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

[Old-CodJA]

Very simply, if the letter did not bear your name or that of someone residing at, or known at, your address, the first thing you ought to have done was put it back in the post, unopened, marked 'NOT KNOWN AT THIS ADDRESS'. If it bore your name, the liability for that fare and subsequent refusal to pay is in your name.

 

It is a fact that many people attempt to avoid a liability when avoiding fares by doing exactly that when the letter arrives, simply saying 'Not me' in expectation that no further action will ensue. IRCAS, or the prosecuting agency appointed by the TOC, will make further investigation and if they are not satisfied that an error has occurred, may issue a Summons to a Magistrates Court hearing.

 

The person named on the unpaid fare notice will be the person Summonsed to answer that charge unless they provide evidence, or detailed explanation satisfying the prosecuting authority to the contrary well before that hearing date. The evidence of the copy of the notice issued at the time, any identity checks made and description recorded and an evidential statement submitted by the inspector will be used to support that allegation in a criminal Court hearing.

 

The rules of disclosure confirm that once the Summons is issued the prosecuting agency will provide a copy of said statement and evidence that they intend to rely upon and they may also provide a schedule of any unused information that may be held.

 

As others have said, the TOC, through IRCAS as their agents, have given opportunities for you to show that you were not the person who was reported. If you do nothing to help yourself, you may not get a great deal of sympathy shown by Magistrates. All Court time is under intense pressure these days and Legal Advisors & Magistrates can be very hard on those who waste their time.

 

That does include prosecutors who might be seen to be wasting their time, but if the prosecutor says to Magistrates "We have attempted to ascertain whether or not there is any good reason to discontinue this matter by offering Mr XXX a number of opportunities to assist in this investigation, but without success", don't be surprised if they reject your 'un-confirmed claim' that it was not you and then direct that a not-guilty plea be entered on your behalf and may refer the matter to a full trial at a later date.

 

It seems from reading this thread that you have been given several opportunities to avoid a Summons being issued at all, but as so many people do, seem to have an expectation that doing something about these things is always someone else's responsibility.

 

If you want to resolve this quickly, please help yourself by helping them

[Old-CodJA]

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.

 

 

If they fail to get the right ID of the alleged person, which seems quite likely in this case, they simply try to frame whoever is responding to them even if by acquiring the copy of the responder's ID!

 

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"

 

 

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.

 

 

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.

[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.

[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!!

[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

[Old-CodJA]

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