Help anyone? Summons received - FCC

[tobymcg]

Hi there,

I recently got caught in a sticky situation with FCC. I responded to their initial notice of prosecution with a letter and they then sent me a letter asking me to give them a call.

The guy was really nice and said that if i sent them money to cover my fine and the cost of prosecution, they wouldnt take it to court. That was three weeks ago and I get paid tomorrow so intended to send the cheque by recorded delivery then.

However I just got home to find an official court summons. Does this mean I can no longer settle? If so that would be quite harsh as he gave no indication of time limit or that this would happen. I didn't have the money to hand.

If they receive the cheque, will they drop the summons?

Thanks,

Toby

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Perhaps he didn't give you a time limit, but did you tell him that you wouldn't be settling the debt in a timely manner? If not, then I can't say I blame them for assuming that you had simply abandoned your side of the agreement.

I don't think it any more 'harsh' of the Company than it is 'harsh' for you to have put yourself in 'a sticky situation' with not paying them a fare, and then not paying a cheque when expected.

Now that you have a Summons, then the costs will certainly have increased - they will have paid a fee into Court as well as spending a bit more time on your case. If you phone again attemting to make a new settlement, then a) the chances of you being believed the second time are negligible, and b) they'll probably just suggest you make your pleas in Court.

If they now receive the cheque, even for an amount £50 or so higher, I doubt very much that they'll drop the case. But if you DO send the promised cheque, and phone to apologise and explain, then I guess there is a slim chance that someone might just think its worth withdrawing the Claim. Might. But I doubt it.

 

[34D]

Do you want to give us more information about the sticky situation?

 

[DaveNewcastle]

I apologise that I didn't address this part of your enquiry:

If they receive the cheque, will they drop the summons?

No. The Summons will have come from HM Court Service, and not from the Railway Company. The Court will not cancel the Summons. You do have the opportunity to attend the Court and make your representations, admissions, counterclaims, defences etc. but it's not likely that the Prosecution (the Railway Operator) will 'drop it'. When substantial evidence is provided to justify omitting a case from a hearing, then the Prosecutor (the Railway Company) can do so. But nothing in your post leads me to think that applies here.

Do you want to give us more information about the sticky situation?

I struggle to imagine what significance that understanding could have now, now that the passenger has discussed the situation with the Company and reached an agreement (an agreement whaich appears not to have been enacted).
We know enough. We know that tobymcg did something that is a Criminal Offence and has effectively admitted such, if not at the time, then in making an offer to compensate - an offer which did not materialise. What else is to be learned?

 

[soil]

I received a magistrate's court summons once, non-payment of council tax as I recall.

I called the council immediately upon receipt and made arrangements to pay a small monthly sum to settle the balance and the summons was withdrawn, no harm done at all.

I don't think it's appropriate to draw any conclusions as to FCC's willingness to drop this case, but I wouldn't assume that they have some special zeal to take this to court - they obviously want their money and having reached an agreement with the OP and receiving nothing within 14 days they assumed that he wasn't going to bother to pay them, a reasonable assumption in my view and the summons was issued. Actual payment at this point, with no further BS, should satisfy that, but the OP needs to take this rather more seriously and make a proper effort to settle this.

Assuming that this will automatically go to court is extremely bad advice, the OP should make all efforts to avoid that and get the case dropped, unless of course he is indifferent to criminal offences on his record.

The time to get serious was 3 weeks ago, but failing that TODAY.

 

[Fare-Cop]

Assuming that this will automatically go to court is extremely bad advice.

Whilst I usually agree with most of your posts, I think this piece is a bit confusing. The OP tells us he has received a summons so the matter is already with the Court.

He may still stand a slim chance of getting the summons withdrawn, but if their case is sound, which I guess it is otherwise why would the OP agree to pay to dispose of the allegation, that would really be a goodwill gesture by the TOC now.

Dave is right in that there is absolutely no obligation on FCC to do so and having previously given the OP an indication that a settlement was agreed conditional upon payment of a fee and having not received the agreed sum from him in a timely manner, from a prosecutor's perspective they have no real incentive now not to proceed. Their costs will have increased.

Some people may consider this sort of thing to be a kind of demand for money with menaces, but it is not. The fact is that acceptance of the terms of settlement is always entirely optional and not prejudicial to the charge that would be put before the Court if the matter proceeds to hearing.

The alleged offender (the OP) has been correctly identified, has responded to the allegation, but failed to 'keep a bargain' for a second time, the first was when he should have had a valid ticket to travel, and that part of the matter being a criminal offence, the TOC can now leave it to the Court to collect and pay them if a conviction is recorded.

The OP might have a chance of getting it withdrawn, but should be aware that to do so the cost may be likely to have increased by the extra administration work put in by the TOC in raising the summons and getting it authorised and served. Although unlikely, if agreed for a second time, payment would have to be cleared in full and immediately.

