 

My posts have been an attempt to help the OP avoid that Summons issue altogether and to avoid any repeat in the future!!

[Old-CodJA]

Thanks for the amusement and telling me how to suck eggs (disclosure comment).

 

 

I'm pleased it wasn't wasted, we both appear to suffer from the same irritation and you are right, it isn't offering clear help to the OP

 

Non payment of a penalty fare is not in it self a criminal matter, its a civil offence.

 

Agreed, but you appear to forget that the Penalty Fares Rules allow for the notice to be cancelled and for the TOC to proceed to pursue the strict liability breach of Byelaw offence to be summonsed before a criminal Court.

 

I am aware however that it can be used as evidence to support the case for the intention to avoid paying a fare which is a criminal offence.

 

Yes, if they want to go for the S.5 RoRA charge rather than the easier Byelaw matter, but both are matters to be heard in a criminal Court list

 

At the moment this is a civil matter so the OP is entitled to ask for the evidence at this stage.

 

Agreed, but the company is not obliged to do so at this stage either

 

The rules of criminal disclosure are irrelevant at the moment.

 

I agree, but it wasn't me that introduced this into the thread, I simply provided the correct answer at this stage

 

If the OP is still reading this thread, how did you get on with the solicitor? Did IRCAS send you a copy of the appeals procedure?

 

We would all like to know the answers to those points too

[goodatresearch]

Don't want to go off topic more than we already have, but hasn't there been a consultation to consider changes to the penalty fare system? How is this going, is it relevant to the OPs problem or is the consultation ongoing?

[Old-CodJA]

Nothing has yet changed, which is relevant to the OPs situation and the scenario described

[goodatresearch]

OK. I think we've lost him anyway.

 

 

Nothing has yet changed, which is relevant to the OPs situation and the scenario described