Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: foybles on May 22, 2024, 11:05:21 am

Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: foybles on August 07, 2024, 10:12:37 am
Hi all,

Thanks for taking the time on this matter. I thought I would wait a moment to hear a few opinions. Everyone has interesting & I believe valid points. I’m just a little confused on how to proceed. Whether to just leave it to the process & continue without comment or if I make further argument, which stance to take. What I am clear about though is that it doesn’t seem like anyone feels Bristol Council have a compelling enough case in order for me to withdraw.

Thanks for any advice.
K
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: H C Andersen on August 06, 2024, 06:04:29 pm
They aren't claiming that the CAZ is being demanded in the PCN and within their enforcement process, they are saying that its inclusion is merely bringing to the owner's attention that it is owing, and it is.

My suggestion is that this can be rebutted by reference to the actual wording of  notices which IMO are more than simply information for the owner. I gave one example but there are others, quite glaring.
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: Incandescent on August 06, 2024, 05:41:06 pm
For me, the Caroline Sheppard adjudication of 2018 is compelling; there are no powers in the road user charging regulations to demand payment of the road user charge in the PCN. This is akin to a council putting in a car park charge into a parking PCN. Parking PCNs have been around since 1991, but no council anywhere has yet had the temerity to add the parking charge to the PCN. If a PCN recipient just pays the penalty charge, what are Bristol going to do ? Send out a charge certificate ? Then register the debt at TEC. They have no powers to do this. The road user charge is just a debt and outwith the PCN enforcement process.  Of course their Order may say that the charge is payable even if a PC penalty is paid, but they only have normal debt recovery procedures outside the PCN process to recover it.
Birmingham have obviously read the regulations more carefully, and their Order specifically states that payment of a PCN discharges liability for the road user charge.
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: H C Andersen on August 06, 2024, 04:20:16 pm
As I have suggested in other threads, this council is seeking to differentiate the penalty from the CAZ charge and absent any context the statement in their Case Summary is IMO a correct statement of the law.

But this is NOT what they have been demanding through the enforcement process!

Dear Sir,
PCN ***********

I refer to the above, my representations, the council's Notice of Rejection and Case Summary.

In my representations I stated the following:
******** (your claim that the PCN was demanding payment of the CAZ as if it were a penalty, contrary to the ***Regs and Bristol** Charging Order). However, this point was not addressed in the NOR, despite it running to more than 5 pages. If I may, I refer you to their Case Summary which over more than a page of A4 gives the authority's detailed reasons for disputing my claim that inclusion of the CAZ in the PCN in the chosen manner was a procedural impropriety. Given that the authority now appears to have detailed and lengthy reasoning I ask the adjudicator to find that failure to make any, let alone detailed, reference to this in the NOR is a procedural impropriety in itself. Were I to understand and agree with this argument, then I would more than likely have not registered an appeal thus reducing the burden upon the Tribunal.

But I do not agree with the council's argument for the following reasons.

If I may summarise their position, it is that neither the prevailing Regulations nor the Charging Order prevent them from including within their notices and correspondence information to the effect that the CAZ is owing in addition to the penalty. In this respect, I would ask the adjudicator to compare and contrast this with the following, each of which is a referenced extract from either a notice or letter:

1. Notice of Rejection, page 2, 'What are my options now'..'Alternatively you can'

'Pay the penalty charge of £120 as well as the daily charge of £9..within 28 days after the date of service...

..If you do not make any of the above payment options we may serve a charge certificate on you which would increase the penalty charge ..to £180.

Which I submit can only mean that if I did not wish to pay the CAZ charge within 28 days (which I submit is an arbitrary deadline as regards the CAZ) as well as the penalty then on this point alone the authority believes that it has the lawful authority to issue a Charge Certificate. I would suggest that this is hardly just informing the owner that the CAZ is owing.


..and there are others, just look through their notices and correspondence.

Just my views.
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: foybles on August 06, 2024, 02:53:26 pm
I’ve had a response from Bristol City Council through the tribunal. Pasted below.

