Court Summons - My details were used by someone to avoid a fine

[TrainTrouble77]

Hello all,

I was pointed in this direction to share my situation and ask for advice.

Last year, I received a fine for a train journey I never took (in England). Foolishly, I ignored this (I don't need to be reminded of my idiocy here, my family have made that abundantly clear to me) until a court summons arrived.

The person pretending to be me gave the inspector the correct name and address, but got my DoB incorrect, and when challenged further simply walked away. They were also described by the inspector as being over six foot, where I stand at around five six. He was described as having short brown hair; I have none. I am bald and shave my head (it's a mix of black and grey if I were to let it grow out). I had hoped that when I made my court appearance this would go in my favour, but they ruled that this wasn't important (despite the judge agreeing it didn't marry up). This has now been rescheduled for a later date.

I've tried to find all that I can to demonstrate that I could not have been this person, but I don't know if it's enough. At the time in question - just before 7am - I would have been getting out of bed to get ready to start work. My boss has provided me with a letter to confirm that I would have been working from home on that day. The trouble is, this is all I have. I have tried to get geographical data from my phone to no avail, and I'm trying to locate photos in the week or two in the run up to the event to prove that I would have been shaven headed.

Is there anything else I can do to contest this? I worry that given the noises they're making it won't be enough?

 

[Haywain]

I'm inclined to suggest that engaging the services of a solicitor may be the best course of action at this point.

 

[WesternLancer]

Hello all,

I was pointed in this direction to share my situation and ask for advice.

Last year, I received a fine for a train journey I never took (in England). Foolishly, I ignored this (I don't need to be reminded of my idiocy here, my family have made that abundantly clear to me) until a court summons arrived.

The person pretending to be me gave the inspector the correct name and address, but got my DoB incorrect, and when challenged further simply walked away. They were also described by the inspector as being over six foot, where I stand at around five six. He was described as having short brown hair; I have none. I am bald and shave my head (it's a mix of black and grey if I were to let it grow out). I had hoped that when I made my court appearance this would go in my favour, but they ruled that this wasn't important (despite the judge agreeing it didn't marry up). This has now been rescheduled for a later date.

I've tried to find all that I can to demonstrate that I could not have been this person, but I don't know if it's enough. At the time in question - just before 7am - I would have been getting out of bed to get ready to start work. My boss has provided me with a letter to confirm that I would have been working from home on that day. The trouble is, this is all I have. I have tried to get geographical data from my phone to no avail, and I'm trying to locate photos in the week or two in the run up to the event to prove that I would have been shaven headed.

Is there anything else I can do to contest this? I worry that given the noises they're making it won't be enough?

If this has already got to the point of the court system, and an initial stage did not get the outcome you might have expected, probably time to look out solicitors who can help you. There are some that claim to specialize in fares related issues, but it may be that given you are a basically victim of impersonation, any more general legal firm could help. You may be able to get free initial advice. I'd be ringing round local firms to ask about that. Or if you are a Union member they may have a legal help service that also covers non workplace legal support.

 

[Mcr Warrior]

Might be worth mentioning that (unless you have a name like John Smith) it could possibly be the case that some acquaintance of yours is the person who has landed you in it given that they would appear to have known both your name and address (albeit not your DoB) when challenged.

 

[WesternLancer]

Might be worth mentioning that (unless you have a name like John Smith) it could possibly be the case that some acquaintance of yours is the person who has landed you in it given that they would appear to have known both your name and address (albeit not your DoB) when challenged.

Yes, or post taken from a previous address where a re-direction has not been set up.

 

[SteveM70]

At the time in question - just before 7am - I would have been getting out of bed to get ready to start work. My boss has provided me with a letter to confirm that I would have been working from home on that day. The trouble is, this is all I have.

What time do you start work when you’re working from home? Can your work IT produce anything that evidences you logging onto their network? Do you have sent emails that corroborate your version of events?

 

[pint]

Do you have a phone? android, and apple (ios) often record location history, if you have google maps then log into your google account an you should be able to find a feature called time line in the options ( three lines to the right)

 

[MotCO]

Or if you are a Union member they may have a legal help service that also covers non workplace legal support.

If you have a house insurance policy, there may be some legal cover included which might help.

