Fraudulent driving licences/identity (Italian traffic fine)?
Michael Kilpatrick
just received in the post two letters addressed to "Clarke Francis" at
my address (well, it omitted the word Whittlesford, but the rest is
correct, and sometimes when purchasing things online with a credit card
I have omitted the word Whittlesford, which is effectively redundant).
I did have a problem with my credit card in autumn (and indeed, changed
the card) but I clearly did not see anybody fraudulently using it to
hire a car in Italy! I always check my statements. So I don't (yet)
think I've been defrauded...
The letters state that Clarke Francis committed two traffic violations
in Arezzo, Italy, within five minutes of each other, in August 2010.
Mr Francis is invited to pay the fines. There is a phone number (+39 055
3440390) and an email address. It would seem on the face of it that the
letter from the Commune di Arezzo could be genuine.
I'm minded to email them and see if it's possible to identify any
fraudsters.
Anyone had any such incidences in the past? Surely a driving licence
with a name and address would have had to be presented in order to hire
the car in Italy?
Michael
Andrew Cleland
> Anyone had any such incidences in the past? Surely a driving licence
> with a name and address would have had to be presented in order to hire
> the car in Italy?
>
In theory yes, but in reality I've frequently rented cars (from
mainstream companies) without the paper counterpart to my licence and
with an extremely cursory glance of the photocard.
AC.
P.S. If you need help with translating something let me know.
Michael Kilpatrick
The letters are all in English!
Is this website for real?: http://www.emo.nivi.it/
That is one of the means by which the imaginary Mr Francis is asked to
pay his fines.
The letter includes a username and password by which the offender can
log-ing and pay, etc, using that site. Also included are bank details
for the said "Nivi credit".
Michael
Kieran Mansley
> Hello all,
>
> just received in the post two letters addressed to "Clarke Francis" at
> my address (well, it omitted the word Whittlesford, but the rest is
> correct, and sometimes when purchasing things online with a credit card
> I have omitted the word Whittlesford, which is effectively redundant).
There is a Francis Clarke on the electoral roll somewhere near (but not
in) Whittlesford; it's got a CB postcode at any rate but most of the
online electoral roll searches require that you sign up before giving
more address details.
I would guess that there is somewhere else in the area that has the same
or similar street name as you, and there has been some confusion between
the two.
The phone book http://www.thephonebook.bt.com has an F.N Clarke in
Cambridge (with address and phone number), but not sure if that's the
same one. If the address is similar to yours it might be worth a try.
Kieran
Michael Kilpatrick
> On Tue, 05 Apr 2011 09:56:16 +0100, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>
>
>>Hello all,
>>
>>just received in the post two letters addressed to "Clarke Francis" at
>>my address (well, it omitted the word Whittlesford, but the rest is
>>correct, and sometimes when purchasing things online with a credit card
>>I have omitted the word Whittlesford, which is effectively redundant).
>
>
> There is a Francis Clarke on the electoral roll somewhere near
Erm, is there reason to believe that the Italians would print the
surname first, as "Clarke, Francis" rather than "Francis Clarke"?
Michael
Andrew Cleland
Yes, that's normal for a formal letter in Italy (and a lot of the
continent in fact).
CWatters
> I'm minded to email them and see if it's possible to identify any
> fraudsters.
I would avoid giving them your name or no doubt it will somehow become
linked to the resulting court case.
I'd return the letters marked "Not known at this address".
Andrew Cleland
>
> Is this website for real?: http://www.emo.nivi.it/
>
A quick google for "european municipality outsourcing" would suggest
that it is legitimate. The quality of the website on the other hand...
Fevric J. Glandules
... being piss-poor, in a certain kind of way, also suggests legitimacy.
Tim Ward
I was always brought up to believe that it was illegal to *open* letters
that weren't addressed to you, and that you had no choice but to mark them
"not known" and forward them unopened.
"CWatters" <colin....@NOturnersoakSPAM.plus.net> wrote in message
news:N9mdndunmP4ooQbQ...@brightview.co.uk...
T.J. Fitzmaurice
On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Tim Ward wrote:
>> On 05/04/2011 09:56, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>>
>>> I'm minded to email them and see if it's possible to identify any
>>> fraudsters.