Authority Summary:
After reviewing the PCN’s, Bristol City Council has concluded Mr Kevin Foy’s non-compliant vehicle was observed within the Bristol Clean Air Zone without payment of the required tariff for the dates of travel, therefore their PCN was issued correctly.
The appellant argues that the inclusion of the Clean Air Zone (CAZ) charge in the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) is unlawful based on the interpretation of The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013. However, the regulations do not explicitly preclude the council from referencing the CAZ charge in the PCN.
Regulation 7 of The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 specifies the content requirements for a PCN, but it does not limit the council from providing additional information pertinent to the road user. Including information about the CAZ charge aids transparency and helps ensure the recipient is fully aware of all liabilities resulting from their contravention.
The appellant's contention that the CAZ charge and the penalty are separate debts is acknowledged; however, the inclusion of information about both charges in the same document does not amount to a procedural impropriety. In evidence number 20, The council have attached Part 2 section 4 of The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 which explicitly states that “the charging scheme is to specify whether a penalty charge… is payable in addition to the Road user charge or instead of such charge”. In Evidence number 12 the council have provided a screenshot of the Bristol Clean Air Zone Charging Order 2022 Penalty charge for non-payment of charge, section 11 (1) which states “A penalty charge will be payable, in addition to the charge imposed under article 7”. The separation of debt simply serves as a comprehensive notification to the road user. The PCN still distinguishes between the penalty charge and the CAZ charge, clearly indicating what amount is due under what category.
The appellant cites a previous decision by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (Case Number IA01249-1803) as a precedent. However, tribunal decisions are case-specific and may not be directly applicable to the current circumstances. The factual matrix, local regulations, and specific wording of the PCN in the current case may significantly differ, and thus, the previous decision should not be considered determinative.
Bristol City Council has acted in good faith by providing comprehensive information regarding all charges associated with the contravention. This approach is consistent with ensuring that road users are well-informed, thus fostering compliance and understanding of the regulatory framework.
The appellant's claim of procedural impropriety is unsubstantiated. Bristol City Council's inclusion of the CAZ charge information in the PCN does not violate The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013. Instead, it serves the purpose of transparency and clarity for road users. Therefore, I urge the tribunal to uphold the validity of PCN BS59751797 and PCN BS59761746 and dismiss the appellant's claim.
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: foybles on August 04, 2024, 06:46:56 pm
Perfect. Thank you. I'll be sure to keep you all updated.
K
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: slapdash on August 04, 2024, 06:44:53 pm
With the tribunal opt for a personal (phone) hearing. This ensures you can add any needed clarity for the adjudicator.

Keep an eye on the portal once submitted And the date is known so you can change date if needed and also see if the council submits any evidence. If not you win.

If they do you can arm yourself to know how to challenge their case.
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: foybles on August 04, 2024, 01:28:18 pm
Wow that's amazing. It's kind of what I've written out but a lot more articulate with a little more info.

Thank you so much. I have taken screenshots of the online payment portal only offering the combined PCN & CAZ amount of £69 & will start the Traffic Penalty Tribunal process now.

I think once I'm at the end of this process a donation to keep this website going will be in order. I'll keep you all updated.

Again, thanks so much.
K
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: Incandescent on August 04, 2024, 01:21:42 pm

Dear Sirs

Re postal PCN BS59751797 dated <date> served to me on 20/05/24

I deny liability for the above PCN penalty on the grounds of procedural impropriety by the council

The PCN states that the amount due is £69, which will increase after 14 days. As I understand the letter, this PCN is therefore a combination of a £60 penalty charge plus an additional £9 daily CAZ charge.

The letter goes on to further state that Bristol council charging authority believes that a penalty charge of £120.00 is payable (reduced to £60.00 if paid within 14 days after the 'Date of Service) plus the £9 CAZ daily charge for the contravention.

The relevant regulations governing Penalty Charge Notices within a road user charging scheme are The Road User Charging Scheme (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013. In the explanatory text, the regulations state: -

"These Regulations make provision for the civil enforcement of a penalty charge imposed in respect of a motor vehicle by a road user charging scheme made under Part 3 of the Transport Act 2000 (c.38)."

That is the sole purpose of the regulations, and it is clear from reading them, that inclusion of the CAZ charge within a PCN issued under these regulations is unlawful. I refer you to Regulation 7 which defines the content of a road user charge PCN. The CAZ charge, if unpaid is a totally separate debt to the penalty demanded in the PCN, therefore its inclusion in your PCN is a prcedural impropriety.

I therefore demand that the PCN above is cancelled forthwith, and that Bristol City Council cease enforce the CAZ until their PCNs are altered so that the CAZ charge is omitted, and only the penalty charge is demanded.

