Author Topic: ULEZ Charges  (Read 478 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

Enceladus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ULEZ Charges
« Reply #15 on: April 17, 2024, 02:46:10 am »
I didn't reply to the TfL letter of 23/1 because the grounds allowed for them reconsider did not fall into any category I could respond to. This is when I wrote to RUCA but as you say, they would not consider my appeal because I had not received a rejection letter from TfL.

It is a mess isn't it. All because TfL states that they did not receive my rep letters dated 23/11 and 29/11 which were well within the 28 days timescale. As stated previously, I have screen shots of the properties of the November letters to TfL which only proves a document was created, not that it was actually posted. It may be possible for TfL not to have received one letter but not two surely?

The letter I sent to TfL in January was to explain that I had submitted rep letters very soon after the PCNs were received in November. TfL couldn't deny receiving the January letter because i sent it using "signed for" mail, and of course I have had a response.
As I understand it TFL have never denied receipt of your November letters. The PCN histories suggest that the letters arrived on the 22nd of Jan. That's nearly two weeks after the Charge Certs were served and two months after the PCNs were served.

As I explained above by that time the representations were so late that TFL no longer had any obligation to consider them. However they did write back the next day, the 23rd Jan, and asked for further evidence. However you didn't respond to that letter. Instead you wrote to the Tribunal.

There never were any Notices of Rejection which would have allowed you to appeal to the Tribunal.

You've told us there were two letters posted a week apart. How do you explain why it took two months for both letters to be delivered to TFL? You have to admit that it very much looks like you posted both letters of representation together, when prompted by the arrival of the Charge Certs with you. Are you positive that you posted the letters on November 23rd and 29th? Were there postal strikes in your area at the relevant time?

Little Nell

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ULEZ Charges
« Reply #16 on: April 17, 2024, 08:55:32 am »
When I received the charge certificates dated January 2024, I telephoned TfL to ask why I had received the CCs when I hadn't received a response to my original letters of appeal (November 2023). It was during this call that TfL informed me they hadn't received the November letters. They provided no advice at all about what I should do next.

In the PCNs it doesn't state a timescale for TfL to advise whether an appeal has been successful or not. I just assumed (obviously naively) that their response was taking a little time because we were approaching Christmas.

When I wrote to TfL in January 24 I attached the two letters I had written in November so that they could see I hadn't just ignored the original PCNs. When TfL then stated that I was out of time I didn't think there would be any point contacting TfL again, especially as the grounds they sited for additional evidence didn't apply to me, and I wrote to RUCA.

As I have said before, I never do anything wrong. Just like the kind souls on here I try and do good wherever possible. I manage an almshouse charity for elderly people in need and in my spare time I am a Trustee and Treasurer for a local charity that focuses on outreach programs for disadvantaged groups. I have always been very respectful of authority and I would never have ignored the original PCNs. The second letter I wrote (29/11) was I admit rather brief as I wrote that the reason for my appeal was the same as the letter I sent on 23/11. I provided both PCN refs so that the two could be tied up and considered together. It still seems very strange to me that they received neither of these letters.

It didn't take 2 months for the letters to reach TfL; TfL are saying that they never received the original November letters. The letter they wrote to me in January was a response to a letter I had written to them in January (after I received the CC's) explaining the chronology of events up to that point.

I swear on everything I hold dear that I posted those November letters. There is a post box about 100m from where I work and so it was no inconvenience to me at all. I have checked whether or not there were postal strikes last November and got very excited when I saw that there were strikes around the time I posted the letters but the year was 2022 and not 2023.

I check daily to see if the Order for Recovery has been authorised but up to now it hasn't. The 14 day payment timescale only ran out on 15/4 and the 279 isn't showing yet.

Thank you all for the help thus far.

Enceladus

  • Full Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 119
  • Karma: +2/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ULEZ Charges
« Reply #17 on: April 17, 2024, 01:14:50 pm »
The charge cert at 270 for PCN XJ09548544 was issued on 09/01/2024
The charge cert at 279 for PCN XJ09803685 was issued on 10/01/2024

So you probably had both of them by Friday the 12th Jan 2024. Is that correct?

You then wrote a follow up letter to TFL, which they have logged as "representations" received on the 22nd Jan 2024. Is that correct?

Please post up the text of what you sent? And when exactly did you send it?

What address did you post the original representations to? IE the reps that you sent on the 23/11/2023 and 29/11/2023. One letter gone missing in the post happens. But two a week apart is a bit hard to swallow.

And what do you mean by "The 14 day payment timescale only ran out on 15/4 ......"? Seems to me that the 14 day discount window expired at the end of November 2023. Did TFL reoffer the discount and if so When?
« Last Edit: April 17, 2024, 03:05:19 pm by Enceladus »

Little Nell

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ULEZ Charges
« Reply #18 on: April 18, 2024, 09:54:14 am »
For some reason it seems to take around 4 business days for me to receive PCNs and CCs from TfL.

The letter I wrote to TfL in January was dated 17th and so I imagine I had received both the CC's (dated 9th & 10th of Jan) by 16th then took a day to get everything together (copy letters etc). I wouldn't have hung about. I have attached the letter I sent (by signed for post). I will have posted it 1st class on 17th when I wrote it.

The original letters in November went to ULEZ, PO Box 553, Darlington, DL1 9TZ which I got off the back of the PCNs.

The CC's dated April state that if I don't pay within 14 days the debt will be registered at County Court. I wasn't referring to the original discount period.

I have checked on the TfL website this morning and the amounts are still showing as 270, not 279 yet. I will continue to check each day.