>>
>> I would avoid giving them your name or no doubt it will somehow become
>> linked to the resulting court case.
>>
>> I'd return the letters marked "Not known at this address".
>
> I was always brought up to believe that it was illegal to *open* letters
> that weren't addressed to you, and that you had no choice but to mark them
> "not known" and forward them unopened.
Not quite, its a strong limitation but it is not absolute.
Postal Services Act 2000, Section 84, subsection 3
'A person commits an offence if, intending to act to a persons detriment
and without reasonable excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or
reasonably suspects has been incorrectly delivered to him.'
So far as that is written, this still permits you to open them if you have
a good reason whatever the intent, or if you are doing it for a reason
that doesn't intend to harm them - and there's the knowing it is
incorrectly delivered option which always leaves the 'I got in, I was
tired, I opened my mail, I opened it without looking, yer honour' though I
assume they might be a bit cynical if you make a habit of it...
OK so what falls under those categories is going to be up to a court and
precedent, but trying to trace someone or to contact what appears to be an
official document's source about incorrect information would seem togive
some wiggle room in there for opening stuff. Quite a bit actually.
Tim
Andrew May
> On Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Tim Ward wrote:
>> I was always brought up to believe that it was illegal to *open*
>> letters that weren't addressed to you, and that you had no choice but
>> to mark them "not known" and forward them unopened.
>
> Not quite, its a strong limitation but it is not absolute. Postal
> Services Act 2000, Section 84, subsection 3 'A person commits an offence
> if, intending to act to a persons detriment and without reasonable
> excuse, he opens a postal packet which he knows or reasonably suspects
> has been incorrectly delivered to him.'
But surely opening a speeding ticket so you can find out who to grass up
would be very much to 'their detriment'
Mark Goodge
Possibly, but since you don't know it's a speeding ticket until you've
opened it that point is rather moot.
Mark
--
Blog: http://mark.goodge.co.uk
Stuff: http://www.good-stuff.co.uk
Roland Perry
2011, Andrew May <andrew...@hotmail.com> remarked:
>But surely opening a speeding ticket so you can find out who to grass up
>would be very much to 'their detriment'
Or perhaps the offender would prefer he was located so he can pay the
fine, rather than being arrested next time he enters Italy?
--
Roland Perry
rosen...@cix.compulink.co.uk
(Andrew May) wrote:
If that could be proved to have been your intention, yes.
--
Colin Rosenstiel
Michael Kilpatrick
>>On 05/04/2011 09:56, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>>
>>
>>>I'm minded to email them and see if it's possible to identify any
>>>fraudsters.
>>
>>I would avoid giving them your name or no doubt it will somehow become
>>linked to the resulting court case.
>>
>>I'd return the letters marked "Not known at this address".
>
>
> I was always brought up to believe that it was illegal to *open* letters
> that weren't addressed to you, and that you had no choice but to mark them
> "not known" and forward them unopened.
>
If someone has been using my address, I want to know about it. It's not
as though I had opened a letter for Mr Willson at 30 Station Road (whose
post very occasionally arrives at 30 Royston Road by mistake). I know
the names of the previous three occupants of my house going back
decades, and none of them was Francis Clarke.
Despite what some people here have suggested, I have decided to take the
route of informing the Italian agency by email that there is no such
person as Francis Clarke/Clarke Francis at this address and that I have
reason to suspect that fraudulent activity has taken place, i.e. the use
of my address in connection with the hire of a car using a false name.
Since I can't foresee that there are no circumstances in which any
future fraudulent use of my address might might come to implicate me
beyond my control, I would prefer to notify the authorities.
No-one is going to come knocking at my door to arrest me, and if I *do*
get any silly letters/emials suggesting I might be involved in falsely
presenting myself as Francis Clarke, I'll tell them exactly where they
can get off, or I can even show them my credit card bill from 17th
August 2010 which shows that I was rather busy buying meat from Barker
Bros in Gt Shelford, not driving a hire car in Arezzo!