YOurs faithfully
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: slapdash on August 04, 2024, 12:37:03 pm
It is arguably not combined because it is itemised separately.

Part of the charging order for Bristol (easily downloadable) states (I think it's 19 but can recall off the top of my head) that a licence may only be purchased on day of travel +/- 6 days.

That gives them no ability to demand it now.

(It does not sit well with the the other regulation to allow penalty charge and Caz on top).

Incandescent and/or HCAnderson have posted the relevant part of the overarching regulations which determine the argued contents of a PCN. You should be specific and include the specific regulations wording.

One other thing that might help bolster your case is to go through the motions of paying and see if there is any way that it will allow you (keep screenshots) to pay just the £60 discounted penalty. (I can see an argument attempted that they are merely demanding £60 and asking you nicely to pay the £9, screenshots could put paid to that).

Do remember that the discounted penalty will need to be available should you lose.

There may be other CAZ appeals on here you can search for to explore the exact parts of regulations.

So far, Bristol have quietly let these fall away rather than continue, but there is no guarantee.

I couldn't read the NoR properly (my problem) but it doesn't seem to cover the additional Caz charge being added.

In my view that is a "failure to consider" in addition to "penalty exceeds".

Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: foybles on August 04, 2024, 11:09:17 am
OK, how does this first draft look like?

--------
The PCN BS59751797 issued to me on 20/05/24 states that the amount due is £69, which will increase after 14 days. As I understand the letter, this PCN is therefore a combination of a £60 penalty charge plus an additional £9 daily CAZ charge.

The letter goes on to further state that Bristol council charging authority believes that a penalty charge of £120.00 is pavable (reduced to £60.00 if paid within 14 days after the 'Date of Service) plus the £9 CAZ daily charge for the contravention.

According to The Road User Charging Scheme (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013, the CAZ road user charge should not be combined with the penalty charge. This discrepancy suggests procedural impropriety on the part of the Bristol charging authority and that the PCN may be invalid as it is not lawful to impose both the penalty and the daily charge in this manner.
-------

Any further advice on additions or changes warmly welcomed.
K

Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: Incandescent on August 04, 2024, 10:07:35 am
Basically, until a case like yours gets to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, and the 2018 case is confirmed as the law, they and the other CAZ councils will just carry on collecting the money. They have re-offered the discount and know from experience that most people then just cough-up. Even the DART PCNs, the original subject of the 2018 case still have the DART charge added on to the PCN.

It is a real scam, but there seems to be no easy process to get these councils to obey the law.
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: foybles on August 04, 2024, 09:52:00 am
Apologies, link to all sides of the 1st rejection letter below.

https://imgur.com/a/k6qyOSX

I would like to fight this if possible.

The signage is poor but obviously is within the law. The fact I live hours away in a village & was ignorant of the CAZ doesn't hold water. But adding the 2 charges of PCN & CAZ charge together seems to be unlawful which is why I guess they've chosen to completely ignore that challenge.

Any further advice very welcome & appreciated.


 
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: H C Andersen on August 04, 2024, 08:35:47 am
That's only part of the letter, we need to see it all to know what options you have and their timings.

Options, dates and time periods.
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: foybles on August 04, 2024, 08:16:43 am
Thank you all for the advice so far. Here's a link to imgur where you should be able to see one of two rejection letters received, the 1st for entering Bristol the 2nd for leaving. You'll see that they haven't bothered to address my challenge at all.

Rejection Letter:
https://imgur.com/a/k6qyOSX


My Challenge:
"Each PCN issued to us includes a £60 penalty charge plus the additional £9 daily CAZ charge. According to The Road User Charging Scheme (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013, the road user charge should not be combined with the penalty charge. This discrepancy suggests that the PCNs may be invalid, as it is not lawful to impose both the penalty and the daily charge in this manner."
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: Incandescent on August 03, 2024, 07:18:17 pm
Bristol City Council know full well that their PCNs are unlawful, but also know that most people cough-up if the discount is re-offered. They have not let any case get to adjudication yet, as far as is known. What they do normally is just let the matter rest until it times out and the reps are accepted by default. Yes, the lose the penalty money but can put up with that when over 95% of people just pay.
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: slapdash on August 03, 2024, 06:18:12 pm
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/portsmouth-caz-entry-pcn-for-non-payment-in-time/

May be worth reviewing.

You can easily post their rejection in Google drive or similar.

If the discount is not reoffered then it is another brainer to take them to tribunal.

