Author Topic: CAZ Bradford PCN  (Read 372 times)

0 Members and 754 Guests are viewing this topic.

CAZ Bradford PCN
« on: »
Hello,

I have just recieved a PCN for going through a CAZ zone? I was driving from Blackpool to Leeds and back?

I never saw the sign? Even if the sign was there I was not aware of what the CAZ symbol is?
 
Also there was no phone number on any sign.
I have seen similar signs that say charges apply pay online? No website address?

So do I challenge it for these 3 reasons?

1. The signage was not specific or had insufficient information as to what I need to pay, how I need to Pay and when I need to pay. For anyone without internet access there is another option to pay over the phone, there was no phone number to contact displayed on any sign. Simply stating (pay online) without giving you a website address is not reasonable, nor is it reasonable for you to know who you are paying?

2. Secondly without giving enough information on the signage, how was I supposed to know that I owed money, or how much I owed or how long I had to pay it? So it was nice of you to write to me to tell me that I owed you money and how much I owed you and how long I had to make the payment, However you wrote to me long after the payment was due, had you wrote to me before the payment was due I would have made the payment. The fact that you wrote to me after the due date demanding £120 for missed payment I didn't even know I owed, looks more like racketeering than actual responsibility...

3. You are demanding £120 PCN plus the £9 charge. Which must be followed under the PCN regulations, however under the PCN regulations there is no procedure included that also allows you to collect the original £9 payment within these regulations. The request to collect the £9 CAZ is not part of these regulations, so there fore you are not following proper procedure.

I'm obviously not a lawyer so not sure if I'm on the right track to challenge this?

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Re: CAZ Bradford PCN
« Reply #1 on: »
Been working on more of a challenge.

is this any better?

Summary of Challenge Grounds
1️⃣ Unintentional Entry Due to GPS Navigation
As an out-of-town driver travelling from BD4 0FE (Bradford) to FY1 6LL (Blackpool), I followed GPS navigation, which did not alert me to the presence of the CAZ or warn me of any charges on the route. I entered the CAZ unintentionally and had no intention to avoid payment or evade compliance.

2️⃣ Inadequate Signage and Insufficient Payment Information
The CAZ signs I encountered did not provide sufficient clarity for a driver unfamiliar with the area. Specifically:
    • The CAZ symbol was not explained for drivers unaware of its meaning.
    • There were no clear instructions on how, where, or when to pay the charge.
    • No phone number or website was provided, limiting access for drivers without internet or prior knowledge.
As a result, I was unaware that I owed a payment or how to make it.

3️⃣ Lack of Timely Notification Prior to Penalty
I only became aware of the outstanding charge upon receipt of the PCN, by which point the penalty had already been applied. Had I received any form of reminder or notice before the penalty stage, I would have willingly paid the original £9 charge. The sudden escalation to a £120 penalty seems disproportionate, given the circumstances.

4️⃣ Procedural Invalidity Under Regulations
Under the Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013, once the CAZ payment window closes, the council has no separate process to recover the unpaid daily charge other than issuing a PCN.
However, for the penalty to be valid, the council must meet key legal requirements, including:
    • Providing adequate advance notice through clear and effective signage.
    • Giving the driver a fair and reasonable opportunity to pay the original charge.
    • Issuing the PCN in full compliance with regulatory procedures.
In my case, these conditions were not met, and as such, I respectfully submit that the PCN is procedurally invalid.

Request
Given these mitigating factors and the outlined legal points, I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your written response.

Signed:
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Email or Phone (optional)]
[Date]

Re: CAZ Bradford PCN
« Reply #2 on: »
Pl just start with the PCN, all sides and no redactions other than your personal info.

Re: CAZ Bradford PCN
« Reply #3 on: »


don't know if this works for sharing the PCN image?


Re: CAZ Bradford PCN
« Reply #5 on: »

Re: CAZ Bradford PCN
« Reply #6 on: »

Re: CAZ Bradford PCN
« Reply #7 on: »
You need to take it down, redact yr name & address, and repost.