Michael
Kev Bishop
"Michael Kilpatrick" <ne...@mkilpatrick.cospam.uk> wrote in message
news:XdydnZhESNoPRAHQ...@brightview.co.uk...
> Tim Ward wrote:
>
>>>On 05/04/2011 09:56, Michael Kilpatrick wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>I'm minded to email them and see if it's possible to identify any
>>>>fraudsters.
>>>
>>>I would avoid giving them your name or no doubt it will somehow become
>>>linked to the resulting court case.
>>>
>>>I'd return the letters marked "Not known at this address".
>>
>>
>> I was always brought up to believe that it was illegal to *open* letters
>> that weren't addressed to you, and that you had no choice but to mark
>> them "not known" and forward them unopened.
>>
>
> If someone has been using my address, I want to know about it. It's not as
> though I had opened a letter for Mr Willson at 30 Station Road (whose post
> very occasionally arrives at 30 Royston Road by mistake). I know the names
> of the previous three occupants of my house going back decades, and none
> of them was Francis Clarke.
>
> Despite what some people here have suggested, I have decided to take the
> route of informing the Italian agency by email that there is no such
> person as Francis Clarke/Clarke Francis at this address and that I have
> reason to suspect that fraudulent activity has taken place, i.e. the use
> of my address in connection with the hire of a car using a false name.
> Since I can't foresee that there are no circumstances in which any future
> fraudulent use of my address might might come to implicate me beyond my
> control, I would prefer to notify the authorities.
Hmm, I hope you are correct.
>
> No-one is going to come knocking at my door to arrest me,
How can you be so sure? At least a cursory visit at some point is likely if
they think you might be at all implicated, you may be surprised at how
quickly our boys in blue will respond to a foreign request, quite often
faster than 999 these days :(
> and if I *do* get any silly letters/emials suggesting I might be involved
> in falsely presenting myself as Francis Clarke, I'll tell them exactly
> where they can get off, or I can even show them my credit card bill from
> 17th August 2010 which shows that I was rather busy buying meat from
> Barker Bros in Gt Shelford, not driving a hire car in Arezzo!
Aah, eerrr, hmmmm, well actually it just shows that your card was used
there, that proves nothing of your locale unfortunately.
I see where you are coming from, must be akin to having your personal space
invaded even if by proxy sort of, just not so sure your process will prove
the most suitable for you. ;(.
>
> Michael
T.J. Fitzmaurice
Yes, but if they are fraudulently using your address then you have good
reason, protecting yourself - to be an offence its has to be to their
detriment and without good reason.
Tim
Tim Ward
news:alpine.LSU.2.00.1...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk...
Sounds like post-rationalisation to me - before you open it you don't know
what's in it, do you, so can't use that as an excuse for opening it.
Michael Kilpatrick
> "T.J. Fitzmaurice" <tj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:alpine.LSU.2.00.1...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk...
>>Yes, but if they are fraudulently using your address then you have good
>>reason, protecting yourself - to be an offence its has to be to their
>>detriment and without good reason.
>
>
> Sounds like post-rationalisation to me - before you open it you don't know
> what's in it, do you, so can't use that as an excuse for opening it.
As I described originally, I had good cause, owing to the form of the
address, to be suspicious of the letter and a possible link to attempted
fraud on my credit card. I had *very* good reason to open it.
Michael
Michael Kilpatrick
>
>
> "Michael Kilpatrick" <ne...@mkilpatrick.cospam.uk> wrote in message
> news:XdydnZhESNoPRAHQ...@brightview.co.uk...
>
>
>
> How can you be so sure? At least a cursory visit at some point is
> likely if they think you might be at all implicated, you may be
> surprised at how quickly our boys in blue will respond to a foreign
> request, quite often faster than 999 these days :(
>
>> and if I *do* get any silly letters/emials suggesting I might be
>> involved in falsely presenting myself as Francis Clarke, I'll tell
>> them exactly where they can get off, or I can even show them my credit
>> card bill from 17th August 2010 which shows that I was rather busy
>> buying meat from Barker Bros in Gt Shelford, not driving a hire car in
>> Arezzo!
>
>
> Aah, eerrr, hmmmm, well actually it just shows that your card was used
> there, that proves nothing of your locale unfortunately.
