Someone gave my name in when they got caught on the train without a ticket

[Kenai]

Call them up on Monday. A similar thing happened to me in the past, had a letter from Croydon Tramlink. I explained they must have had the wrong person as I've never set foot on a tram before and lived at the opposite end of London. I did also mentioned I worked in an 9-5 office job locally and could have got proof from my employer if required. They were fine with what I told them and wrote the fine off. They even apologised for the inconvenience.

NO MAYTE, SHOOD OF IGNORED IT AND GONE 2 CORT INIT

 

[Kaka]

But in all seriousness, one of the reasons why they apologised was because I questioned why it was so easy for them to accept the details they were given without any form of ID. If you call them up and say this to them you'll stand a greater chance of having the fine waived and the matter dropped.

 

[Reeve]

What kind of scumbag actually does something like this to someone else?

OP has obviously come into contact with some unsavoury people....

 

[-Ad-]

controlled by barriers anyway so if you disembarked at the next stop you'd probably find it problematic getting out anyway.

I take it you're not a climber or have ever commuted in or around London

Climbed over many barriers in my time, alas with a valid ticket!

 

[SexyGreyFox]

OP has obviously come into contact with some unsavoury people....

Or OP could have had a letter taken out of his bin or OP could have been in the phone book etc

 

[Andy90]

Burnsys advices is spot on.

Write to the company to advise them of their mistake. I doubt that it will go much further unless they have evidence.

Bear in mind Merseyrail trains do have very very good CCTV systems fitted to them (I've seen the footage and it is crystal clear). Also bear in mind Merseyrail adopted a zero tolerance stance towards prosecuting anyone for committing offences on their trains, towards their property or their staff a few years ago.

I will add, if it does go to Court, then the onus is actually on the prosection to prove that the OP was the person on the train - as with all law he is innocent until proven guilty.

Don't ignore things

 

[lordhughes]

It's not rubbish, a ticket inspector can't force you to show a ticket after all you have already paid to use the service which means you have entered into a contract wih the train company to render a service.

No, but they can make you get of at the next stop (famous incident a couple of months where someone threw someone from a train because they where holding it up). Also you have to prove you paid for the service (show your ticket).

 

[Scam]

Some crazily bad advice in here. OP if you ignore it the next letter will most likely be a court summons. Burnsy seems to be the only person that knows what he's talking about.

Definitely write a (recorded) letter back to them. Explain it wasn't you and enquire as to whether or not they were shown ID as proof. Hopefully the ticket inspector won't try to protect himself and pretend that he asked for ID like he should have done... If he's honest and admits he never saw ID then you're in the clear I reckon.

If I was on national rail and didn't have a ticket, and could not produce one, do the inspectors have authority to detain me? can I just get off at the stop and walk away?

You could walk away (the rail staff will probably impede you but I don't know if they have the authority to hold you) but what you've done is an arrestable offence as far as I know. So what you're asking is a bit like 'If I walk out of this shop with this plasma TV can the security guard stop me?'. IE the BTP will be called and they will chase you down and arrest you for fare evasion and trespassing.

 

[Bloomfield]

But in all seriousness, one of the reasons why they apologised was because I questioned why it was so easy for them to accept the details they were given without any form of ID. If you call them up and say this to them you'll stand a greater chance of having the fine waived and the matter dropped.

I imagine they accept a name and address without ID because not everyone carries ID, and if someone is giving someone elses details they'll just say they don't have ID. If they only took details from people that had ID everyone would just say they didn't have it and never have to pay a fine .

 

[Spektor]

So some guy didn't get a ticket... they said what's your name, he said 'John Smith'... they say 'Ok just you wait John Smith!' - then what? they look up the first John Smith in the phonebook and send him a letter?

Surely some ID had to be produced? some kind of CCTV record made to ensure identity?

But that aside, people saying ignoring is terrible advise - should he be accused out of the blue of something he has no connection to then why is it exactly? they're the ones that have to prove he was on a train without a ticket, he doesn't have to prove he wasn't. That's the kind of topsy-turvy thinking that has the libel laws needing complete reform.

 

[[TW]Fox]

So some guy didn't get a ticket... they said what's your name, he said 'John Smith'... they say 'Ok just you wait John Smith!' - then what? they look up the first John Smith in the phonebook and send him a letter?

Somebody else would have given his name *and* address. There is no legal requirement to carry ID in this country.

But that aside, people saying ignoring is terrible advise - should he be accused out of the blue of something he has no connection to then why is it exactly? they're the ones that have to prove he was on a train without a ticket, he doesn't have to prove he wasn't.

I've explained why its terrible advice about 4 times now but here we go again.

Its terrible advice because Merseyrail are, unlike almost all other firms, able to prosecute the OP. If he ignores it, they will have no reason at all not to beleive that he is guilty and hoping it will go away. They will therefore initiate a prosecution and he will have to attend court. I would imagine that a high proportion of guilty fare evaders ignore the letters, therefore all he'll be doing is conforming to the stereotype they see so often.