Otherwise it's decision time on pay lower or risk full.

If you do want tribunal then craft some representations based upon how the charging order is constructed and how the regulations are constructed and that the addition of the charge means penalty exceeds. They have yet to let a case get to tribunal the issue that is known about.

Detail the Moran case too. You are trying to lead the adjudicator step by step.

Put your reps up as a draft for comment.

@cp8759  may be interested in getting this issue before tribunal.


Title: Re: Council ignored CAZ PCN challenging point. Challenge rejected on other grounds.
Post by: foybles on August 03, 2024, 04:15:47 pm
Thanks. Yes it’s a continuation of the thread. I thought I could upload by started a new thread. I could upload documents before. I’ve tried small file sizes & different foc types. I will ask to merge.
Title: Re: Council ignored CAZ PCN challenging point. Challenge rejected on other grounds.
Post by: John U.K. on August 03, 2024, 03:14:02 pm
Is this a continuation of your existing thread?
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/clean-air-zone-pcn's-code-17j-a4-bath-road-bristol-city-council/msg23496/#msg23496

If so ask a mod to merge.

You really must try to post the docs. Read the read me first guide (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/), try using Imgur or ibb.co.uk and posting the BBCodes here.
Title: Re: Council ignored CAZ PCN challenging point. Challenge rejected on other grounds.
Post by: ManxTom on August 03, 2024, 02:59:47 pm
Quote from: foybles on August 03, 2024, 02:54:32 pm
Thank you.

I’m not able to upload a copy of the letter as I received an error message saying “upload folder full” hence the extract. I’ve tried many times to upload without success...

Did you read the instructions here before posting?  https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/

(There's a clue in the thread title...)
Title: Re: Council ignored CAZ PCN challenging point. Challenge rejected on other grounds.
Post by: foybles on August 03, 2024, 02:54:32 pm
Thank you.

I’m not able to upload a copy of the letter as I received an error message saying “upload folder full” hence the extract. I’ve tried many times to upload without success.

The “us” referred to myself & my passenger, I am the registered private keeper. I received 2 notices, going into Bristol & out the following day.

I just feel it’s wrong to entirely ignore my challenge on one of the points I made & feel for that reason more motivated to fight. The PCN of £60 & CAZ charge of £9 are shown as £69 plus itemised separately on the same demanded letter.
Title: Re: Council ignored CAZ PCN challenging point. Challenge rejected on other grounds.
Post by: H C Andersen on August 03, 2024, 02:00:56 pm
Pl post the exact notices and correspondence, not extracts. And leave in dates but redact personal info.


Also, who is 'us'?

Are you, a private individual, the registered keeper or is it a company or perhaps hired or..?

The options on receipt of a Notice of Rejection are fight or flight AKA pay or appeal. Continuing a dialogue with the authority is not an option.

As regards the law, IMO this is clear.

May the council recover the CAZ 'charge' from the keeper? Yes.

May they recover it using the 'penalty charge' procedure? No. What constitutes the 'penalty charge' is specified clearly in their order and it does not include the CAZ 'charge'.
Title: Council ignored CAZ PCN challenging point. Challenge rejected on other grounds.
Post by: foybles on August 03, 2024, 01:34:08 pm
My PCN challenge has been rejected. I've copied the rejection points from the letter here:

- The CAZ is in operation 24 hours a day 7 days a week.

- The CAZ is clearly signed on entrance and exit of the zone (please see below photographs
of example signage).

- All signage complies with current legislation and has been approved by the Department for
Transport.


Except from my challenged copied below for reference.

Incorrect Penalty Charges:
  Each PCN issued to us includes a £60 penalty charge plus the additional £9 daily CAZ charge. According to The Road User Charging Scheme (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013, the road user charge should not be combined with the penalty charge. This discrepancy suggests that the PCNs may be invalid, as it is not lawful to impose both the penalty and the daily charge in this manner."


It seems as although I have challenged Bristol council on the legality to impose both PCN & CAZ, they have completely ignored this challenge. Should I accept my challenge being ignored & pay the 2x PCN's plus the 2x CAZ charges or persist with getting Bristol council to acknowledge my challenge.

Any advice would be very welcome.
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: foybles on August 03, 2024, 08:20:17 am
Hello again,

My PCN challenge has been rejected. I tried attaching a photo of the rejection letter but received an error message on the forum website "upload folder full" so I've copied the rejection points from the letter here:

- The CAZ is in operation 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
- The CAZ is clearly signed on entrance and exit of the zone (please see below photographs
of example signage).
- All signage complies with current legislation and has been approved by the Department for
Transport.

