Free Traffic Legal Advice

TFL issued me a PCN for not paying one of two days of ULEZ charge on time. This happened as the evening I got home from my trip (not just to London), the website was not working, preventing me from paying before the deadline. The following day the website started working again, and I was able to pay one of the two charges (the first had now passed the deadline).

I made a number of phone calls before the PCN was issued, these went unanswered. After PCN was issued, I got through to a different team and was told to make a representation.

TFL rejected my representation. I have attached my original representation, my new letter that I am intending to post to RUCA today (only just discovered this forum!), and associated evidence. I would like any tips on anything else to add to my case that might help. I can't believe they are fining someone who tried to pay before the deadline but couldn't because of their inadequate system!


Thanks in advance.

Thank you. Yes I am asking for a personal hearing.

What have you actually submitted to the tribunal? I can see typed documents but have these been submitted?

If not (and even if you have) I suggest that you write another sheet for yourself to make understanding and therefore decision making as easy as possible for the adjudicator.

Try:
On 29 and 30 August I drove into the ULEZ zone. I did not set up payment prior to entering neither do I have an account. I was therefore obligated to pay the charge by midnight on 1 and 2 September respectively.

I went online at *** on 1 Sept. but was unable to log in* to the TfL website - see attached evidence of screenshots** taken at the time.

In total I made *** attempts to log on and pay between ** and ***, none of which was successful. I tried the alternatives of ** and *** but without success.

In the event I logged on at ** on ** and was able to pay the charge for 30 August but not for 29th as this was beyond the 3-day limit.

IMO, do NOT go into why you didn't try earlier - whether before you entered or on days 1 and 2 or earlier on day 3 - IMO this is irrelevant and simply confuses matters.


*- I am unclear on what you did, particularly in the context of TfL's rejection which refers to entering the VRM incorrectly. Did you actually get as far as entering your data or could you simply not log on?

**- explain what each one is don't just present the adjudicator with screenshots e.g a note to each one which states this was taken at ** on *** before I had entered any personal date i.e. VRM, this was taken subsequently after coming out of the site, rebooting(if the case) and trying again...

The adjudicator would appreciate the relevant facts presented concisely, be kind to him/her!  (as said by others, if it actually goes the distance!) 

TFL have put a lot of irrelevant paragraphs in their rejection letter. Probably because they are trying to reject something that they shouldn't, and their letter generating software doesn't fit the situation so they've entered various other things instead. I am particularly amused about them claiming to have done a thorough financial 'investigation', to conclude that they can't find any payment from me, having been told that I couldn't pay them because their website was not working!

They do the same thing at the tribunal, because rather than employ people who have some vague idea of what they're doing, they employ a bunch of minimum wage drones who just cut and paste templated paragraphs. It's a common complaint from adjudicators that TFL submits 20 page case summaries that have nothing to do with any of the issues in the case.