Wrongly accused of rail evasion and now going to court - liable for compensation?

[xtibbersx]

I’m writing this post in behalf of someone else as they are stuck on what to do and going through a lot of stress. For the sake of this post, I will write in first person.

Three weeks ago, I received a letter through the post from registered bailiffs that I missed a court date (no other letter was received, no details of what crime was committed nor any other dates etc), and that was held in Nottingham. I live no where near Nottingham.

I called the bailiffs and they asked me to confirm my name and number (they didn’t know my DOB until I told them) - they told me it was to do with “Travelling without a valid train ticket” at Radley Regis to Cradley Heath and the date. They demanded I pay over £600.

Immediately, I gathered evidence - I had pictures and text messages that completely prove my innocence. However, the bailiffs still persisted that I pay them and then they came to my workplace (self-employed business) - I managed to get them away as I asked for evidence and they could provide none.

I spoke to the courts and the address they were first presented with was over 40 miles away from my actual home (they would have sent the initial letters here)

So we filled complaint forms. Today I have received an email from the courts that it’s been called back to court to prove my innocence. As I’m self-employed I will be losing money and Nottingham is so far to travel to I will also have to pay for this too.

I’m so stressed out by this situation - from researching, clearly a train conductor would have actually had to have spoken to someone, took their name and address (we are confused about the address because they were given that first one so why decide to use mine?) and then no other evidence or saw an ID atleast??

How is this possible that my name can literally get me fined and sent to court with no other explanation/evidence?? And I’ve just got to pay for it and sort it out when it wasn’t my crime??

Once I prove my OBVIOUS innocence, would I be liable for compensation? If so, who would I need to do this with?

Td;lr - Train company taking me to court when no proper evidence exists just my name. The train conductor didn’t do their job properly and just used my name. Had a different address initially and then changed it somehow to mine and are taking me to court.

 

[skyhigh]

Have you submitted a statutory declaration to the court?

 

[6Gman]

I would suggest you contact West Midlands Railway (who operate between Rowley Regis and Cradley Heath) explaining what has happened and asking them to withdraw the action (which one assumes started with them). But I wouldn't use "the train conductor didn't do their job properly and just used my name" as he/she was presumably given the details by ... someone.

 

[xtibbersx]

Have you submitted a statutory declaration to the court?

Yes we have

I would suggest you contact West Midlands Railway (who operate between Rowley Regis and Cradley Heath) explaining what has happened and asking them to withdraw the action (which one assumes started with them). But I wouldn't use "the train conductor didn't do their job properly and just used my name" as he/she was presumably given the details by ... someone.

Apologies, it was from anger. We are currently waiting for a call back from WMR

 

[Hadders]

Welcome to the forum!

The most straigtforward way to resolve this is to engage with WMR's Prosecutions Department, explain what has happened and get them to withdraw the charge fron court.

 

[johnny_t]

Have 'you' actually been convicted of something, or has 'someone with your name' been convicted of something and the bailiffs have just gone on a fishing expedition and called on the nearest / easiest person they can find with that name ?

 

[reb0118]

The member of rail staff who initially dealt with the case probably didn't just use your details - rather they used the details that were provided to them by the person travelling.

As you are no doubt aware, there is no requirement to carry identification in the United Kingdom so how can a rail employee verify the details of a person claiming to not have identification? What legislation would you put in place to ensure that only verifiable information is provided?

Possibly a more important question you could ask is how a random passenger, seemingly without the correct authority to travel, obtained your details. That said, you may just be unlucky in that it might just be that the details were just close enough to yours for a false match to be made.

If the person who provided the false details is traced then you could, in theory at least, take legal action against them. How successful that would be in reality is moot.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Have you submitted a statutory declaration to the court?

Yes we have

For completeness, how have you completed the Statutory Declaration? Did you get a local solicitor to witness it, or go to the court and give the declaration in person?

 

[island]

Welcome to the forum!

The most straigtforward way to resolve this is to engage with WMR's Prosecutions Department, explain what has happened and get them to withdraw the charge fron court.

They can’t just “withdraw the charge from court” post conviction. It is necessary for the defendant to make a statutory declaration, which can only be made in person and in writing, or a section 142 application for the case to be reopened in the interest of justice. After that, the train company can withdraw it.

 

[John R]

They can’t just “withdraw the charge from court” post conviction. It is necessary for the defendant to make a statutory declaration, which can only be made in person and in writing, or a section 142 application for the case to be reopened in the interest of justice. After that, the train company can withdraw it.

But @Hadders comment was made in the light of the previous post which confirmed a statutory declaration had indeed been made, so the OP can indeed now ask for the TOC to withdraw the case prior to its rescheduling.

 

[AlterEgo]

Have 'you' actually been convicted of something, or has 'someone with your name' been convicted of something and the bailiffs have just gone on a fishing expedition and called on the nearest / easiest person they can find with that name ?

And are we sure the bailiffs even have the correct person?

 

[Haywain]

And are we sure the bailiffs even have the correct person?

The OP seems convinced that they don't!

