3. PCN - Bristol CAZ - 25 seconds before midnight
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: PCN - Bristol CAZ - 25 seconds before midnight  (Read 1132 times)

0 Members and 177 Guests are viewing this topic.

PCN - Bristol CAZ - 25 seconds before midnight
« on: »
Hello all, I have received a PCN for a non payment on 20/09/2023 however the time on the notice is 23:59:35. The charge was paid for the day of  21/09/2023 so I am wondering if this can be disputed based on the 25 seconds being so negligible?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: PCN - Bristol CAZ - 25 seconds before midnight
« Reply #1 on: »
I would say yes. This is venal moneygrubbing at its worst, in fact probably the worst example I've seen. I suggest you submit reps on the basis that the contravention did not occur. There have been successful adjudications on this very thing, with times much further away than your PCN.  Adjudicators recognise that car clocks can be some few minutes out and will accept de minimis arguments. The council may even do so if you submit reps. You should also point out in your reps that you had actually paid in advance for the following day, so was somewhat surprised to receive the PCN as your car clock showed as past midnight.

Can you please post-up the PCN. There is more ammunition available, but let's see the PCN first.
Logged
Re: PCN - Bristol CAZ - 25 seconds before midnight
« Reply #2 on: »
Thank you for your advice, here is the full PCN

https://imgur.com/a/ebCG1Rn

I’m hoping to appeal based on the timing but please let me know if anything else should be done.
Logged
Re: PCN - Bristol CAZ - 25 seconds before midnight
« Reply #3 on: »
There is the 0870 phone number issue. Essentially, because some of the charges for 0870 calls go to the organisation being called, use of this number means the PCN represents an unlawful demand for money, being more than the penalty charge.

In addition, an adjudication (2018)  on a DART PCN which is under the same legislation as low emissions zones, ruled that a PCN issued under the Road User Charges Act, and its associated regulations can only request payment of the penalty charge, and not add the road user charge on to it. So far this has not been tested for any PCNs issued for non-payment of tolls for non-compliant vehicles using one of the zones.

When you paid the toll, did you specify the date of entry into the zone ?
Logged
Re: PCN - Bristol CAZ - 25 seconds before midnight
« Reply #4 on: »
@Incandescent & other experts  They've kept the phone number but added the price..... Have any Bristol CAZ PCNs actually reached adjudication?
Logged
Re: PCN - Bristol CAZ - 25 seconds before midnight
« Reply #5 on: »
I really appreciate the input, thank you.

So which course of reps would be best at this point?

Yes I specified the date when paying for the charge.
Logged
Re: PCN - Bristol CAZ - 25 seconds before midnight
« Reply #6 on: »
On the time side...
Were you entering, leaving or somewhere in the middle?

If the first I would expect an adjudicator to treat the error as minimal and that you had indeed paid.
But less so for either of the other cases.
Logged
Re: PCN - Bristol CAZ - 25 seconds before midnight
« Reply #7 on: »
The time stated on the PCN was that of entry to the zone, so effectively they have issued due to entering 25 seconds too early.
Logged
Re: PCN - Bristol CAZ - 25 seconds before midnight
« Reply #8 on: »
Quote from: Kiwimeerkat on November 06, 2023, 11:24:48 pm
The time stated on the PCN was that of entry to the zone, so effectively they have issued due to entering 25 seconds too early.

In which case state that you believed that it was past midnight when you entered the zone so naturally paid for the day that you thought applied, ie the 21st.
And that you have paid for that day, include proof of payment.

The cases referred to for minimal time discrepancies tend to include comments from adjudicators that  motorists cannot be expected to be accurate to the second.

Without getting into arguments with our Hero Member again, this is one where the Like Moran case could easily apply but if the adjudicator accepts de-minimus on the timing, the charge was paid and the PCN must be cancelled.
I would include a reference to it anyway, until it is clarified one way or another, may as well.
Logged
Re: PCN - Bristol CAZ - 25 seconds before midnight
« Reply #9 on: »
The OP says he paid in advance and specified a particular day, but entered the zone 25 seconds too early, so they walloped him for not paying for the previous day, not the one he had paid for.  That is my understanding, anyway.

Logged
Re: PCN - Bristol CAZ - 25 seconds before midnight
« Reply #10 on: »
Quote from: Incandescent on November 07, 2023, 12:11:03 am
The OP says he paid in advance and specified a particular day, but entered the zone 25 seconds too early, so they walloped him for not paying for the previous day, not the one he had paid for.  That is my understanding, anyway.

That is correct, so my understanding now is that I should submit a reps on the basis of de minimis whilst also pointing out that the following day was paid for.

Could anyone point me in the right direction of the right wording for this?

Thank you for your help.
Logged
Re: PCN - Bristol CAZ - 25 seconds before midnight
« Reply #11 on: »
Here you go:

Dear Bristol City Council,

In the first instance I would point out that I paid the daily charge for 21 September 2023 and I happened to enter the zone some 25 seconds too early, I suggest that this is de-minimis and not a contravention at all, or in the alternative you should exercise discretion not to enforce.

I further challenge liability for PCN BS56246641 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. 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) 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.

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,
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. PCN - Bristol CAZ - 25 seconds before midnight