3. Bristol PCN Vehicle not meeting required emissions standard CAZ
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Bristol PCN Vehicle not meeting required emissions standard CAZ  (Read 408 times)

0 Members and 525 Guests are viewing this topic.

Bristol PCN Vehicle not meeting required emissions standard CAZ
« on: »
« Last Edit: November 21, 2023, 10:06:28 pm by raymoray »
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: Bristol PCN Vehicle not meeting required emissions standard CAZ
« Reply #1 on: »
All Bristol CAZ PCNs are flawed.
1. The phone number for payment is an 0870 number which indicates that part of the call charge is passed on to Bristol as a "bung" for giving the phone company their business, So as such the PCN is demanding more money than required by law

2. The PCN demands not just the penalty charge, but also the CAZ toll fee.  Again this is unlawful because Regulation 7 of the Road User Charging regulations doesn't give the CAZ authority to include it. The toll is a separate debt that they would need to persue as a normal debt.  It is the equivalent of a parking PCN when payment to park was not made, demanding the parking charge as well as the penalty.

Anyway, have a read of this: -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1783/regulation/7/made
and also the file I have attached.

Only downside is that Bristol will not accept your representations, (they love the money too much), so you'd have to take them to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal with the full £120 in play.


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged
Re: Bristol PCN Vehicle not meeting required emissions standard CAZ
« Reply #2 on: »
Here you go:

Dear Bristol City Council,

I challenge liability for PCN BS56768964 on the basis that the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case.

The PCN carries an 0870 premium rate telephone number, and I contend that as in Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022) this amounts to an excessive demand, a copy of that decision can be viewed at LINK1

While I appreciate other payment methods are available, binding authority from the High Court in the case of London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) available from https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/295.html determined that where one payment method carries a surcharge, the availability of other payment methods is irrelevant and the penalty demanded is excessive.

Further to this, the penalty charge notice is only permitted to demand payment of the penalty charge, there is no legal mechanism that allows the council to demand the toll charge in addition to the penalty charge on the PCN.

This is akin to a PCN for not paying in a pay and display bay: you can issue a PCN for £70 but the penalty charge notice cannot demand the unpaid pay and display fee on top of that. On this point, I refer you to the decision in Luke Moran v Secretary of State for Transport (IA01249-1803, 13 June 2018) available from LINK2

In this case the PCN may only demand £120, discounted to £60 for the first 14 days. The regulations do not allow the PCN to demand the additional £9 you are seeking, the amount demanded therefore exceeds the amount due by law.

It follows that the penalty charge must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,


I will PM you some links to put in the representation, they will redirect to here and here but if you give them the links I'll PM you, we can use the click count to confirm whether they've looked at them or not (obviously do not click on the links I PM you as we want the click count to remain at zero). If they don't click on them, we can then prove they've failed to consider all of the evidence. If they say in the rejection that they've considered all the evidence, we've got them for lying as well.

If Bristol rejects, I'll be happy to represent you at the tribunal.
« Last Edit: February 01, 2024, 11:50:33 pm by cp8759 »
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor or a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. Bristol PCN Vehicle not meeting required emissions standard CAZ