Fare-Cop - 'I am always somewhat sceptical of complaints about 'not received the letter' although of course non-delivery may sometimes occur.' - this comment is not appreciated at all..
I am sorry that you feel it is not appreciated, my comment was actually a generalisation not a specific 'swipe' in relation to your case however, if you are offended I am genuinely sorry.
I am trying to locate any pattern of systemic errors with IRCAS. Sometimes it is necessary for people to group together to fight large companies
If you have a specific issue with a case currently in hand at IRCAS that is not resolved and may be likely to escalate to prosecution of an unpaid fare, I can only say that it might be better to concentrate on that.
If not resolved and
if forwarded to prosecution these are matters that will be heard in a criminal Court list and my suggestion would be to concentrate on avoiding that if possible.
You probably will not want to read this, but it's true anyway.
I know of a recent case involving a similar matter (unpaid Penalty Fare) that ended up with a Summons and a not guilty plea by the traveller, which was effectively put as a matter of principle. The case was adjourned for trial and the witness warned to attend.
To cut a long story short, when asked to restate his plea a District Judge at the trial hearing asked the defendant 'had he sought qualified legal advice?' to which the answer was "No, and the defendant went into an explanation about 'what he'd heard about other such cases and started to put forward his opinion about what was wrong with the process..' at which point the DJ stopped him rather abruptly, reminding the defendant that he really should have concentrated on dealing with his situation. The DJ informed the traveller that he would put the matter back for a short while list and that he would be very well advised to seek legal advice outside of the Courtroom, but did state that he was not able to compel him to do so.
This was unusual, but I think the DJ was being more than fair in giving further opportunity for the defendant to see what was happening.
On returning to the Court a short while later, the defendant said that he had spoken with the Duty Solicitor (who had advised that he would not represent as the matter did not attract legal aid, but had given a little free advice) and the defendant told the DJ that he wished to stick with his original plea.
It became a very expensive lesson in failing to recognise a flawed principle.
Outside Court later, the Duty Solicitor confided in the Prosecutor that he had stressed that a guilty plea to a strict liability charge was the best that he was able to suggest, but that particular defendant was adamant that his action would prevail.
'If the traveller doesn't respond to the notice that is hardly the fault of IRCAS or Royal Mail. ' Of course I responded - I made an appeal and did not receive a reply to it. This is in my original post.
Again, this was a generalisation and I am sorry if that wasn't clear.
I really do hope that you will read this in the spirit that it is intended, in an effort to draw your thoughts back to your own case and to try to avoid any escalation.
As many have said before regarding these cases, it is usually best to pay up and appeal again later so as to negate (as far as possible) any further action