I struggle to imagine what significance that understanding could have now, now that the passenger has discussed the situation with the Company and reached an agreement (an agreement whaich appears not to have been enacted).
We know enough. We know that tobymcg did something that is a Criminal Offence and has effectively admitted such, if not at the time, then in making an offer to compensate - an offer which did not materialise. What else is to be learned?

I agree. A summons has been served, if the OP wishes to contest the evidence now he should immediately seek qualified legal advice and respond to the Court accordingly.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

Assuming that this will automatically go to court is extremely bad advice, . . .

I have reviewed my 2 posts on this thread and find no error with them. And as Fare-Cop has clarified, it already has gone to Court - it is a Summons to attend Court issued by the Court. I stand by my assessment.

I received a magistrate's court summons once, non-payment of council tax as I recall.

If it helps to inform your judgement, my posts are based on more knowledge and experience in English and Scottish Courts than a solitary civil action for the collection of a personal debt.

I repeat, that the Railway Operator might be persuaded to withdraw the case from the bundle listed on that day, but the grounds for doing so would have to be substantially more persuasive than those posted here by tobymcg.

 

[jon0844]

The only reason the OP probably still has a chance, albeit with extra fees, is that FCC would still likely wish to keep it out of court and get more money from a settlement.

But they'll want to see that money immediately - so paying by credit/debit card would seem wise at this stage if possible.

 

[tobymcg]

i agree with some of your points. but i had a wrong ticket for one journey on one day of travel. i spend a large part of my monthly income on trains as it is. on the day in question i didnt have the money to hand to change my ticket when i had to change my journey. i feel so squeezed at every point. I have tried as hard as i can to be in a position to be able to pay this fine as soon as i got paid, it's not an easy amount. how long would they have waited before sending the case to court? the cheque i have now sent includes the 120 prosecution costs and the cost of the ticket. to then further lose money from missing a days work and all the while im forking over more than 300 a month for a ****ty service. i dont have any money. if i get a conviction i could lose my job. over the sake of a £10 ticket. i am at my limit at all aspects of my day to day at the moment and i cant keep going like this. what am i supposed to do?? i know i made a mistake and it hasnt left my mind. when i spoke to the person at fcc they said it would not be going to court. they made no threat of continued action if i was late with the payment, what is a timely manner for someone to scratch up a considerable sum when they can barely afford to get by as it is.

 

[bb21]

what am i supposed to do??

I know it is a bit late considering where things are but you really should have informed them over the phone when an agreement to settle the case was reached that you would need to wait some time until you are paid. If you did that and it was agreed that a settlement would still be accepted then I would be very surprised that they still pressed ahead with prosecution. It doesn't take long to pay, so you can't really blame them for reaching the conclusion after a week or so that you had no intention of paying if they had no idea of your financial situation.

Moaning about the service is not going to help you. Let off some steam by all means, but what is important is to get your act together and get on the phone now. They may, may, just accept a settlement, albeit for a higher amount in all likelihood. If they refuse to settle, then you need to seek legal help.

I think this is a lesson for all the people who struggle with their finances. If there is difficulty meeting a payment, let the other party know. It is not always an easy thing to do but it can save a lot of the misunderstanding and hassle later on.

Once this is all done and dusted, don't dwell on it. What is done is in the past. You can't change it. Whatever error you made (I don't know what it is), just make sure you learn from it in the future.

 

[jon0844]

Have you sent the payment you originally agreed to and pretended you haven't noticed/received the court summons?

I'd have spoken to them first as they might not accept it now.

Sadly rail travel can now eat quite a significant part of any pay packet, and if it's really a problem then you might have to consider other options. Firstly there's the obvious - can you get another job closer to home? But, if that's not possible (and it quite probably isn't) then what about using the bus, cycling or even part walking/cycling to reduce the fare?

You clearly can't afford (sic) to get into this situation again now.

 

[maniacmartin]

on the day in question i didnt have the money to hand to change my ticket when i had to change my journey

Your latest post, and this sentence in particular implies to me that you knew you didn't have the correct ticket nor the funds, but deliberately boarded the train with no intention to pay. If that is the case, that makes the offence more serious as it can imply intent, which is neded to prosecute under the more serious Regulation of Railways Act, as opposed to the Railway Byelaws.

For that reason I would avoid using such wording in any correspondence with FCC, and make a real effort to settle this ASAP.

 

[soil]

I have reviewed my 2 posts on this thread and find no error with them. And as Fare-Cop has clarified, it already has gone to Court - it is a Summons to attend Court issued by the Court. I stand by my assessment.

If it helps to inform your judgement, my posts are based on more knowledge and experience in English and Scottish Courts than a solitary civil action for the collection of a personal debt.

