Free Traffic Legal Advice

Attached are pics of signs on the approach to the CAZ (may have to upload on different posts)

1. First advice on motorway
2. But this implies you will not enter the CAZ if you exit the motorway which we did.
3. We were going straight on at the roundabout on the dual carriageway which has no info.
4. Once on the roundabout there is an advance sign for CAZ on our exit, but no indication of distance.
5. Still on roundabout, same.
6. Point of no return - roundabout exit, CAZ sign saying 1/4 mile ahead, but displayed shortly after the buslane sign and if you are in the LH lane, doesn't come into view until you are committed to the exit.
7. Now you're on a dual carriageway with no possible exit or U-turn point before hitting the roundabout where we wanted to turn back to the filling station. There is a CAZ boundary sign here with camera sign.
8. Another CAZ boundary sign ahead of the roundabout where the camera is on the traffic lights allowing access onto the roundabout.


Actually cannot upload the pics yet, because it says the upload folder is full...

PCN front page
https://www.flickr.com/photos/183139830@N08/53787351939/in/dateposted-public/

@ericaswas I can see your pictures but for future reference, please read this guidance which tells you many important things including on how to post images.

so here's the first page of the PCN:



The PCN is invalid for the reasons explained in Luke Moran v Secretary of State for Transport (IA01249-1803, 13 June 2018), but seeing the other pages would help us confirm if there are any additional grounds.

I would not mention the question of signage to the council, it's generally best to just put them to proof at the tribunal.

I'd keep this nice and simple, as we know the council will likely reject no matter what you say:



You don't want to say anything about signage because you cannot do so without making some self-incriminating admission or another, so you might as well wait and see what evidence of signage they can come up with first.

Make the representations online and make sure to keep a screenshot of the confirmation page.

I would tick "The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case", as they're asking for more than what the law allows, but in truth it doesn't really matter.

Tribunal hearings are done via video call (Microsoft Teams but you can join from your web browser). If you were to lose at the tribunal in theory the council could demand £170, but I would say they can only recover £120 as that's the penalty amount. If they want the £50 CAZ charge, they need to sue you in the small claims track of the county court.

I can represent you if you'd like, I'll send you a PM about it.

A lady at the Portsmouth parking office just rang and advised that contrary to our representation, they WERE allowed to charge in the way they did - she quoted part 2 sec 4.4 and said something about 'in addition to, OR'. Obviously I wasn't able to follow or confirm whether she had a point or not.
But she said that they would allow me to just pay the £50 CAZ charge. This is obviously attractive since it will cost more than that to be represented at tribunal. I did say that there was a point about the signage that we would bring up at tribunal - she said that if that had been on the representation, they would have addressed it (but of course, they would probably have defended it).
I asked for 24 hours to consider the offer and she will ring tomorrow. It's a case of pursuing the principle vs financial outlay. Thoughts on her argument?

You can find the Moran decision here

https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/dart-charge-pcn-flaws/msg27921/#msg27921

It is, so far, untested against a CAZ case. Bristol have shown substantial reluctance in letting a case get to tribunal where this argument has been raised.

Will it work for CAZ? It ought to, it's the same legislation. But there are other considerations.

- In Moran an underlying charge had been paid. An adjudicator may consider that in some way.

- The authority have, in effect, agreed to drop the penalty in exchange for the CAZ fee. Might this hold some sway with an adjudicator.

- If you win, are the authority still entitled to attempt to enforce the CAZ payment being due (I guess they'd have to ask you nicely and eventually sue you if they felt they really wanted to collect). I don't see any regulation which would discharge the letter ability. Though it might.

An adjudicator is not bound by another adjudicators decisions. Even one made by the Chief Adjudicator.

It is a strange state of affairs that the charging order for a CAZ can legitimately demand the toll, however the underlying regulations give no means of enforcement.

Not all charging schemes do allow the fee and a penalty (Birmingham don't, TFL don't for example). I think it may be the case that these were better advised.

(This also leads to another oddity. If the scheme does not apply the charge in addition and exceeds the penalty charge then why pay at all. Just settle discounted penalties).

I would like to see a CAZ case on this point, but you do need to consider what may be gained either way.