Well, rather like the imaginary driving licence of Mr Clarke. Doesn't
prove either he or I were ever in Italy.
Anyway, can't they look at my passport and any electronic records
associated with it? At least, I assume they actually bother to keep
records of these things?
>
> I see where you are coming from, must be akin to having your personal
> space invaded even if by proxy sort of,
Something like that, however best to describe it...
Michael
Roland Perry
22:22:25 on Wed, 6 Apr 2011, Michael Kilpatrick
<ne...@mkilpatrick.cospam.uk> remarked:
>If someone has been using my address, I want to know about it. It's not
>as though I had opened a letter for Mr Willson at 30 Station Road
>(whose post very occasionally arrives at 30 Royston Road by mistake). I
>know the names of the previous three occupants of my house going back
>decades, and none of them was Francis Clarke.
Although there might also be lodgers, live-in nannies, and other people
legitimately using the address, as well as the householder.
--
Roland Perry
T.J. Fitzmaurice
> "T.J. Fitzmaurice" <tj...@cam.ac.uk> wrote in message
> news:alpine.LSU.2.00.1...@hermes-1.csi.cam.ac.uk...
>>
>> Yes, but if they are fraudulently using your address then you have good
>> reason, protecting yourself - to be an offence its has to be to their
>> detriment and without good reason.
>
> Sounds like post-rationalisation to me - before you open it you don't know
> what's in it, do you, so can't use that as an excuse for opening it.
I was assuming that you could tell what it was. If you didnt know
then yes, it would appear to be post-rationalisation.
OTOH if you don't know what it is, then it is hard to demonstrate that
you intended to act to the person's detriment at the point of opening it,
OK nick money or a cheque or similar and there's a clear issue, but
otherwise.
The post to which I replied suggested that opening a speeding ticket was to
someone's detriment (and that was the basis I replied). Intent for
detriment and no good reason are the combined limit (otherwise it would be
an OR not an AND) - no intent, or a good reason - each would appear ot be
enough to open it. Unless someone knows a basic legal issue that says ANDs
like that mean AND/OR, or precendent on this one.
Tim
Jon Green
> OTOH if you don't know what it is, then it is hard to demonstrate that
> you intended to act to the person's detriment at the point of opening
> it, OK nick money or a cheque or similar and there's a clear issue, but
> otherwise.
More to the point, in order to prosecute, the CPS would have to be able
to prove intent to act to detriment. If a letter addressed to someone
else is opened because the recipient genuinely is concerned that they
(the recipient) might suffer by not doing so, then that qualifies as
reasonable excuse, and (absent any evidence to the contrary) it would be
extremely hard to show intent to act to detriment of the addressee.
So it's all a bit academic. MK can't be at any risk of prosecution, surely?
Jon
--
SPAM BLOCK IN USE! To reply in email, replace 'deadspam'
with 'green-lines'.
Blog: http://bit.ly/45cLHw Pix: http://bit.ly/d8V2NJ
Website: http://www.green-lines.com/
Tim Ward
news:YN-dncOa7-UImgLQ...@brightview.co.uk...
>
> More to the point, in order to prosecute, the CPS would have to be able to
> prove intent to act to detriment. If a letter addressed to someone else
> is opened because the recipient genuinely is concerned that they (the
> recipient) might suffer by not doing so, then that qualifies as reasonable
> excuse
You know that, do you? Case law?
Jon Green
I know enough of how the CPS operates to know that they wouldn't
countenance touching that prosecution. To reiterate: to satisfy the
preconditions for prosecuting the offence, the CPS would have to have a
cast-iron case that the defendant did _not_ have reasonable excuse,
_and_ that the defendant had _provable_ intent to act to detriment - a
notoriously difficult thing to prove even in capital crime cases.
Accepting the facts as Michael gave them, the CPS would have trouble
with proving even one of those, much less both.
RobertL
> "Michael Kilpatrick" <n...@mkilpatrick.cospam.uk> wrote in message
>
> > No-one is going to come knocking at my door to arrest me,
>
> How can you be so sure? At least a cursory visit at some point is likely if
> they think you might be at all implicated, you may be surprised at how
> quickly our boys in blue will respond to a foreign request, quite often
> faster than 999 these days :(
perhaps Italy will issue an EAW for you and you'll be whisked off
there pronto. be thankful the guy isn't in Poland which has a
reutation for issing EAWs at the drop of a hat.
