FCC Notice of Intention to Prosecute: Details of offence not given on notice

[Jimmy87]

Hi all,

Some advice needed please. I today received a Notice of Intention to prosecute from FCC. The notice stated that on the date in question and at time.....my details were taken by a RPI. No offence is mentioned, only that my details were taken. It then continues to say:
'This letter is to inform you of our intention to take this case to the Magistrates Court and the enclosed form provides you with the opportunity to tell us what happened from your own point of view. Information should be both factual and honest.'
A list of potential penalties that the court can issue is then given. I continued to read on to the section entitled 'Details of Offence' which read:
'On the above date you were stopped and questioned in regard to the following alleged offence(s):' beneath this statement it is just blank, nothing is written, i.e. they have not stated details of any offence once again.
I am then asked to provide my own statement of what happened.
Can anyone enlighten me as to what this amounts to, in respect of the fact that I have not been told what offence they allege I have commited and what they intend to prosecute me for?
Are they looking for a statement from me incriminating myself before they decide how to proceed?
The reason I had details taken is that on the date in question I was pulled by an RPI for the offence of (I think was) being in first class on a standard class ticket, returning to Stevenage from Finsbury Park (1 stop, 17 mins). In hindsight it was stupid to do that, but I should point out that I only enetered first class as the rest of the carriage (standard class) was full and 1st was empty. On entering the train I had every intention to sit in standard. Looking back I should of stood up, but stupidly I didn't. When approached by the RPI I explained why I sat in 1st and offered immediately to leave and stand in standard for the remainder of the journey. I was told that he could not allow this and that I would have to pay the penalty fare. I explained that I could not pay there and then and so he cautioned me and explained that the matter would likely go to court. Having not been in this situation before and not knowing if this was normal or not I just accepted and waited for the letter to come through. Now that I have that letter no offence is mentioned, only that my details were taken.
I feel like I should not make any statement without having been notified of the exact offence that I am being prosecuted for so that at a legal level I know what I am accused of before I make a statement. Am I within my rights to withold my statement at this time and is that the best approach? I am not trying to dodge any fine here and I am more than willing to pay the fine/fare to have this matter resolved, but does this kind of thing count as an admistrative error on the part of FCC which would see the case get thrown out of court anyway?
Any help would be much appreciated.
Kind regards.

 

[BrownE]

Train companies generally write to you in "general terms", First Group normally put a statement in their letters along the lines of "Railway Byelaws and Regulation of Railways Act applies". Essentially this allows them to follow either line of prosecution depending on what you say, so that's (probably) the reason for the lack of detail within the letter.

I'm sure someone else will be along shortly to provide you with some actual advice.

 

[steadmane]

It's highly unlikely this will go away and will carry on through the revenue protection pre-court system regardless of the administrative errors on your correspondence.

However, you have an absolute legal right to know what you are being taken to court for! Regardless of whether you actually know why or whether you have a notice given to you on the train at the time of the alleged offence, any correspondence requiring you to respond with a statement that involves an allegation must be specific to an allegation and be written in a clear and concise way.

If it was me, and I have never been in this situation with a train company, *if* there is an obvious lack of information and you cannot formulate a statement based on what is contained in the letter, in the first case I would write to the address on the letter explaining this. Send a photocopy of the letter you have received, keep the original safe together with a copy of the letter you send and a proof-of-posting and await a reply. Certainly don't incriminate yourself and allow them (or anyone) to fish however unintentional. Ask for clarification - simply "What have I done?".

I say again, this is my opinion, plenty of people far more experienced.

 

[BrownE]

However, you have an absolute legal right to know what you are being taken to court for!

The OP is not being prosecuted currently, they are asking for information to aid a decision to prosecute.

The summons document if the OP eventually gets one will have the exact offence.

 

[steadmane]

Yes I understand, but generally the Intention to Prosecute notice will be used as declared proof that the defendant was advised in advance of the reason(s). Incomplete or missing information in this document will not look good.

 

[BrownE]

Yes I understand, but generally the Intention to Prosecute notice will be used as declared proof that the defendant was advised in advance of the reason(s). Incomplete or missing information in this document will not look good.

