I'm not saying it is, but can anyone explain why a threat of prosecution when there had been no loss to the company or TfL, accompanied by a "Settlement Offer" mentioning a law which in fact was not being relied on at all, and the supposed possibility of the recipient being convicted of a "recordable offence" that would create a "criminal record", is not blackmail?
www.cps.gov.uk
An Act to revise the law of England and Wales as to theft and similar or associated offences, and in connection therewith to make provision as to criminal proceedings by one party to a marriage against the other, and to make certain amendments extending beyond England and Wales in the Post...
www.legislation.gov.uk
It seems to me that incompetence is a defence under 21(1)(a),
("[belief...] that he has reasonable grounds for making the demand")
because someone who makes a mistake can easily believe that they have good grounds.
But under 21(1)(b) the defendant also needs to have believed that
"the use of the menaces is a proper means of reinforcing the demand".
That seems to me to refer to the use of the menaces as they in fact were - in this case, as written.
If that interpretation is right, then it may seem at least arguable that if the prosecutor sent out a misleading threat, they would have to believe that the
actual words were a proper means; and a belief that they had sent something proper when it wasn't (for example a standard form of words that should not be sent to this recipient) is not a defence.
@Skadoosh, it might be interesting if you were to ask GA to confirm whether they think there is anything improper in the correspondence they sent. They might say the part about the irrelevant 1889 law was for information only and was not intended to apply to all recipients. But this was a specific settlement offer to you, and I'm not clear why it's reasonable to expect members of the public to know that this didn't apply to them, or that they need to ask a lawyer to clarify it.