Robert
Rupert Moss-Eccardt
> On 08/04/2011 16:58, Tim Ward wrote:
>> "Jon Green"<jo...@deadspam.com> wrote in message
>> news:YN-dncOa7-UImgLQ...@brightview.co.uk...
>>>
>>> More to the point, in order to prosecute, the CPS would have to be
>>> able to
>>> prove intent to act to detriment. If a letter addressed to someone else
>>> is opened because the recipient genuinely is concerned that they (the
>>> recipient) might suffer by not doing so, then that qualifies as
>>> reasonable
>>> excuse
>>
>> You know that, do you? Case law?
>
> I know enough of how the CPS operates to know that they wouldn't
> countenance touching that prosecution. To reiterate: to satisfy the
> preconditions for prosecuting the offence, the CPS would have to have a
> cast-iron case that the defendant did _not_ have reasonable excuse,
> _and_ that the defendant had _provable_ intent to act to detriment - a
> notoriously difficult thing to prove even in capital crime cases.
> Accepting the facts as Michael gave them, the CPS would have trouble
> with proving even one of those, much less both.
Well, actually, the protocol is that they consider:
- there is sufficient evidence for there to be a realistic prospect of
conviction and
- that it is in the public interest to prosecute
The the former, it would depend on how plausible the defendant was as to
his/her intent. The section quoted earlier has two distinct offences.
One is interfering with the packet in transmission. I'm not sure if it
arriving on the doormat makes it "transmitted". That offence only has
the reasonable excuse and, IMLE, that would be something like "I wanted
to prevent a crime". There is already a mechanism for mis-addressed
letters that does not require someone outside the postal system to open
the letter. The second offence does have the "intent to detriment"
clause and is for letters that have been delivered. I think that would
be hard to prove.
In terms of Public Interest, the Code includes as a factor against
prosecuting that of a genuine mistake or misunderstanding
So, in all, without needing to revert to case law, I think that, as long
as the letter counts as having been delivered, the CPS are unlikely to
charge.
Calvin Sambrook
news:87udnYu_hOFoQgHQ...@brightview.co.uk...
>
>
> "Michael Kilpatrick" <ne...@mkilpatrick.cospam.uk> wrote in message
> news:XdydnZhESNoPRAHQ...@brightview.co.uk...
>> route of informing the Italian agency by email that there is no such
>> person as Francis Clarke/Clarke Francis at this address and that I have
>> reason to suspect that fraudulent activity has taken place, i.e. the use
>> of my address in connection with the hire of a car using a false name.
>> Since I can't foresee that there are no circumstances in which any future
>> fraudulent use of my address might might come to implicate me beyond my
>> control, I would prefer to notify the authorities.
>
> Hmm, I hope you are correct.
>>
>> No-one is going to come knocking at my door to arrest me,
>
> How can you be so sure? At least a cursory visit at some point is likely
> if they think you might be at all implicated, you may be surprised at how
> quickly our boys in blue will respond to a foreign request, quite often
> faster than 999 these days :(
>
>> and if I *do* get any silly letters/emials suggesting I might be involved
>> in falsely presenting myself as Francis Clarke, I'll tell them exactly
>> where they can get off, or I can even show them my credit card bill from
>> 17th August 2010 which shows that I was rather busy buying meat from
>> Barker Bros in Gt Shelford, not driving a hire car in Arezzo!
>
In my experience, and annoyingly I've had two seperate false allegations
made against me over the years, individual police officers are just
professionals going about doing their job to the best of their ability.
Just like the rest of us really.
And just like the rest of us they're perfectly reasonable and rational,
especially if you are calm and help them to do their job but presenting them
with the evidence they need in a coherent way. Even if the Italian
authorities did ask the local police to investigate, your ability to provide
them with details of where you were along with corroborating evidence would
soon sort it out. I don't think you'll be flown off to Italy in cuffs.