I found this on another site. Here is a very interesting legal perspective on FFI. What are your thoughts? http://www.wragge.com/analysis_10058.asp#page=1

I think you will find this matter first arose with Improvement and Prohibition notices, and it was determined that a failure to comply with a notice could not be taken as de-facto evidence of guilt - the court had to be satisfied the notice was correctly served and the the inspector's opinion was valid. I guess the same would apply to FFI. Just paying a civil charge is not in itself evidence of guilt. Judges have to decide guilt based on facts, not the opinion of the guy who chose to pay the cheque. I think a more interesting perspective is the actual legality of FFI. The HSE have written themselves an option to recover their costs, and then decided their FFI costs are fixed at an hourly rate of £124 - an arbitrary figure not based on any consideration of the costs of employing an inspector etc. This may well mean that their FFI charge will be greater than the actual cost incurred. Shakespeare's Shylock indicates the problem succinctly. He can settle his claim of a pound of flesh by ripping out the heart of his enemy, but if he takes an ounce too much, the court will prosecute him for murder. In the end, Shylock admits defeat. So is FFI legal or might the HSE be acting "Ultra Vires" by taking more than they are legally entitled to? ... and if such a case were proven, would they have to refund all previous charges just like PPI?