 

[matt_world2004]

Would you have been at work at the time of the offence in question your employer may be able to provide records to prove you were at work is the train services the alleged offence happened on near your house or workplace?

 

[swt_passenger]

Would you have been at work at the time of the offence in question your employer may be able to provide records to prove you were at work is the train services the alleged offence happened on near your house or workplace?

Working from home on the day in question, it was stated earlier, in post #1.

 

[MotCO]

What time do you start work when you’re working from home? Can your work IT produce anything that evidences you logging onto their network? Do you have sent emails that corroborate your version of events?

But playing devil's advocate, you can send emails from mobile devices on the move, so I'm not sure this would be sufficient corrobaration.

 

[SteveM70]

But playing devil's advocate, you can send emails from mobile devices on the move, so I'm not sure this would be sufficient corrobaration.

According to our friendly work IT bod it’s possible to tell where an email is sent from

 

[Western Sunset]

I don't understand this bit from the OP. And who are "they"?

I had hoped that when I made my court appearance this would go in my favour, but they ruled that this wasn't important (despite the judge agreeing it didn't marry up).

 

[najaB]

I don't understand this bit from the OP. And who are "they"?

I had hoped that when I made my court appearance this would go in my favour, but they ruled that this wasn't important (despite the judge agreeing it didn't marry up).

The magistrates.

Though, that is curious. The OP is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The magistrate said that the TOC's description of the offender doesn't match the OP. Surely that's the textbook definition of doubt?

 

[Haywain]

The magistrates.

Though, that is curious. The OP is innocent until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The magistrate said that the TOC's description of the offender doesn't match the OP. Surely that's the textbook definition of doubt?

If it “wasn’t important” why has the hearing been “rescheduled”? It seems to me that this will be for witnesses to be called because it is important.

 

[najaB]

It seems to me that this will be for witnesses to be called because it is important.

Probably. Though it seems a waste of time and resources. The inspector's report states that the offender was a tall man, with a full head of hair. The OP is short(er) and bald. Either it's a case of misidentification, or the inspector needs to go Specsavers.

 

[Haywain]

Probably. Though it seems a waste of time and resources. The inspector's report states that the offender was a tall man, with a full head of hair. The OP is short(er) and bald. Either it's a case of misidentification, or the inspector needs to go Specsavers.

I would guess that on being presented with conflicting evidence the prosecutor will ask for an adjournment in order to consult the TOC.

 

[Gloster]

Slightly off at a tangent, I have recently heard indirectly anecdotal evidence that some people have seen a way to misuse the practice of noting the offender’s appearance. If stopped they give the identity of someone they know who looks very different. (Or maybe this isn’t news and I am just behind the times.)

Mods: maybe this should be a new thread (or maybe it should be deleted before it gives any potential evil-doers ideas).

 

[ukkid]

Hello all,

I was pointed in this direction to share my situation and ask for advice.

Last year, I received a fine for a train journey I never took (in England). Foolishly, I ignored this (I don't need to be reminded of my idiocy here, my family have made that abundantly clear to me) until a court summons arrived.

The person pretending to be me gave the inspector the correct name and address, but got my DoB incorrect, and when challenged further simply walked away. They were also described by the inspector as being over six foot, where I stand at around five six. He was described as having short brown hair; I have none. I am bald and shave my head (it's a mix of black and grey if I were to let it grow out). I had hoped that when I made my court appearance this would go in my favour, but they ruled that this wasn't important (despite the judge agreeing it didn't marry up). This has now been rescheduled for a later date.

I've tried to find all that I can to demonstrate that I could not have been this person, but I don't know if it's enough. At the time in question - just before 7am - I would have been getting out of bed to get ready to start work. My boss has provided me with a letter to confirm that I would have been working from home on that day. The trouble is, this is all I have. I have tried to get geographical data from my phone to no avail, and I'm trying to locate photos in the week or two in the run up to the event to prove that I would have been shaven headed.

Is there anything else I can do to contest this? I worry that given the noises they're making it won't be enough?

I suspect your court appearance was the plea hearing, rather than the trial itself. Can you elaborate?

The letter from your boss is hearsay and cannot be admitted as evidence.Will your boss come to give evidence under oath at trial. You can let the TOC know you intend to bring him as a witness will be claiming costs order if you are successful at trial. You can also show the letter to the TOC before trial or have your boss write to them .

