Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: JustSayNonce on November 24, 2023, 02:14:49 pm

Title: Re: PCN CAZ - Sheffield. Thanks but no thanks.
Post by: cp8759 on December 15, 2023, 07:28:19 pm
They opened the link on 6 December, the same date as the NoR. They only did so for one of the PCNs, but as the same tribunal decisions was referenced they can reasonably say they only needed to download the decision once.

@JustSayNonce at this point you need to decide whether you want to appeal on the basis that the PCN cannot demand the CAZ charge on top of the penalty, or settle matters at the discounted rate. This argument is untested so it comes with an element of risk but if you want to carry on, I'm happy to represent you. Obviously if you carry on, the full amount will be at stake and we cannot give much of an indication about what the likely result might be, as we've not run this argument before in a case where the CAZ charge had not been paid at all.
Title: Re: PCN CAZ - Sheffield. Thanks but no thanks.
Post by: John U.K. on December 10, 2023, 01:35:15 pm
Quote
Yes I chose to use that representation, as per post 6.
[/i]

Did they click on the link? Or is CP checking this for you?

Title: Re: PCN CAZ - Sheffield. Thanks but no thanks.
Post by: JustSayNonce on December 10, 2023, 12:28:34 pm
Yes I chose to use that representation, as per post 6.

Also totally agree with you HC Andersen. This entire scheme and everything about it is a total farce.
I would like to provide someone there with such a breakdown of that dogs dinner, as well as remind them there is no clear tariff listing or even clear signage. I didn't know I was in a CAZ until I was leaving it.

and yes this Imgur album is all their correspondence to me.
Title: Re: PCN CAZ - Sheffield. Thanks but no thanks.
Post by: John U.K. on December 09, 2023, 06:30:01 pm
Did you send the representation as per post Reply#6?
Title: Re: PCN CAZ - Sheffield. Thanks but no thanks.
Post by: H C Andersen on December 09, 2023, 05:04:06 pm
Is what you posted, including the album, your rejection or is only page 1 yours and the rest taken from a different source?


Anyway, their fundamental problem, and it must be fundamental if your rejection is the same as others, is their inability to understand the distinction between:

The Road User charge, and
The Penalty Charge.

They are correct in that 12(1) says that both charges are recoverable under the scheme i.e. the penalty charge and the RUC. However, the penalty charge is a defined sum, in this case £120 and both the order and the enforcement regs make it clear that ONLY the penalty charge element may be recovered through the statutory scheme: there is no provision for recovering the RUC although it is still owed.

Therefore, strictly speaking the penalty charge does NOT exceed the prescribed amount, it is correct at £120. However, their PCN is trying to recover the 'Total' not just the penalty charge and procedurally this is unlawful IMO.

But just to be 100% certain, pl get onto their website and see what's being demanded. If you read the PCN closely you will notice that nowhere does it state that you must pay the RUC after the table of charges, it uses a vague term of 'the charge'. What a dog's breakfast. 


Even the NOR is pants! Just read it - see How to Pay, it's nonsense.

You owe £70, the discounted £60 and the £10 RUC. This is the only part which makes arithmetic sense.
But if you don't pay within the discount period then 'you can pay £130'. Morons.

This might not be a winning defence, but you should at least be able to make them jump through a few hoops armed with the above. 
Title: Re: PCN CAZ - Sheffield. Thanks but no thanks.
Post by: JustSayNonce on December 09, 2023, 02:00:39 pm
Honestly, it feels like I have more chance of becoming King of Sheffield than any Vote actually doing anything ...but that's a different topic entirely.

ok well I got issued with two of these.
(https://i.imgur.com/1hkzdeD.jpg)

You can see the further pages, they are identical other than the numbers/refs, in album here: https://imgur.com/a/ORrAeVa

I do not feel I have sufficiently wasted enough of their time for these absurd charges.
Am wondering what the next course of action would be now and how to delay this for as long as possible?
Title: Re: PCN CAZ - Sheffield. Thanks but no thanks.
Post by: cp8759 on November 27, 2023, 06:39:20 pm
Ok great..
And just to clarify , I will be appealing for these through the 'chatbox max' feature, on their website?