Re: CAZ Bradford PCN
« Reply #8 on: »
Sorry, you're wrong on the PCN. The regulations do NOT give the council power to demand the penalty on the PCN. They can only apply normal debt recovery procedures for this. The PCN is a penalty charge alone, and this has been decided at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal as far back as 2018, when Caroline Sheppard, Chief Adjudicator ruled, in Case Number IA01249-1803 on 13th June 2018 : -

Quote
"Regulations 7(3)(g) and (f) require the penalty charge notice to state:
(f) the amount of penalty charge that is payable if the penalty charge is paid in full—
(i) within 14 days of the day on which the penalty charge notice is served;
(ii) after the expiry of such 14 day period but within 28 days of the day on which the penalty charge notice is
served;
(iii) after the service of a charge certificate;
(g) the manner in which the penalty charge must be paid and the address to which payment of the penalty charge
must be sent.
The clear intention is to set out clearly the amount of the penalty charge to be paid, and give
equally clear instructions as to how to pay the relevant amount.
While the PCN in this case dealt with the amounts of the penalty charge, according to when
they would be paid, it also stipulated that:
“In addition to the penalty charge you must also pay the applicable road user charge of £3.”
And the PCN further required Mr Moran to pay £38 or £73 (the relevant penalty charge with
£3 added), without an option to pay just the penalty charge.
There is no power in Regulation 7 for the PCN to require the road user charge to be paid in
addition to the penalty charge. Nor is there a power for the charging authority to refuse to
allocate a payment made for a crossing to that crossing, and hold it, possibly indefinitely, for
future use."
But first you must submit representations to the council and only when these are rejected can you register an appeal at the TPT. We can't find out if there are any subsequent judgments on these aspects, because the TPT Statutory Register is not available online for searching, unlike that of London Tribunals.

Re: CAZ Bradford PCN
« Reply #9 on: »
Okay then how's this for a challenge?


Subject: Formal Challenge to PCN [Insert PCN Reference Number]

Dear Sir or Madam,

I am writing to formally challenge PCN [insert PCN number], issued for an alleged Clean Air Zone (CAZ) contravention on [insert date], during my journey from Blackpool to Leeds and back.

I would like to raise the following grounds in my challenge:

1️⃣ Inadequate Signage and Information
While driving, I did not see any CAZ signage that clearly indicated the charge or explained its meaning. As an out-of-town driver, I was unfamiliar with the CAZ symbol, and the signs provided no details on how or where to pay. There was no website address, phone number, or clear payment guidance. Simply stating “pay online” without sufficient details is, in my view, inadequate and unclear.

2️⃣ Lack of Timely Notification Before Penalty Issued
I only became aware of any outstanding charge after receiving the PCN, by which point the payment window for the original charge had already closed. Had I been informed before the penalty stage, I would have promptly paid the original £9 CAZ charge. It feels unreasonable and disproportionate to impose a £120 penalty without ensuring that drivers were properly notified and given a fair opportunity to pay.

3️⃣ Unintentional Entry Due to GPS Navigation
As a driver travelling from BD4 0FE (Bradford) to FY1 6LL (Blackpool), I was following GPS navigation, which gave no warning of CAZ entry or charges. I entered the zone unintentionally and had no intention to avoid payment or evade compliance.

4️⃣ Procedural Invalidity Under Regulations
According to the Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013, once the CAZ payment window has passed, the council can only issue a penalty charge — it does not have the power to combine or demand the original CAZ charge within the PCN.

This was explicitly confirmed in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal Case IA01249-1803 (June 2018), where Chief Adjudicator Caroline Sheppard ruled:

“There is no power in Regulation 7 for the PCN to require the road user charge to be paid in addition to the penalty charge. Nor is there a power for the charging authority to refuse to allocate a payment made for a crossing to that crossing, and hold it, possibly indefinitely, for future use.”

In this case, the PCN improperly demands payment of both the £120 penalty and the £9 CAZ charge, which exceeds the legal powers set out in the regulations. As such, the PCN is procedurally flawed and unenforceable.

Request for Cancellation
Given the legal and procedural issues outlined above, I respectfully request that this PCN be cancelled. I look forward to your written response.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Yours faithfully,
[Your Full Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Contact Email/Phone (optional)]
[Date]


Re: CAZ Bradford PCN
« Reply #10 on: »
There is no point in including paras 2 and 3. There is nothing in the regulations that mandates any warning notice, and as a motorist you are expected to look and comply with roadside signs. We see far too many "satnav generated PCNs" on here and it is never accepted as a reason for cancellation of a PCN. Paras 1 & 4 are enough on their own.

Re: CAZ Bradford PCN
« Reply #11 on: »
thanks