They are advised in general terms when interviewed the offence they are reasonably suspected of having done.

The letter refers to both the Bye laws and RoRA. This is common for operators to do and is perfectly correct to do.

I won't name the prosecution manager who I have a letter from about this, but I suspect they know considerably more than you about this matter.

On to helping the OP...

 

[Stigy]

I suggest you write to them if you're not happy with what their letter states. If it's clear that there's space for something to be written and it's not, then you should contact them. To be fair, it should only say something like "did not hold a valid ticket entitling you to travel" or something similar, so it'll be bleak.

Alternatively, if you recall the incident, cut out the middle man and give them the info they ask for. You'll have to eventually anyway, otherwise they'll simply produce a summons nonetheless.

 

[Greenback]

I would not advise relying on the absence of an offence in the letter as a way of avoiding this matter. By all means ask them what offence you are under suspicion of, though it seems to em that failure to produce a valid ticket on demand is the answer, but I would do as Stigy suggests, and provide your statement to them.

In fact, I would apologise for my actions, state that I have learnt my lesson, promise that it won't happen again and offer to meet their reasonable costs in dealing with the issue, plus whatever compensation they feel adequate for the time and trouble.

In my view, going down the route of arguing over the fact that there is no actual offence listed is less likely to produce a satisfactory outcome for you.

 

[island]

I agree with Greenback unless the alleged offence took place in June.

 

[steadmane]

They are advised in general terms when interviewed the offence they are reasonably suspected of having done.

The letter refers to both the Bye laws and RoRA. This is common for operators to do and is perfectly correct to do.

I won't name the prosecution manager who I have a letter from about this, but I suspect they know considerably more than you about this matter.

On to helping the OP...

I don't really understand your passive anger at me when the OP has asked for advice. A letter that has no reference to an offence is not "perfectly correct". The OP never mentioned any Byelaws and RoRA, that is an assumption you have made that the OP received the same letter as your friend is sending out. I stand by my advice.

 

[Jimmy87]

thanks for all the replies so far everyone.
It's really appreciated.

Just clarify a point though:
@BrownE, the letter I recieved does not state anywhere either the RoRA or the ByeLaws.
Based on this fact, does this change my position at all?

 

[34D]

I agree with Greenback unless the alleged offence took place in June.

Indeed. We need the OP to tell us the date of the alleged offence.

 

[johnnychips]

Why is June significant?

 

[Jimmy87]

it was in October

 

[causton]

Why is June significant?

There is a limited amount of time allowed between the offence occurring and the summons being produced*

*six months? And I think it's the summons, but could be something else has to be done before then.

 

[DaveNewcastle]

When faced with the threat of Prosecution, it is common to look for weaknesses in the Prosecution's facts, processes, personnel, preparations and behaviours. It gives some sense of comfort if fault can be found with the other party.

Sadly, that comfort doesn't undo any actual Offence that might have been commiited - even if its only a small amount of money that has not been paid for a train ticket - and the work and expense that might be required to 'convert' those weaknesses into a material advantage can be quite disproportionate to the effect of the Claim.

There are times and circumstances when it can be worth mounting a challenge on technicalities (I'm working on one at the moment in which the grounds for a successful Appeal seems to have been laid out by the Respondent in perfect and intentional order), but this isn't one of those.
Greenback has already offered the most appropriate analysis in the circumstances.

In respect of the apparent dispute between members steadmane and BrownE, I can see what points of advantage each are attempting to promote, following from the matter of absent details in the letter, but I cannot see that their points will have a substantial bearing on the final outcome (unless sophisticated and professional arguments are to be articulated). We must remember that the Offence is, either, travel in First Class accomodation in contravention of Railway Byelaw 19, or an unpaid Civil Debt in the form of a Penalty Fare. And the question to be answered is simply whether that Offence was committed or not.

My advice is that in this matter, we should address only the underlying complaint by way of a simple statement of the circumstances on the day and then to mitigate matters, an apologetic regret that the passenger found themselves unable to pay the fare for their travel - a regret that so many other passengers find them selves expressing after having been detected.

 

[island]

Wonderful post, Dave.

 

[Jimmy87]

are there any examples of the style of letter that I should respond to them with?
thanks again