With regard to statutory grounds of representation boxes on the reverse, does this come under "the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable" or something else?
There should be an option to skip the chatbot, or tell it to go to hell until it lets you through to the appeal page. The statutory ground is that the amount demanded exceeds the amount due by law.

Whilst I appreciate the Freeman type stuff is a different route entirely, the point is that I cannot influence Sheffield councils local elections because I am not a resident of Sheffield.
The Freeman type stuff isn't a different route, it's a waste of time. It's not more meaningful than you turning up at the council offices and demand that they obey you because you've declared yourself the King of Sheffield. It definitely can't make things better, it could definitely make them worse, and could affect your chances going forwards. The FMOTL stuff most definitely is a fraud, there is absolutely no doubt about that.

You can influence elections in Sheffield: there will be people standing for election on an anti-CAZ platform and you can help them campaign, whether by donating, leafleting, canvassing or whatever else. It all boils down to how strongly you feel about it.
Title: Re: PCN CAZ - Sheffield. Thanks but no thanks.
Post by: slapdash on November 27, 2023, 02:13:56 am
https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/campaigns/clean-air-zone-sheffield/charging-scheme-order

The consolidated order can be found on the above page.

Although your vehicle was not manufactured to Euro 6 this does not mean it is definitely not complaint.

If it happens that its NoX level meets the level for the class of vehicle (table 2) then it does comply.

Finding NoX levels for anything that is not a passenger car isn't easy, but if you have the certificate of conformity it may be there. ISUZU customer services may be able to confirm it too.

It is not a high chance but there have been a few.
Title: Re: PCN CAZ - Sheffield. Thanks but no thanks.
Post by: JustSayNonce on November 26, 2023, 04:43:42 pm
Ok great..
And just to clarify , I will be appealing for these through the 'chatbox max' feature, on their website?

Code: [Select]
https://www.sheffield.gov.uk/parking/appeal-against-parking-bus-lane-caz-fine
With regard to statutory grounds of representation boxes on the reverse, does this come under "the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable" or something else?

I have received your PM too regarding this. Thank you, very appreciated, I will reply once I have submitted the appeal.

Whilst I appreciate the Freeman type stuff is a different route entirely, the point is that I cannot influence Sheffield councils local elections because I am not a resident of Sheffield. They are issuing a fine that doesn't exist within my council and I would still like to remind them that they need to advertise the pricing and have much more visible signage. It feels a lot like fraud, under its current implementation.

Thank you both for your insight.
Title: Re: PCN CAZ - Sheffield. Thanks but no thanks.
Post by: cp8759 on November 25, 2023, 06:03:06 pm
@JustSayNonce so there's a few things going on here. Firstly, there is a fundamentally important distinction between appealing the PCN, which is a legal question, and challenging the merits of the scheme, which is a political issue. The scheme has been put in place by the elected councillors who run Sheffield City Council, and as far as I can see at the 2023 Sheffield City Council election (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2023_Sheffield_City_Council_election) the vast majority of people didn't bother to go and vote, so they're obviously not too fussed about how the city is run.

You can of course engage in campaigning, start a petition and so on, but the only real recourse is to vote in different councillors at the next election. But even if you get the scheme scrapped, that doesn't affect your PCN, as the PCN is based on the law in force at the time.

Neither the tribunal nor any other legal process can deal with political matters, who the voters want to elect is a matter for the voters of Sheffield alone (we have had some forum members run for their local council themselves in the past, depending on how strongly you feel about this you could have a go yourself).

Putting all political issues to one side, we need to deal with the PCN and can only use the law to do so, and like everyone you have to take the law as you find it (disagreeing with the law is neither here nor there, if you think the CAZ should be scrapped, is a scam or is without merit, I can only repeat that that's something to bring up at the next local elections).

