Have a letter asking me to go to court for theft! was more unpaid debt ADVICE NEEDED

[MasterCoder]

I think it was insufficient funds that caused the card to decline. Playing devils advocate though, it could be argued that you should check you have funds available when you are about to get £750 of treatment. Again, if they argue that it was apparent the funds weren't available and the OP proceeded anyway, they could potentially argue their case still. Potentially even argue fraud.

However, looking at the statement, it's seems clear that the practitioner in question allowed the OP to leave and come to an arrangement to pay the balance at another date. In which case, this is a civil matter and the police and magistrates shouldn't be involved; don't they have real crimes to solve?

I am still flummoxed by how this has even been dealt with as a criminal matter, especially since the complaint must have been made months after the OP received treatment.

A long time ago now, when I was 17, I was involved in a small bump in which a man reversed his car into me but claimed I drove into him. At the time we exchanged details so that our family friend would fix the very minor scratch, (i was a named driver on dads insurance and he didn't want to lose his NCB), and the man in question turned up at the garage with an entirely different car with hundreds of pounds of damage. Obviously we refused to pay to fix another car. I get home from college one day and outside my parents house was a police car with a single occupant. Said police officer came to the side of my car and asked me if I was the one in the accident and then basically threatened to arrest me for failing to give my insurance details which was patently false. Fortunately, the old man was home and the officer in question said 'If you fix the car, that'll be that, but if you don't I'm coming back to arrest your son'. That's not normal behaviour for a copper. It turns out, that the officer in question was actually the other drivers brother-in-law and the car in question that went in for repair belonged to the same policeman. How did we find this out? Well, dad's best friend at the time happened to be the head of CID. The moral of this tale? 'It's not what you know, it's who you know'.

Of course, the caveat is that I'm not saying this is the case, but I find it strange that the practitioner has gone to the police and the police have acted upon it. Aren't they meant to be strapped for cash and resources?

The practitioner could have easily taken the OP to county court; an existing client for whom he has an address and other contact details but out of spite, forced it through as a criminal matter somehow.

In any case, please, OP, get a solicitor.

[Setmefree3]

Dishonesty made off with making payment, and with intent to avoid payment. Would not an attempted declined payment override that charge?. I agree funds should be checked first and could be argued, but theft I would imagine would be something different and the OP has stated that company already know the accused.

[MasterCoder]

That was the devils advocate argument I made. Would it not be reasonable for a client to not be sure that they had funds in place before getting treatment with such a price tag? If you knew the payment would be declined but proceeded anyway?

In any case, I would say it was a moot point. If the practitioner who carried out the work let the OP leave with the condition that they pay at a later date then there can't be a criminal case made under The Theft Act. The suggestion that the OP 'made off' would be that they left without paying or acknowledging they needed to pay. If there's been an attempt to pay and they have communications with the practitioner offering to pay then surely it's now a civil matter. Clearly there was a discussion between them before the OP left the premises? It's not like they ran out the door..

Again though, a solicitor would be the person to advise best.

[Setmefree3]

That was the devils advocate argument I made. Would it not be reasonable for a client to not be sure that they had funds in place before getting treatment with such a price tag? If you knew the payment would be declined but proceeded anyway?

In any case, I would say it was a moot point. If the practitioner who carried out the work let the OP leave with the condition that they pay at a later date then there can't be a criminal case made under The Theft Act. The suggestion that the OP 'made off' would be that they left without paying or acknowledging they needed to pay. If there's been an attempt to pay and they have communications with the practitioner offering to pay then surely it's now a civil matter.

Again though, a solicitor would be the person to advise best.

Completely agree

[MasterCoder]

An argument could also be made that the police have a duty to investigate a complaint thoroughly before issuing a summons. I would assume that in the interview under caution, the OP made a point of saying that the practitioner in question was prepared to accept payment after treatment and they would have realised that a prosecution was off the cards at that point. If what the OP says is true, I can't see how they can proceed. But they are proceeding...hence the urgent need for a solicitor.

[jaguarsuk]

yes i attended i didnt have a solicitor as i coulnt afford and the policeman said it was just to get an idea of the situation

Okay, you can't change this, but if you ever find yourself in this situation again you ask for the duty solicitor. The interview would likely have been a prepared statement followed by no comment.

This is a very strange move by the Police, he agreed for you to make payment later and therefore you did not make off without paying, but in fact entered into a civil contract via offer and acceptance. The contract still stands and you are liable under that contract, but in a civil court should he wish to bring a claim.

Trying to contact him and him blocking you doesn't matter, the mere fact you entered into a civil contract with him makes you not guilty.

On that basis I would plead not guilty as you have not dishonestly made off without having paid as required or expected and with intent to avoid payment of the amount due, you entered into a contract before leaving showing you were actively not trying to avoid payment.

On the day at court you want to be represented by a solicitor and I'd say take along some notes from what we have said if that ends up being the duty solicitor to give them a steer as they often don't have much time before you go in to prepare.

[jaguarsuk]

Ok, Post 25 says that your transaction was declined. From my point of view you did attempt to make payment at the time. I don’t know if your bank records a lists of declined transactions, but if it does, it will help.]

Yes banks do keep this information for fraud prevention purposes, it won't be something you can access on your internet banking, but they can certainly write confirming a declined transaction on X date to the practitioner and why it was declined. This would demonstrate you intended to pay, but couldn't and the reason you entered into a civil contract.