FFC ignoring out of court agreement

[Vordrak]

Following a travel irregularity committed earlier this year, I received a letter from FFC stating an intent to prosecute.

 

 

I formally replied admitting the stated offence and offering to pay reasonable costs as an alternative to court action.

 

 

FFC replied in writing offering the opportunity to pay a small penalty fare outside of court action.

This was I paid over phone and payment taken from my card. I subsequently received a letter from FFC stating the matter as closed.

 

 

A day later I received a formal court summons for the same offence shown in the 'statement of facts' with a date set for later this month.

 

 

It seems a violation of the out of court agreement and I may undertake further legal action against FFC regarding this however I am unsure as to how this effects my plea regarding the original charge having already admitted guilt in previous correspondence.

 

 

I do not want to plead guilty as the criminal record would likely affect my employment status and the charges in addition to the penalty already paid are excessive.

This issue follows on from a post I made in June regarding the original offence.

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?395434-notice-of-intent-to-prosecute-FFC

 

Disgusting. The prosecution case might be stayed as an Abuse of Process. There is a lengthy article on the CPS website (google it, won't let me paste the link).

 

You need to make a prompt application to the Court. If successful you will be awarded your costs. Grounds of the application are you already paid a penalty and the TOC made an unequivocal promise not to prosecute when fully in possession of all the facts and having had the opportunity to take whatever advice they saw fit.

 

This advice given without acceptance of responsibility or liability. You should consult a solicitor.

[honeybee13]

Hello there.

 

I've merged your new thread with your old one, as it should help the advisers here. I've changed the title to reflect the current position.

 

HB

[dreadpiratesteve]

It sounds like a cross over - the summons was issued before the payment was accepted.

 

Speak to FCC and explain you've paid to settle out of court but now have a summons. They should be able to rescind the summons.

[BazzaS]

Disgusting. The prosecution case might be stayed as an Abuse of Process. There is a lengthy article on the CPS website (google it, won't let me paste the link).

 

You need to make a prompt application to the Court. If successful you will be awarded your costs. Grounds of the application are you already paid a penalty and the TOC made an unequivocal promise not to prosecute when fully in possession of all the facts and having had the opportunity to take whatever advice they saw fit.

 

This advice given without acceptance of responsibility or liability. You should consult a solicitor.

 

You should not let your current rants at FCC colour your view.

It is only "disgusting" if deliberate by FCC.

 

FFC replied in writing offering the opportunity to pay a small penalty fare outside of court action.

This was I paid over phone and payment taken from my card. I subsequently received a letter from FFC stating the matter as closed.

 

A day later I received a formal court summons for the same offence shown in the 'statement of facts' with a date set for later this month.

 

Given the proximity in time of the letter stating "closed" and the date of the summons, it is likely this is a "cross over" as another respondent has posted, rather than deliberate, and the summons was applied for before the case was closed.

 

Ask FCC to withdraw the summons. Once they have done do, confirm its withdrawal with the court.

As for "applying for costs" : what planet is that poster on, and are they related to King Phyrrhus?. Is their own "bee in the bonnet" affecting their advice

(If you check their other thread, they have sent a "claim" against FCC, but haven't actually replied when asked what they are claiming for (grounds or restitution))

 

Does the OP really want to go to court, have to issue a plea, and apply in court for costs, rather than the less risky route of : contact FCC and say "looks like a crossover, can you withdraw the summons?"

[Old-CodJA]

Exactly Bazza, the OP should contact the FCC prosecutor's office immediately and say:

 

'Look, you have issued a summons alleging an offence for which you have already agreed an out of court disposal by administrative penalty, and which I have accepted and paid. Please confirm this is an administrative error and withdraw your summons with an apology'

 

Honestly, how difficult can that be?

 

If FCC say no, this is a correctly issued summons, they will have to show that they had cancelled any 'penalty' (a civil remedy), notified the OP they intended to proceed and refunded payment before issuing the summons.

 

My guess is that you are right, it's a cross-over and will be withdrawn immediately the error is identified.

Edited August 15, 2013 by Old-CodJA

[The Evil Bus Driver]

You should not let your current rants at FCC colour your view.

It is only "disgusting" if deliberate by FCC.

 

This is First Group we are talking about, a company that I would much rather did not exist at all. I work in the bus industry and know what they are like. Let them go jump off a cliff.

[BazzaS]

This is First Group we are talking about, a company that I would much rather did not exist at all. I work in the bus industry and know what they are like. Let them go jump off a cliff.

 

Again, any of my personal negative feelings towards First Group, or yours, the OP's and the third party who said they had "claimed" (but appears only to have complained, rather than 'issued a claim') : all of these are less important than the factual basis on which any court case should be addressed, and the risk of going to court against the more simple "letter saying there seems to have been an administrative cross-over"

 

See above re: Pyrrhic victory.