Once at court they must then prove it was him - but this will involve a court hearing for the OP where presumably the OP will trot out the same line most fare evaders do in court of 'prove it innit'. Then obviously the court will decide, but why would he want this? Whats the point when a professional and well worded letter will probably head the whole thing off before it even gets that far?

 

[Energize]

This is a ridiculous peice of advice in my opinion - if you just ignore it they won't go away (At the moment they don't know it isn't you they are after) and it will eventually end up in court, where you'll be obliged to attend, all for the sake of not dealing with it early on. This sort of thing does happen from time to time - contact them, explain it wasn't you, then re-evaluate the best steps to take next based on the outcome of the conversation/correspondance. You are hardly incriminating yourself by doing so given you were not even on the train!

In order to prosecute someone there has to be sufficient evidence, there isn't so it can't go to court, the judge will not allow the proceedings on the basis of a name and address.

 

[Absomalutely]

So some guy didn't get a ticket... they said what's your name, he said 'John Smith'... they say 'Ok just you wait John Smith!' - then what? they look up the first John Smith in the phonebook and send him a letter?

Surely some ID had to be produced? some kind of CCTV record made to ensure identity?

But that aside, people saying ignoring is terrible advise - should he be accused out of the blue of something he has no connection to then why is it exactly? they're the ones that have to prove he was on a train without a ticket, he doesn't have to prove he wasn't. That's the kind of topsy-turvy thinking that has the libel laws needing complete reform.

On a completely seperate note: My ex screwed me out of around £500, how many London to Manchester tickets is this?

 

[[TW]Fox]

In order to prosecute someone there has to be sufficient evidence, there isn't so it can't go to court, the judge will not allow the proceedings on the basis of a name and address.

This isn't the case - prosecutions under railway bylaws are often brought to court using a name and address. It's difficult to see what further evidence they could bring without having had any contact with the evader since the date of offence.

This is all very silly because some polite letters will almost certainly make the problem officially go away, so why wouldn't you?

 

[Cleeecooo]

I wouldn't send a letter, I'd just give them a call/send an email, simply because this will probably be quicker and cheaper.

 

[C.R.A.Z.Y]

So some guy didn't get a ticket... they said what's your name, he said 'John Smith'... they say 'Ok just you wait John Smith!' - then what? they look up the first John Smith in the phonebook and send him a letter?

Surely some ID had to be produced? some kind of CCTV record made to ensure identity?

But that aside, people saying ignoring is terrible advise - should he be accused out of the blue of something he has no connection to then why is it exactly? they're the ones that have to prove he was on a train without a ticket, he doesn't have to prove he wasn't. That's the kind of topsy-turvy thinking that has the libel laws needing complete reform.

No they ask for your name and address, they then check the name and address out (ie someone of that name is registered to the postcode/address)
I'm not sure but they might even be able to check D.O.B on the system.

 

[Scam]

But that aside, people saying ignoring is terrible advise - should he be accused out of the blue of something he has no connection to then why is it exactly? they're the ones that have to prove he was on a train without a ticket, he doesn't have to prove he wasn't. That's the kind of topsy-turvy thinking that has the libel laws needing complete reform.

Step back and forget that this is about a rail fare for a moment. He is being accused of a criminal act. Regardless of whether or not it is 'fair' and he should be innocent until proven guilty and blah blah blah, he needs to prove it wasn't him. If he ignores it, he will be summoned to court, the train company will assume he is guilty and do as much as they can to convict him.

 

[Energize]

This isn't the case - prosecutions under railway bylaws are often brought to court using a name and address. It's difficult to see what further evidence they could bring without having had any contact with the evader since the date of offence.

CCTV, fingerprints, dna, height, weight, skin colour, eye colour, hair colour, are all supporting identifying information. The sensible thing to do would have been to contact the police or perform a citizens arrest, for offenders to randomly be able to select a name from the telephone directory is absurd, an enormous waste of taxpayers money.

This is all very silly because some polite letters will almost certainly make the problem officially go away, so why wouldn't you?

If they want to waste ones time due to incompetent practises, then one should waste their time. One bad deed deserves another.

 

[Robosapien]

Wow. Chances of the random name and address I gave in on the train recently being an OcUK forumite. I'm off to buy a lottery ticket and sorry about the letter....

This makes my brain weak.

 

[[TW]Fox]

CCTV, fingerprints, dna, height, weight, skin colour, eye colour, hair colour, are all supporting identifying information.

They may have some of that - they don't yet know they've got the wrong person and a video tape of some CCTV is never attached to a letter before action, is it?

As for DNA, just lol.

If they want to waste ones time due to incompetent practises, then one should waste their time. One bad deed deserves another.

The OP will only waste even more of his time if he leaves it. So far there is nothing incompetent about the way Merseyrail have acted. They took the persons name and address and then wrote to them! Thats it. Anything more at this stage would have been OTT.