Free Traffic Legal Advice

Please have a read of
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/

and post up the remaining sides of one of the PCNs (Bristol have had 'form' in the past with their 'small print').

I note they are still asking for the CAZ charge in addition to the penalty charge.

I'm sure Incandescent will be along soon with some pertinent advice - Bristol has shown a marked reluctance in the past to test appeals at adjudication,

Thanks for your response John & Incandescent.

Other side of the PCN uploaded.

It's no doubt easier just to pay the 2 PCN's rather than have go through all this, take so much time up with the likely hood of the appeal being turned down but I really do feel sharply the injustice of Bristol City Council administering this CAZ in this manner.

A warning letter should be sent out as is done in London. I received a warning letter in London, I now know the new regulations & will not contravene.

I did read the points being made that the daily charge shouldn't be added to the PCN charge but I wasn't clear on how to appeal on these grounds & wether this discharged the obligation to pay both charges. Shall I appeal on the charges being wrongly applied rather than poor signage & potential bus lane obstruction?

Many thanks
Kevin

Google maps
https://maps.app.goo.gl/NuAwJ4qSNm1ed19L7

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Out of interest, where has this "the council cannot recover the Clean Air charge" come from?

From my reading, Reg 4(4) allows the Charging Order to decide if the cost for the road user charge is added to the PCN.

The Bristol Charging Order 11(1) allows them to charge the Road User Charge when a penalty is issued.

I may have missed the argument elsewhere, but on the surface it does appear the legislation allows this. Yes the legislation is badly written, but I can't see where it doesn't allow this to happen

APPEAL - FIRST DRAFT

Appeal Against PCN Charges - Reference [PCN Number]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally appeal against the two Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued to me, reference numbers [PCN Number 1] and [PCN Number 2], for allegedly failing to comply with Bristol's Clean Air Zone (CAZ) requirements. I believe these charges are unfair and request that they be cancelled for the following reasons:

1. Unclear Signage and Lack of Awareness:
   As residents of a village in another county, my partner and I were completely unaware of Bristol's recently introduced CAZ and its requirements. The CAZ signage upon entry to the zone was not sufficiently clear or prominent. Specifically, the CAZ sign was difficult to see, being placed on the far side of a bus lane and amidst other road signs, making it virtually impossible to notice in time to avoid entering the zone. Furthermore, there was no preceding notification sign to alert us of the upcoming CAZ. Due to our lack of familiarity with the area and insufficient visibility of the Clean Air Zone signage, we unintentionally entered the zone and remained parked until our departure the following day without paying the daily charge. We were only made aware of the charges upon receiving the PCNs, which we believe is not in line with fair and transparent enforcement practices.

   I have reviewed the signage layout using Google Maps (link provided for reference: [Google Maps Link](https://maps.app.goo.gl/NuAwJ4qSNm1ed19L7)), and it supports my claim that the sign does not stand out and is not easily visible to drivers unfamiliar with the area. This lack of clear signage contravenes the requirements for adequate warning and notification under the Transport Act 2000 and the Bristol Clean Air Zone Charging Order 2022.

2. First-Time Offence and Comparison to London:
   This was our first visit to Bristol and our first incident involving the CAZ. Had we been aware of the CAZ, we would have willingly paid the daily charge of £9. In London, first-time offenders who are unfamiliar with the CAZ are typically given a warning rather than an immediate penalty. I believe Bristol should adopt a similar approach, especially considering that non-residents may not be aware of the newly implemented CAZ.

3. Incorrect Penalty Charges:
   Each PCN issued to us includes a £60 penalty charge plus the additional £9 daily CAZ charge. According to The Road User Charging Scheme (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013, the road user charge should not be combined with the penalty charge. This discrepancy suggests that the PCNs may be invalid, as it is not lawful to impose both the penalty and the daily charge in this manner.

In light of these points, I respectfully request the cancellation of the PCNs issued. I trust that the council will consider the fairness and legality of the situation, taking into account the unclear signage, our lack of prior knowledge as non-residents, and the improper combination of charges.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your positive response.

Yours faithfully,

--------
Thank you all your help on this matter so far. Any feedback of the appeal letter would be greatly appreciated.

I've tried uploading the other sides of the PCN again. Hopefully you can see them now. The premium rate phone number has been changed.

Thanks
Kevin

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Furthermore, there was no preceding notification sign to alert us of the upcoming CAZ.

Be careful with this point - expect the council to point out the advanced warning signs here or here if you approached from the A37, or here if you approached from St Johns Lane.

In London, first-time offenders who are unfamiliar with the CAZ are typically given a warning rather than an immediate penalty.

TfL stopped doing this a long while back. The CAZ has been in place for over 18 months now and, from memory, they did issue warnings for the first few months

Other than that (putting my disagreements about the "amount exceeded point aside, which others will tell me I'm wrong about!), I think this looks ok

I believe you meant to tag @foybles, not myself!

Hello again,

My PCN challenge has been rejected. I tried attaching a photo of the rejection letter but received an error message on the forum website "upload folder full" so I've copied the rejection points from the letter here:

- The CAZ is in operation 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
- The CAZ is clearly signed on entrance and exit of the zone (please see below photographs
of example signage).
- All signage complies with current legislation and has been approved by the Department for
Transport.

Bristol council has not responded on my challenge on the legality of the PCN penalty/CAZ fee combination. Except from my challenged copied below for reference.

"3. Incorrect Penalty Charges:
  Each PCN issued to us includes a £60 penalty charge plus the additional £9 daily CAZ charge. According to The Road User Charging Scheme (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013, the road user charge should not be combined with the penalty charge. This discrepancy suggests that the PCNs may be invalid, as it is not lawful to impose both the penalty and the daily charge in this manner."

It feels like although I have challenged Bristol council on the legality to impose both PCN & CAZ, they have completely ignored this challenge. Should I accept my challenge being ignored & pay the 2x PCN's plus the 2x CAZ charges or persist with getting Bristol council to acknowledge my challenge.

Any advice would be very welcome.

Thanks
Kevin