In your defence case statement or at trial you can insist the prosecution be put to proof that you were stopped. You need to reiterate that the evidence they produced does not describe you and more likely described someone else who has used some of your details to avoid detection.

A co'operating person doesn't give his correct name and address, (meaning they can be easily traced and summoned) but forget their dob, and walk off without showing any Id/bank cards. Someone trying to pass off as someone else does.

 

[TrainTrouble77]

That's correct. Sorry, I should have been clearer. On my first appearance at the magistrate's court, I was turned away thanks to an error on the police's part - I wasn't on the day's list. So I have had one appearance, at which I was told emailed evidence (screenshots of my work calendar, birth certificate) would not be looked at thanks to Covid backlogs. I said all this in my appearance, and questioned the description given by the inspector. The refused to accept my plea of not guilty and said it would need to be reviewed at the next hearing.

 

[ainsworth74]

Personally I believe that your best bet at this point would be to consult a local firm of solicitors (any that provide criminal defence services will do) and seek their assistance in the matter. I'm sure we can continue providing our best guesses but realistically to get this resolved satisfactorily I believe you will need professional advice and guidance. The Law Society maintain a register which you can find here (set your issue to "Crime" and enter your post code) and many firms will offer a free initial consultation or half an hour to help idenitfy the scope of the work and assistance they can provide.

 

[Haywain]

On my first appearance at the magistrate's court, I was turned away thanks to an error on the police's part - I wasn't on the day's list.

I don't believe the police have any part in this - they are not prosecuting and they don't run the magistrates courts.

So I have had one appearance, at which I was told emailed evidence (screenshots of my work calendar, birth certificate) would not be looked at thanks to Covid backlogs.

I think it is normal that at hearings of this nature a not guilty plea would lead to an adjournment of the case until a later date. This allows witnesses to be called when they are likely to be needed which they wouldn't be for the majority of cases.

The refused to accept my plea of not guilty

By 'they', you mean the prosecutor refused to accept your plea. They would reasonably need to confirm the details of the case and consult with the train company.

 

[Gloster]

Without being an expert or ever having been in this situation I would say don’t be too quick to engage a solicitor. By all means find a solicitor, preferably by personal recommendation, and check whether they are willing to do the work. But I would wait until you have a date for your hearing and are sure that the ‘railway’ aren’t going to drop the case before you take things to a point where you have to pay them. Wiser heads than me will know how much notice you will get and you can check that this is sufficient for the solicitors. N.B. Others may have different advice as to when to contact a solicitor: they probably know more than I do.

One point about solicitors: there are plenty of comparison type websites that you can look at, but use personal recommendation if you can. I know of one firm that has a long list of five-star ratings, probably all genuine, but look into it further and you find they are all for one solicitor who no longer works for them.

 

[najaB]

Without being an expert or ever having been in this situation I would say don’t be too quick to engage a solicitor. By all means find a solicitor, preferably by personal recommendation, and check whether they are willing to do the work.

Seconded. Many solicitors will give you a free (or fixed fee) consultation and can advise if you have a strong case or not. I believe you do, but IANAL.

 

[TrainTrouble77]

Thank you all for your replies. I think the best course of action now is to talk to a lawyer.

 

[Western Sunset]

Make sure you keep a note of all your expenses involved in defending your case. Best of luck.

 

[WesternLancer]

Thank you all for your replies. I think the best course of action now is to talk to a lawyer.

Keep us posted if you feel able to do so and have time, it can be useful for others as this will certainly happen again to someone after all, and it's useful to know how the railway handle it when there is seemingly clear evidence of impersonation etc.

 

[mattmtfc]

The Magistrates have to be sure beyond all reasonable doubt. If this was the CPS it would of been thrown out by now because it won't take them more than a couple of minutes to find you not Guilty. Could see you getting a letter before the next hearing saying there not proceeding with the case.

 

[Haywain]

The Magistrates have to be sure beyond all reasonable doubt. If this was the CPS it would of been thrown out by now because it won't take them more than a couple of minutes to find you not Guilty. Could see you getting a letter before the next hearing saying there not proceeding with the case.

You have a touching faith in the justice system.