Little Nell

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ULEZ Charges
« Reply #19 on: April 18, 2024, 10:25:38 am »
TfL have never re-offered the discount

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
Re: ULEZ Charges
« Reply #20 on: April 21, 2024, 06:37:39 pm »
@Little Nell I hate to tell you but much of what has gone wrong is down to you trying to navigate a complex process without seeking advice from the very start. The first and most basic point is that representations should always be made online precisely to avoid the sort of mess you now find yourself in, as you can screenshot the confirmation page and then you have proof that TFL has actually received the representations (and it is unheard of for a representation made online to "go missing").

Anyway, do you have proof of postage for the letters you sent in November?

The problem you face is that even if you get to the tribunal via the TEC process, if the tribunal isn't satisfied that you made representations within the 28 day period (the burden of proof of which lies with you), the tribunal will simply hold that it does not have jurisdiction and it will issue a direction to pay. This will get the amount back from 270 to 180 per PCN, but your substantive appeal won't even be heard.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". 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 nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Little Nell

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ULEZ Charges
« Reply #21 on: April 22, 2024, 10:13:50 am »
@cp8759 Yes, I realise that now but I if I was ignorant about Ulez I was equally ignorant that a forum such as this existed. I only found the site as I searched for some help after becoming increasingly frustrated by the lack of any assistance from TfL. All I did was follow the steps on the reverse of the November PCNs and trusted the process - my biggest mistake. Non-one more than I wishes I had sent those original letters of appeal "signed for". I think I did have a look on-line but it didn't appear obvious what I needed to do hence the letters.

I don't have any proof the letters were sent, only screenshots of the word document properties that state they were created on 23/11 and 29/11. Why would I go to the trouble of creating the documents and not send them? It doesn't make any sense.

Having spoken to Yeovil court last week, I am not at all certain that they will be prepared to sign the SD's as I am not sure they will accept the screenshots as evidence that I sent the letters. I won't know until I actually rock up there but I was far from optimistic after I had spoken to the receptionist.

I failed to pay 2 x 12.50 (charges I would have willingly paid had I known they were due) and I am now faced with charges of 558. I think this is a disgrace. I have spoken to about 5 people I work with and not one of them knew what ULEZ was. There is a widespread lack of knowledge about ULEZ and the expansion of the charging zone in rural areas outside of London.

I check daily whether the charges has increased to 279 but today they are still showing as 270. My worry is that I will be out of the country from 6th to 13th May.

Many thanks for you help.


cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
Re: ULEZ Charges
« Reply #22 on: April 22, 2024, 10:21:42 am »
Having spoken to Yeovil court last week, I am not at all certain that they will be prepared to sign the SD's as I am not sure they will accept the screenshots as evidence that I sent the letters.
It doesn't work like that, Yeovil court just watches you sign the forms and they sign to say that they've watched you sign, they have no discretion about this.

You then have to send the forms to tec@justice.gov.uk and it's up to the traffic enforcement centre whether they accept them or not, however if the forms are filed in-time (i.e. with 21 days of the deemed date of service) then TEC doesn't have any discretion either and they must accept the forms, which means that the order for recovery and the charge certificate will be cancelled.

The case would then get referred to the tribunal, and it's the adjudicator who actually gets to decide what's what. It is therefore the adjudicator who gets to decide whether you made representations in time, so at that stage you would want screenshots, timestamps etc. At that point even if you lose, at least the penalty will have gone back down from 270 to 180.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". 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 nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Little Nell

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ULEZ Charges
« Reply #23 on: April 22, 2024, 10:34:52 am »
Thank you, that makes things a little clearer

roythebus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 86
  • Karma: +0/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Restoring old buses since 1969.
  • Location: Somewhere in South East England
    • View Profile
Re: ULEZ Charges
« Reply #24 on: April 22, 2024, 12:04:51 pm »
It's a shame this country has got to such a state where everything has to be recorded in some form or another. the financial stakes are high for both sides, especially with the swingeing penalties charged by TfL and other government bodies.

I wonder how many others will be caught by thier own ignorance of the ulez  when going to places like Heathrow or Chessington World of Adventures?
Bus driving since 1973. My advice, if you have a PSV licence, destroy it when you get to 65 or you'll be forever in demand.

Little Nell

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ULEZ Charges
« Reply #25 on: April 24, 2024, 08:19:47 am »
Status of PCNs checked again today - still showing as 270 and not 279

Little Nell

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ULEZ Charges
« Reply #26 on: April 29, 2024, 09:00:11 am »
@cp8759 I check the status of the PCNs daily to see if the 270 has increased to 279 but 270 is still showing for both of them this morning.

The 14 day payment period (the period of time given prior to the order for recovery being issued) expired on 15th April. Is it normal for such a delay for the order for recovery to be authorised? Apologies for this message if you don't know.

I'm conscious that I will be out of the country between 6th and 13th May although I will still have plenty of time within the 21 days to get over to the court in Yeovil on my return.

I'm just really anxious as this matter has been dragging o ow for over 5 months.

Thanks for all your help.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
Re: ULEZ Charges
« Reply #27 on: April 29, 2024, 09:10:56 am »
It can sometimes take weeks, all you can do is keep checking every 10 days or so.

Ultimately if nothing happens for 4+ months, that would give you grounds to challenge the penalty on the ground of undue delay once you get the matter in front of an adjudicator.

You can force the matter by making a formal complaint, but you don't want to do that any time soon because the longer the delay, the stronger any claim of undue delay becomes.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". 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 nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Little Nell

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 29
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: ULEZ Charges
« Reply #28 on: April 29, 2024, 09:31:16 am »
I will make a complaint at some point but as you say, now is not the time. I'll keep checking.

Many thanks

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
Re: ULEZ Charges
« Reply #29 on: April 29, 2024, 10:58:53 pm »
Let us know if you want to go down the complaint route, the wording has to be crafted in a very specific way.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". 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 nor a barrister.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order