Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: flatski on February 03, 2024, 01:19:31 pm

Title: Re: Bristol CAZ - code 17J using a vehicle within clean air zone, A370 Brunel Way (CAZ0047)
Post by: Tired on October 22, 2024, 01:17:55 pm
Hello flatski, could you please let me know if you had success with this?
And could someone please send me the link?
Title: Re: Bristol CAZ - code 17J using a vehicle within clean air zone, A370 Brunel Way (CAZ0047)
Post by: cp8759 on February 04, 2024, 06:25:36 pm
I have pm'ed you the link to put in the second representation, all you need to do is update the PCN number and the link and that's ready to be sent.

At risk of stating the obvious, make representations via the council website and get screenshots of the confirmation page for each PCN.
Title: Re: Bristol CAZ - code 17J using a vehicle within clean air zone, A370 Brunel Way (CAZ0047)
Post by: flatski on February 04, 2024, 05:35:49 pm
Thank you so much for your responses and guidance. Amazing.

I will respond to your DM with the other PCN.

Thanks!
Title: Re: Bristol CAZ - code 17J using a vehicle within clean air zone, A370 Brunel Way (CAZ0047)
Post by: Incandescent on February 04, 2024, 01:28:57 am
Birmingham CAZ management obviously have better lawyers because they do not request an unpaid CAZ toll on their PCNs. Their Order establishing the CAZ clearly says that the PCN is in lieu of the CAZ charge. Yet their PCN is the same penalty as Bristol's.
Title: Re: Bristol CAZ - code 17J using a vehicle within clean air zone, A370 Brunel Way (CAZ0047)
Post by: cp8759 on February 04, 2024, 01:19:50 am
As Incandescent says, the decision in Luke Moran v Secretary of State for Transport (IA01249-1803, 13 June 2018) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/196wgUERzYDuZjwM9IEFYQwN0jD_jlcDD) is still good law.

Here is a draft for you:

Dear Bristol City Council,

I challenge liability for PCN BS58355171 on the basis that the contravention did not occur, and the penalty demanded 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 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 £9 you are seeking, the amount demanded on the face of the notice 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 (to replace the word LINK in red above), it will redirect to here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/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 the link I PM you 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 fully consider the representations. If they say in the rejection that they've fully considered the representations, we've got them for lying as well.

You don't want to use the same link for both PCNs, so if you give me the other PCN number I'll set up a separate link for it.
Title: Re: Bristol CAZ - code 17J using a vehicle within clean air zone, A370 Brunel Way (CAZ0047)
Post by: Incandescent on February 03, 2024, 07:40:01 pm
A TPT adjudication in 2018 by the CHief Adjudicator, Caroline Sheppard, no less, ruled that requesting payment of the CAZ toll as well as the penalty charge is unlawful, there being no powers in Regulation 7 of the relevant regulations governing enforcement of CAZs.

Here is Regulation 7, which defines the content of a Road User Charging scheme PCN : -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1783/regulation/7/made

I have also attached a .pdf of the adjudication. The relevant sentence of the adjudication reads : -
Quote
"There is no power in Regulation 7 for the PCN to require the road user charge to be paid in
addition to the penalty charge. Nor is there a power for the charging authority to refuse to
allocate a payment made for a crossing to that crossing, and hold it, possibly indefinitely, for
future use."

By not following the regulations, they have committed a procedural impropriety which is one of the statutory grounds for cancellation of A pcn

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Bristol CAZ - code 17J using a vehicle within clean air zone, A370 Brunel Way (CAZ0047)
Post by: flatski on February 03, 2024, 01:19:31 pm
I'm not from Bristol and had no idea there was a Clean Air Zone. I've received two PCNs in the space of a week, one for on the way to Bristol airport, the other for the return journey.

Honestly I'd be happy to pay one of them; I've been stung by London ULEZ before without knowledge (I guess I should learn) and took that on the chin. But to receive two PCNs in the space of five days is a bit much given I was unaware there even was a CAZ in Bristol.

Anyway I've read in other threads (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/bristol-clean-air-zone-pcn-17j-a4-ring-road-hotwell-road-(caz0001)-(route-to-bri/msg974/#msg974) that charging for both the daily charge and the penalty is unlawful, so my question is: am I able to contest my double PCN on these grounds?

I've uploaded the first PCN here: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1YkRYvmsYPR4BKa57gXjlzYflnJ2vt6zO?usp=drive_link

The second one is exactly the same, just different dates.

Thanks for any help.