I have more experience of the courts than that too (industrial tribunals, county court, currently involved in late stages of negotiations in civil proceedings). My personal experience of the magistrates court is limited to a single summons to attend Court, issued by the Court, which I had withdrawn.

I have not claimed exhaustive knowledge but I pointed out, and I stand by my assessment, that the OP should do what he can to get the summons withdrawn, as a matter of indisputable and unarguable common sense.

I repeat, that the Railway Operator might be persuaded to withdraw the case from the bundle listed on that day, but the grounds for doing so would have to be substantially more persuasive than those posted here by tobymcg.

I wouldn't presume to determine what they might find persuasive.

The OP should take whatever steps he can to get the case withdrawn. There is no guarantee that he will succeed, but rather than advising that it is a fait accompli and saying that it is too late, which doesn't achieve anything, he needs to address this matter now.

If he has not already contacted FCC by this point today to seriously settle this (and without complaining about their service) then he is not taking this seriously enough.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Whilst I usually agree with most of your posts, I think this piece is a bit confusing. The OP tells us he has received a summons so the matter is already with the Court.

He may still stand a slim chance of getting the summons withdrawn, but if their case is sound, which I guess it is otherwise why would the OP agree to pay to dispose of the allegation, that would really be a goodwill gesture by the TOC now.

I agree that the TOC will win the case and the OP will end up with a conviction if it goes to court. That much at least is a 'racing certainty'.

That is why the OP should take steps to try and get the summons withdrawn and stay out of court, because there he will lose.

He might like to look at likely costs + fines if he goes to court based on similar prosecutions in his area. He should aim to settle at any level up to the total for similar cases in his area, and maybe above and beyond that if he is serious about avoiding the conviction. Perhaps he could call the magistrate's court and ask the clerk what this is likely to cost him in court, I'm sure they handle many such cases.

If someone doesn't pay for 3 weeks it is reasonable to assume that they do not intend to, so the OP needs to explain clearly that he was waiting for his pay cheque and apologise for not sending any kind of letter in the mean time to explain the delay.

 

[jon0844]

The OP has to now hope that FCC will still see it as worthwhile settling out of court and cancel the action.

Given all the money will go to FCC, rather than the court, it could even (in theory) afford to cancel the action without adding on extra fees - but I wouldn't bank on that.

But if the OP hasn't already called up by now, with just an hour or so until people start going home, then I'd say it's getting ever more likely that it will be too late.

 

[martybabes]

I have seen the term "prosecution" used which, to me, clearly indicates criminal proceedings in the Magistrates Court. If this is the case, rather than terms being wrongly used and a civil claim being meant rather than stated, it is still possible for the prosecution to be halted at this late stage and, in my experience, can even be halted at the steps of the court.

While my writing this is not a case of "I've been to court more times than you have" I would strongly advise the OP to contact the prosecutions department and make an offer of payment and then actually make that payment!

Criminal proceedings cost nothing to start, unlike civil claims. There is an argument to say that time spent has a cost to it, but my counter to that is that the TOCs prosecutions department is paid for anyway out of the running costs of the TOC itself. They wont have lost any money but they will have lost the opportunity to obtain a favourable costs award, provided they win the case. There is NO racing certainty in going to court so don't believe all you read on here about watertight cases. I've lost some I should have won, and have won some I should have lost.

An offer to settle a criminal prosecution on terms will be significantly more cost effective than going ahead with a prosecution. That's right - it's down to money. There is naff-all publicity to a train fare dodging prosecution. It is not newsworthy, particularly when competing with the social life of Nigella Lawson, say. A local newspaper will likely not give any column inches to Joe Bloggs being fined £60 for not buying a train ticket.

So, there's my two pence worth, but it is up to the OP what he does.

 

[Fare-Cop]

There is NO racing certainty in going to court so don't believe all you read on here about watertight cases. I've lost some I should have won, and have won some I should have lost.

Absolutely right, we cannot legislate for the vagaries of the Magistrates assessment, even with good advice from the Legal Advisor, but even when a case seems certain to succeed, once in a while a Bench or that Legal Advisor may not be persuaded. It is rare in my experience, but it does happen and always seems to take us by surprise.

There is naff-all publicity to a train fare dodging prosecution. It is not newsworthy, particularly when competing with the social life of Nigella Lawson, say. A local newspaper will likely not give any column inches to Joe Bloggs being fined £60 for not buying a train ticket

This is the only point where I will differ with Martybabes. I agree there is no 'national rag' value to these matters unless there is some contentious issue, frequently exaggerated, but as others have said, when was the truth allowed to get in the way of tabloid journalism, or a particular journalist is 'having a go' at rail fares in general, but in the past more than one TOC of my experience has had the good sense to talk to their local press and explain what they try to achieve by taking these cases to Court where justified.

This is usually explained as a need to re-educate the 'chancers', to deal with 'fare-evasion', which is said to make fares more expensive for everyone and to get people to use ticket offices & machines before travelling, which helps to keep those offices open etc.