I spoke to the courts and the address they were first presented with was over 40 miles away from my actual home

Do 'you' have any connection with that address?

 

[AlterEgo]

The OP seems convinced that they don't!


Do 'you' have any connection with that address?

This is why making a SD seems a bit weird if it wasn’t they who was convicted! It seems more likely the bailiff has the wrong person.

 

[Haywain]

This is why making a SD seems a bit weird if it wasn’t they who was convicted! It seems more likely the bailiff has the wrong person.

It's an odd one - court bailiffs seem to be pretty good at tracing people from previous addresses and I can't help feeling that it's unlikely that they've got completely the wrong person. Unless the OP chooses to answer the questions being asked, rather than just reading the thread, we can't help much and will have to draw our own conclusions.

 

[xtibbersx]

It's an odd one - court bailiffs seem to be pretty good at tracing people from previous addresses and I can't help feeling that it's unlikely that they've got completely the wrong person. Unless the OP chooses to answer the questions being asked, rather than just reading the thread, we can't help much and will have to draw our own conclusions.

Apologies, as it’s not my post I’ve been sending the replies to the person who’s dealing with this and waiting for their reply. They have no connection whatsoever with the previous address the courts and bailiffs were first given. They have completely got the wrong person but now it’s turned to their court date!

 

[johnny_t]

It sounds like you have been trying to prove the wrong thing (though I'm not quite sure how you now get out of it).

It seems like (let's say) 'John Smith' was convicted of fare-dodging. This was then given to a bailiff to follow up and, on not finding him, they have done a trawl and decided that you are a likely candidate for being 'that' John Smith (which you aren't). What you probably should have done at this point is say fairly forcefully that you weren't that John Smith and let them prove otherwise. All they had was the name, no address and no DOB.
However, the path you are down is more as if you were that John Smith, and are trying to prove you didn't do the original crime, which is a different kettle of fish.

Can someone like Citizen's Advice help, as it all sounds a bit of a mess ?

 

[AlterEgo]

Apologies, as it’s not my post I’ve been sending the replies to the person who’s dealing with this and waiting for their reply. They have no connection whatsoever with the previous address the courts and bailiffs were first given. They have completely got the wrong person but now it’s turned to their court date!

So it wasn't even they who were prosecuted at all. It's someone else with the same name and the bailiffs - who are tasked with recovery - have got the wrong person.

 

[ainsworth74]

Can someone like Citizen's Advice help, as it all sounds a bit of a mess ?

Probably not unless they have a tie up with a firm of local solicitors (who will probably charge for anything other than an initial piece of one off advice). When it was just a bailiff issue they might have been able to have a go but it's into the weeds of criminal law now and they don't touch that.

 

[xtibbersx]

The member of rail staff who initially dealt with the case probably didn't just use your details - rather they used the details that were provided to them by the person travelling.

As you are no doubt aware, there is no requirement to carry identification in the United Kingdom so how can a rail employee verify the details of a person claiming to not have identification? What legislation would you put in place to ensure that only verifiable information is provided?

Possibly a more important question you could ask is how a random passenger, seemingly without the correct authority to travel, obtained your details. That said, you may just be unlucky in that it might just be that the details were just close enough to yours for a false match to be made.

If the person who provided the false details is traced then you could, in theory at least, take legal action against them. How successful that would be in reality is m

It sounds like you have been trying to prove the wrong thing (though I'm not quite sure how you now get out of it).

It seems like (let's say) 'John Smith' was convicted of fare-dodging. This was then given to a bailiff to follow up and, on not finding him, they have done a trawl and decided that you are a likely candidate for being 'that' John Smith (which you aren't). What you probably should have done at this point is say fairly forcefully that you weren't that John Smith and let them prove otherwise. All they had was the name, no address and no DOB.
However, the path you are down is more as if you were that John Smith, and are trying to prove you didn't do the original crime, which is a different kettle of fish.

Can someone like Citizen's Advice help, as it all sounds a bit of a mess ?

We did and we said we weren’t the person. The bailiffs have continued to try and get this debt regardless, even with no evidence. It’s been unavoidable and now they have my address, they can continue to come to mine and my business’s address (which they’ve done once before now).

The courts have to speak to the bailiffs in order to withdraw the debt and the only way to get through the prosecutions department is them ringing me

Probably not unless they have a tie up with a firm of local solicitors (who will probably charge for anything other than an initial piece of one off advice). When it was just a bailiff issue they might have been able to have a go but it's into the weeds of criminal law now and they don't touch that.

Yeah no response from citizens advice - callback time was 3 weeks…

 

[bahnause]

As you are no doubt aware, there is no requirement to carry identification in the United Kingdom so how can a rail employee verify the details of a person claiming to not have identification? What legislation would you put in place to ensure that only verifiable information is provided?

Maybe in the same way as it works in many other countries and/or businesses. If the suspect doesn't carry ID and the identitiy cannot be confirmed otherwise, the police has to be involved. Otherwise, completely uninvolved people can face serious consequences as we see here. It is reasonable to expect that the appropriate care is taken in such cases.