Saying that you'll pay the PCN on condition that the council prove X Y or Z is nonsense, the council doesn't have to prove anything at all to you (and bits of your opening post that mention contracts, corporations and the like have some alarming Freemen on the Land connotations, see https://www.ftla.uk/the-flame-pit/fotl-and-other-misguided-folk/ and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freeman_on_the_land_movement )

So putting all that pseudo-law in the bin, here's a draft for you to send:

Dear Sheffield City Council,

I challenge liability for this PCN on the ground that the penalty demanded on your notice exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case. The penalty charge notice is only permitted to demand payment of the penalty charge, there is no legal mechanism that allows the council to demand the toll charge in addition to the penalty charge on the PCN.

This is akin to a PCN for not paying in a pay and display bay: you can issue a PCN for £70 but the penalty charge notice cannot demand the unpaid pay and display fee on top of that. On this point, I refer you to the decision in Luke Moran v Secretary of State for Transport (IA01249-1803, 13 June 2018) available from LINK.

In this case the PCN may only demand £120, discounted to £60 for the first 14 days. The regulations do not allow the PCN to demand the additional £10 you are seeking, the amount demanded therefore exceeds the amount due by law.

It follows that the penalty charge must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,


I will PM you a link to put in the representation (one for each PCN), it will redirect to here (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=196wgUERzYDuZjwM9IEFYQwN0jD_jlcDD) but if you give them the link I'll PM you, we can use the click count to confirm whether they've looked at it or not (obviously do not click on that link yourself as we want the click count to remain at zero). If they don't click on it, we can then prove they've failed to consider all of the evidence. If they say in the rejection that they've considered all the evidence, we've got them for lying as well.

When making representations, do it online and get a screenshot of the confirmation screen.
Title: Re: PCN CAZ - Sheffield. Thanks but no thanks.
Post by: Incandescent on November 24, 2023, 07:35:18 pm
OK, you've had a good chew of the fat, fair enough, but the unfortunate thing is that it is all legal because Parliament has passed an Act to allow them to do it, so be careful who you vote for next time.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2000/38/contents
See Part III

Now have a read of these: -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1783/regulation/7/made
and the file I have attached.

The 2018 adjudication that I attached, deals with a road user charge PCN that demanded payment of the toll as well as the penalty charge. The details are not of concern except that the ajudicator pointed out that Regulation 7 of the RUC regulations does not give powers to request the toll as well as the penalty charge. Only the penalty charge is payable with Reg 7. If the council want to chase the unpaid toll, they must follow normal civil law enforcement procedures.
So you should submit representations on the lines that the PCN is a nullity in seeking payment of more than the penalty defined in law, (Regulation 7).
Birmingham City COuncil obviously instructed better lawyers, because PCNs under their CAZ scheme do not seek to obtain the unpaid toll, neither does Transport for London with their ULEZ PCNs. Think of a PCN issued for parking without payment. Do they ever include the unpaid parking charge ? Of course not, it is unlawful, just like it is unlawful to request the toll on a CAZ PCN.

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: PCN CAZ - Sheffield. Thanks but no thanks.
Post by: JustSayNonce on November 24, 2023, 07:18:38 pm
If you post up what you received it is possible there are some legitimate reasons for challenge.

You may also wish to check some of Bristol CAZ threads. The Sheffield ones may have the same issue of also demanding payment of the charge as well as the penalty.

Hello @slapdash, that is indeed correct. They are asking me for a total of 4 different charges.

Here are both the PCN's. I have included the reverse for just 1. They are basically the same, other than the barcode number.

1
(https://i.imgur.com/uOwA5SI.jpg)

2
(https://i.imgur.com/vm0Ud6k.jpg)

reverse
(https://i.imgur.com/LgHpcfK.jpg)

Thank you for the reply. I did have a quick look at some of the Bristol & Birmingham ones last night, after receiving the second PCN. I will be having another proper look and sit down, now that I've cooled off and decided to spend the time fighting these demons about their pathetic Clean Air hypocrisy.

