Free Traffic Legal Advice

Yes.

Mr Chips.

Sorry but I didn't understand your comment on "nothing to see here".

Thanks
Hashim

Sorry Hashim, that was me editing/correcting what I previously wrote telling you to post your documents because on my phone I couldn't see that you'd already done it!

I've now edited it again as what you've posted doesn't seem a complete NOR.  It's normally on headed paper with a date and multiple sides.

Dear Cp8759

I have sent you the PDF of the NOR to your email.

@ Mr Chips.
No they did not send a paper copy it was a PDF on an email. It does have a date (13th June) but it got written over when i used the Imgur.com to upload it.
We have 14 days from the date of the letter to pay the reduced fee.


Appreciate your patience

Thanks

Hashim

@Hashim well I've posted the notice of rejection properly, I think you have an arguable failure to consider because they wrongly state that you claimed to be stationary for 13 seconds, while that is quite the opposite of what your representations asserted.

Transport for London does not demand the full penalty if they are notified of the appeal before the discount expires, but it takes a week or so for the tribunal to log and appeal and send a notification to the parties, so you might have missed the boat for a risk-free appeal.

On the other hand the notice of rejection has been held to be defective because nowhere does it state whether £80 is the full sum or the discounted sum.

Hashim, you need to decide whether you wish to carry on.

@MrChips do you have a view on this one?

So, I think this one boils down to your attitude to risk Hashim.

I'm not familiar with the arguments raised by cp8759 so can't put a probability of success on those I'm afraid.  In respect of your original argument about the evidence not being conclusive due to the camera angle and distance, I'd say you have a bit less than 50% chance.  It's one of those which will depend on which adjudicator you get and what mood they are in.

The fact TFL's Notice of Rejection doesn't seem to acknowledge or address the singular point your representations are based on boosts your chances up to 50% I think - perhaps even slightly beyond this.  I like the fact they 'confirm' you moved 'unnecessarily' [i.e. such that a stationary vehicle didn't give you space to exit] into the box junction based on 'investigation'.  It's precisely this extra evidence you asked for in your representations and I would be strongly tempted if you take it to tribunal to request they include the details and audit trail of their investigation which confirms there was insufficient space for the benefit of the adjudicator (and yourself).

If the technical points put forward by cp8759 boost this even further, I'd be tempted to take it all the way.

But it's not my money - can you afford to lose the additional £80 if the discount option is lost and you are unsuccessful at tribunal?  Would 50:50 odds be sufficient for you or would you want near certainty before you risk the additional £80?

Quite amazing that they are referencing the 2002 TSRGD in their Notice of rejection when the latest TSRGD is 2016. Really shows they have no clue. In addition they don't quote from it but rather paraphrase incorrectly.