 

[Haywain]

If the suspect doesn't carry ID and the identitiy cannot be confirmed otherwise, the police has to be involved.

And just how will the police verify the identity of someone not carrying any ID, and not known to them? Not that they'll be available to do so anyway.

 

[bahnause]

And just how will the police verify the identity of someone not carrying any ID, and not known to them? Not that they'll be available to do so anyway.

Most people „find“ ID, as soon the police is involved. A lot of identities can be confirmed by a third party by a single phone call to a number known to the offender if no database is able to confirm name and address. These people don‘t want to be stuck with the police for hours and are usually very cooperative once they grasp the situation.

 

[AlbertBeale]

It does seem important to get the railway to call off the bailiffs, on the grounds that they've got the wrong "John Smith"; but presumably the court have that wrong address too? Otherwise why aren't the bailiffs chasing a John Smith at a different address? It is indeed a mess.

Is the court address used in the hearing the one the bailiffs are now chasing (ie yours), so that the selection of the wrong "John Smith" address happened prior to the court hearing? (In which case, it's the railway's error, and they ought to unravel it.) Maybe the original address given was false, but the court case happened with that address listed (and the bailiffs only subsequently discovered the name and address weren't a match, and went on a trawl to find another plausible John Smith, ie you). In which case, as has been pointed out, a Statutory Declaration isn't relevant since it's not you who was convicted and no-one should think it was, given that it wasn't your address used in court. But since you've gone down that route, the best thing would be (before the case comes round again) to get the train company accept that you're not the person they're after and withdraw any re-running of the case until they find the right person.

So, either way, dealign with the railway quickly at this point is a priority.

 

[Haywain]

It does seem important to get the railway to call off the bailiffs, on the grounds that they've got the wrong "John Smith";

Nowt to do with the railway, it's the court that will be employing the bailiffs to collect unpaid fines.

 

[xtibbersx]

It does seem important to get the railway to call off the bailiffs, on the grounds that they've got the wrong "John Smith"; but presumably the court have that wrong address too? Otherwise why aren't the bailiffs chasing a John Smith at a different address? It is indeed a mess.

Is the court address used in the hearing the one the bailiffs are now chasing (ie yours), so that the selection of the wrong "John Smith" address happened prior to the court hearing? (In which case, it's the railway's error, and they ought to unravel it.) Maybe the original address given was false, but the court case happened with that address listed (and the bailiffs only subsequently discovered the name and address weren't a match, and went on a trawl to find another plausible John Smith, ie you). In which case, as has been pointed out, a Statutory Declaration isn't relevant since it's not you who was convicted and no-one should think it was, given that it wasn't your address used in court. But since you've gone down that route, the best thing would be (before the case comes round again) to get the train company accept that you're not the person they're after and withdraw any re-running of the case until they find the right person.

So, either way, dealign with the railway quickly at this point is a priority.

I’m imagining I’ll have to go to the courts in the end then to prove my innocence? It’s in August and the SD is irrelevant?

 

[Haywain]

I’m imagining I’ll have to go to the courts in the end then to prove my innocence?

I would think the first thing to do here is contact the court and explain what's happening. It seems that if you are not actually the person who has been prosecuted then you should not need to complete a statutory declaration, which simply resets the clock and, in effect, accepts that you are the defendant in the case. I have no idea what alternative process there is though. But you do need to be clear that while you have not been prosecuted you are being pursued for the fine incurred by someone else with the same name (if this is really what is happening). I would also say that you do not need to contact the railway company as this appears to be a matter between you and the court, on a matter in which the railway company has played no part because they have not identified you as the defendant.

 

[xtibbersx]

I would think the first thing to do here is contact the court and explain what's happening. It seems that if you are not actually the person who has been prosecuted then you should not need to complete a statutory declaration, which simply resets the clock and, in effect, accepts that you are the defendant in the case. I have no idea what alternative process there is though. But you do need to be clear that while you have not been prosecuted you are being pursued for the fine incurred by someone else with the same name (if this is really what is happening). I would also say that you do not need to contact the railway company as this appears to be a matter between you and the court, on a matter in which the railway company has played no part because they have not identified you as the defendant.

Sorry for the confusion but we contacted the court and said it’s the wrong person and with evidence and now the ‘proving our innocence’ case is on the August. In summary the court would’ve given the bailiffs the wrong address in the end then?

 

[skyhigh]

In summary the court would’ve given the bailiffs the wrong address in the end then?

No, the bailiffs would have attempted to trace the person to collect the unpaid fine via methods such as electoral roll etc but incorrectly matched them with you/your friend. The court doesn't get involved with that bit.

 

[Puffing Devil]

Sorry for the confusion but we contacted the court and said it’s the wrong person and with evidence and now the ‘proving our innocence’ case is on the August. In summary the court would’ve given the bailiffs the wrong address in the end then?

It sounds like you haven't actually made a statutory declaration.

 

[Haywain]

It sounds like you haven't actually made a statutory declaration.

I believe you have some experience in court matters, based on previous posts. Is an SD appropriate if the person prosecuted is not the person being pursued by the bailiffs?