Google Pins:
1
https://maps.app.goo.gl/efw78NNUZsevDr6c7

2
https://maps.app.goo.gl/usq6RzjhF8YwqRMW8

Any further advice or comments greatly appreciated.
Title: Re: PCN CAZ - Sheffield. Thanks but no thanks.
Post by: slapdash on November 24, 2023, 04:39:50 pm
If you post up what you received it is possible there are some legitimate reasons for challenge.

You may also wish to check some of Bristol CAZ threads. The Sheffield ones may have the same issue of also demanding payment of the charge as well as the penalty.

Title: Re: PCN CAZ - Sheffield. Thanks but no thanks.
Post by: JustSayNonce on November 24, 2023, 03:59:16 pm
I don't actually care what it's allegedly for. It's corporate-sponsored THEFT.
It's not doing it, especially not if I can still pay and drive through every day.

I know the latest attack is on Nitrogen. Which is about 78% of the atmosphere and another essential molecule to life on earth. Proven to have astounding interactions with Graphene Oxide btw. In case you're wondering why NOS is now illegal and Entonox being phased out into obscurity.

They need to start from the top down, in more ways than one.
Title: Re: PCN CAZ - Sheffield. Thanks but no thanks.
Post by: MrChips on November 24, 2023, 03:48:30 pm
Isn't the CAZ about reducing pollution rather than CO2 emissions?
Title: PCN CAZ - Sheffield. Thanks but no thanks.
Post by: JustSayNonce on November 24, 2023, 02:14:49 pm
Hi.
I was recently issued with two CAZ PCN's from a trip to Sheffield a few weeks ago.

Ok, I drove my 2.5 D-MAX through the centre because last time I went to Sheffield (not even a year ago) this stupid system was not in place. I have not been notified at all and frankly I thought you had so many days allowance? This is how I remember the idea being proposed in Oxford. For residents at least. I was never even aware this nonsense was coming to Sheffield.

I simply do not want to pay, as I feel this entire scheme is robbery and they know it. Especially at this time of year.
As someone vehemently opposed to any kind of 15 Minute City or Sustainable Development Goal inspired system I, at the very least, wish to waste as much of their time and resources as possible. So if I do have to pay, at least I will feel I got my monies worth.


Also they are not the highways agency, so are they even allowed to issue a Road Fine?
WE employ these corporations to administer and take care of the areas they represent. Not to gaslight us and pay them extorted fees for the privilege.


See.. I am even happy to pay the fine. ON THE CONDITIONS: that they can PROVE what effect MY D-MAX, with nearly 200k on the clock, is actually having on the Air Quality of Sheffield City Centre. Especially in comparison to the 75+ miles I drove to get there. I want Particulate Matter readings, from both days, to illustrate air quality on the days in question.

Then a working-out based on the emissions rating of my truck, to show the effect my truck is having. On Britain's already low 1% contribution to 'Climate Change'. That's 1% British Global contribution, of the 1% anthropogenic factor, of the 0.04% CO2 in our atmosphere? I make that a maximum of 0.000004% impact, assuming I am responsible for all of Britain's emissions? So divide that by... ~60,000,000?. These are laughably tiny numbers, I'm sure you all know. Especially when comparing this to things like Silver Iodide, Barium or Aluminium Whisker particles raining down from jet engines above. Which reacts to the many antennas, dishes and electrical signals to cause all kinds of weather / air quality issues.

AND THE OTHER CONDITION that they can physically demonstrate to me that my money will be used to PLANT TREES or PLANTS that will provably offset any alleged emission. I don't see how extorting a base-rate and scaring people with bailiff threats is helping anything. I DEMAND proof that it is used for what they promise.

I'm at work right now so will upload my case documents when I am home.
Thanks for reading all this and any help appreciated!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fw3fMLSw-Rk