Free Traffic Legal Advice

If only for my interest, can you pl, pl get back to the issue I raised.

All that's needed is dates:

For

PCN 1 issued *****;
PCN 2 issued *****;
CC 1 issued ******;
CC2 issued ******;
OfR 1 ******;
OfR2 issued *****

Redirection commenced 14 Jan for ****** weeks/months (the key point you've not mentioned).

Trying to square the above with:

The first we heard of enforcement action was when we received the Order for Recovery [for which OfR] from the TEC (via postal redirection), quite a long time after the event.

Many thanks mdann52 - some very useful comments there.


You're absolutely right. I hadn't noticed, but TfL only made representations to the court in relation to one of the two PCNs - the one for which the PE2 was rejected. I hadn't noticed that the response only had one PCN number on it. That almost certainly explains the situation.


A helpful comment about one PE2 judgement not setting a precedent for the other - thank you. It seems frustrating that TfL's opinion is enough to swing the verdict. You would think that, like with the Small Claims Court (at least as I understand it), the "little guy" is given the reasonable benefit of the doubt when dealing with a larger entity which does this day-in, day-out (and can afford legal professionals without batting an eyelid). The facts on both PE2s are still the same, and are presumably either valid grounds for appeal or not, so I'm not sure why TfL saying "not our problem if you misunderstand / make an innocent mistake on the form and don't get a replacement submitted in time because of two 9-day postal delays" has any influence on that. Whoever made the second judgement clearly accepted that we had done our best, however flawed that was. However, it is as it is, we're trying to be pragmatic, and I don't think we have much appetite to fight this as a matter of principle unless there's a high chance of success, so your feedback on that point is appreciated.


For the avoidance of doubt, the three 9+ day delays have all come since supplying our new address, so the redirection isn't in play there. I suspect that the TEC have sat on them like a chicken on an egg - both when sending and receiving them. Our post is normally very reliable, so I'm highly suspicious that the common denominator here is the efficiency of the TEC. Annoying, when TfL used "postal issues" being the defendant's problem as one of the reasons they feel the unsuccessful PE2 should be rejected (which it was, of course). Ironically, the only pieces of correspondence to arrive via redirection (the two OfRs) both arrived quite quickly, from memory!


It sounds like it would be pragmatic to be proactive with TfL, and contact them about next steps with the PCN with the upheld SD. Thank you again for all of your advice here.


cheers


James

Thanks for your reply.


You're right in that had a mistake not been made, the first attempt at the SDs may well have been successful, but we're all human and all make mistakes. If fair allowance is not given for a simple, honest mistake on an unfamiliar form, that seems deeply unfortunate. However, two identical PE2s had a different outcome, and (as mdann52 pointed out) the difference is that TfL failed to contest one of them. It also strikes me as unfair that TfL submitted two sides of A4 in response to our tiny boxes of writing on the PE2 and PE3 - had we known we could attach a separate sheet, we would have done so (and no doubt constructed a more compelling argument in the process!), but when there's no indication that you're allowed to do that, and you've just had two forms rejected for minor admin issues, I think we can be forgiven for thinking we had to stick to the rules!


The SD for the second OfR was submitted together with the first (and stamped as received by the TEC well within 21 days, despite a 9-day postal delay). Of course both initial SDs contained the same error (role of "verifier" not specified - both my other half and the solicitor missed that this was necessary). The second attempt was corrected, but she then ran into the issue she needed a PE2 for each PCN, but only submitted one to cover both.


However, I would argue that both errors could at least in part (to the point where the benefit of the doubt could be given) be explained by the process:

1) That the forms originally supplied (with a green-printed background) did not highlight in (unprinted) white, unlike everywhere else on the form, that the respondent had to complete the section regarding the role of the "verifier". Ironically, the plain black/white copy one can download is clearer in this regard.

2) That (for the second attempt) the TEC supplied two PE3s and one PE2, implying that one PE2 would do the job for both, when it would not.
...of course this argument might not get me far, and point 1 seems particularly difficult to argue in the cold light of day, but if two intelligent graduate professionals (my other half and the solicitor) could get it wrong, one might argue that the process is unclear and not fit for purpose!


Would a full breakdown of the timeline in list form be useful? I appreciate that it's all dotted around this thread in response to specific questions.


cheers


James

Apologies for the slow reply - a busy few days. Thanks again for your reply.


It seems deeply unfortunate that an innocent mistake can be so costly, but I accept that we're not going to change that, so it is as it is. It's a bonus that (hopefully) one of the two PCNs will ultimately be less costly than we expected. Is paying just £90 for that a likely outcome (assuming we get on with it once the new PCN arrives)?


Would it be sensible to be proactive in contacting TfL, or can we trust that they will issue a refund? I have no doubt that they will comply with the order of the court and cancel the OfR and CC and reissue the PCN, but us having jumped the gun and paid in full for both PCNs does complicate things a little.


cheers


James

Perfect, thank you!


cheers


James