This has lead to regular reporting of such cases by local press in those areas, usually in the form of a short entry such as: "Mr A.N.Other of 2 That-there Road, Anytown was convicted by Magistrates at Anytown Court on XXXday for failing to pay a rail fare. He was fined £200 and ordered to pay £150 costs & compensation to the rail company"

This will usually be a short piece just listing the names & addresses of all of those convicted at that Court with a list of fines & costs information as I have suggested.

 

[jon0844]

If TOCs only go for out of court settlements, the court figures will fall or disappear - and that won't do them much good in the long run.

 

[34D]

Some people may consider this sort of thing to be a kind of demand for money with menaces, but it is not.

This dispute thread is not the place for a discussion on this point (upon which I can see both sides).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Have you sent the payment you originally agreed to and pretended you haven't noticed/received the court summons?

That is precisely what I personally would have done.

Not advice that I would recommend others do, but would be my personal actions nevertheless.

A call to the prosecutor Monday morning to see whether the cheque has arrived and query the summons would be my (personal) next step.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I struggle to imagine what significance that understanding could have now, now that the passenger has discussed the situation with the Company and reached an agreement (an agreement whaich appears not to have been enacted).
We know enough. We know that tobymcg did something that is a Criminal Offence and has effectively admitted such, if not at the time, then in making an offer to compensate - an offer which did not materialise. What else is to be learned?

I would still like to know, just in case it is something where in fact a reasonable argument could be made that the ticket was actually permitted (suppose the ticket was London-peterborough and he was caught at the Hertford North barrier line, for example).

 

[Squaddie]

I would still like to know, just in case it is something where in fact a reasonable argument could be made that the ticket was actually permitted (suppose the ticket was London-peterborough and he was caught at the Hertford North barrier line, for example).

The OP described the original offence in his earlier thread (I'm an idiot. Just how bad is it?)

I boarded the train and an inspector asked me for my ticket. I got off with him. Initially I panicked and said I had come from another, closer station, he knew I was lying, I then admitted it. I told him the truth, where I was coming from, where I was going I gave him my full ID and address.

 

[34D]

The OP described the original offence in his earlier thread (I'm an idiot. Just how bad is it?)

Oh I see. I also asked in that thread the stations involved and received no response.

 

[martybabes]

If TOCs only go for out of court settlements, the court figures will fall or disappear - and that won't do them much good in the long run.

Why's that?

(Out of interest, not being funny)

 

[jon0844]

Everyone says a criminal record will deter people. Look at nearly all the posts on here, with the same running theme 'I can't afford to get a criminal record'.

If it becomes known that TOCs will always keep it out of court to get all the money itself (on its own, a good idea for financial reasons) then you've suddenly lost a big deterrent factor. Now it's back to being a simple game of working out how many times you need to be caught before it isn't profitable to chance it.

 

[martybabes]

Everyone says a criminal record will deter people. Look at nearly all the posts on here, with the same running theme 'I can't afford to get a criminal record'.

If it becomes known that TOCs will always keep it out of court to get all the money itself (on its own, a good idea for financial reasons) then you've suddenly lost a big deterrent factor. Now it's back to being a simple game of working out how many times you need to be caught before it isn't profitable to chance it.

Right, I get you, thanks.

But having the option of criminal or civil proceedings is a useful thing for TOCs. You can threaten criminal proceedings (and frighten the bejabers out of Joe Public) but settle for an o-o-c lump sum when Joe Public realises he would otherwise get a criminal record. If he wont pay up, it's simply a "see you in court" deal! If the evidence fits, you can choose whether to go to the Magistrates Court or the County Court.

 

[jon0844]

Word will soon get around. I think it's quite clear that FCC and Northern (going by what we see on here regularly) are two TOCs that have decided an out of court settlement is a nice little earner.

I would hope that if someone is caught a second time, the settlement option disappears (so in effect, the TOCs are giving people one get-out-of-jail card) but I have no way of knowing if that's the case.

 

[soil]

If TOCs only go for out of court settlements, the court figures will fall or disappear - and that won't do them much good in the long run.

I think you probably overestimate the general public.

Someone I know doesn't like paying the TV licence, and on several occasions has had the inspectors come knocking on the door, seeing the TV on through the window and so on. He says that if, having been caught, you buy a licence immediately (online the same day), they don't take any further action (and of course unlike train settlements there are no 'costs' or other extra beyond the licence fee).

Despite this there are still plenty of stories about people being taken to court for non-payment of TV licence.

My conclusion is that despite receiving the summons, despite being caught in flagrante delicto, people still don't take it seriously, and that's why they end up being convicted.

So even if the TOCs did settle with anyone who offered to pay up, they'd still get plenty of convictions, because people don't take these things seriously.