Bristol council has not responded on my challenge on the legality of the PCN penalty/CAZ fee combination. Except from my challenged copied below for reference.

"3. Incorrect Penalty Charges:
  Each PCN issued to us includes a £60 penalty charge plus the additional £9 daily CAZ charge. According to The Road User Charging Scheme (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013, the road user charge should not be combined with the penalty charge. This discrepancy suggests that the PCNs may be invalid, as it is not lawful to impose both the penalty and the daily charge in this manner."

It feels like although I have challenged Bristol council on the legality to impose both PCN & CAZ, they have completely ignored this challenge. Should I accept my challenge being ignored & pay the 2x PCN's plus the 2x CAZ charges or persist with getting Bristol council to acknowledge my challenge.

Any advice would be very welcome.

Thanks
Kevin
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: cp8759 on May 27, 2024, 05:12:52 pm
Yes I did!
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: mdann52 on May 27, 2024, 05:07:44 pm
I believe you meant to tag @foybles, not myself!
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: cp8759 on May 27, 2024, 04:45:06 pm
@mdann52 I would drop points 1 and 2, as they're unnecessarily self-incriminating (and you don't want to make the council's case for them) and the comparison to London is incorrect. I would go with something much simpler and to the point:

Dear Bristol City Council,

I challenge liability on the ground that no road user charge or penalty charge is payable under the charging scheme. In any event the penalty demanded on the face of the notice exceeds the amount due by law, this is because regulation 7(3)(f) does not allow the council to demand any amount over and above the penalty charge.

It follows that the penalty must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,


Send this online and keep a screenshot of the confirmation page.
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: mdann52 on May 22, 2024, 04:46:43 pm
Quote from: foybles on May 22, 2024, 04:24:18 pm
Furthermore, there was no preceding notification sign to alert us of the upcoming CAZ.

Be careful with this point - expect the council to point out the advanced warning signs here (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4413963,-2.5765715,3a,75y,309.28h,77.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svvmbx_UaiucxE0GO2VoWXg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) or here (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4397661,-2.5734034,3a,26.2y,302.13h,89.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq9VYk7U8VVQPoIbLpKQNTQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) if you approached from the A37, or here (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4409615,-2.5803272,3a,60y,48.79h,81.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siTl3lyfskZFg3sgpC4rfJg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu) if you approached from St Johns Lane.

Quote from: foybles on May 22, 2024, 04:24:18 pm
In London, first-time offenders who are unfamiliar with the CAZ are typically given a warning rather than an immediate penalty.

TfL stopped doing this a long while back. The CAZ has been in place for over 18 months now and, from memory, they did issue warnings for the first few months

Other than that (putting my disagreements about the "amount exceeded point aside, which others will tell me I'm wrong about!), I think this looks ok
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: mdann52 on May 22, 2024, 04:33:41 pm
I'm aware of the DART case, but my reading of that adjudication decision, and the differentiating factor here, is that because the charge was paid, trying to charge him twice was unlawful. Also, DART used to include the amount as one charge, rather than the PCN and road charge amounts.

I'm not convinced the case assists here as much, but I'm happy to be an outlier on this point though!

From memory Bristol changed their documents a while back to show the PCN amount and outstanding payment separately, rather than as a combined total, which might satisfy 7(3)(f), as it does now list the penalty charge due. I can't see anything in those regs that also stops them listing the CAZ charge that is due separately. I can see why they are unwilling to go in front of of the TPT though!
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: foybles on May 22, 2024, 04:24:18 pm
APPEAL - FIRST DRAFT

Appeal Against PCN Charges - Reference [PCN Number]

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally appeal against the two Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued to me, reference numbers [PCN Number 1] and [PCN Number 2], for allegedly failing to comply with Bristol's Clean Air Zone (CAZ) requirements. I believe these charges are unfair and request that they be cancelled for the following reasons:

1. Unclear Signage and Lack of Awareness:
   As residents of a village in another county, my partner and I were completely unaware of Bristol's recently introduced CAZ and its requirements. The CAZ signage upon entry to the zone was not sufficiently clear or prominent. Specifically, the CAZ sign was difficult to see, being placed on the far side of a bus lane and amidst other road signs, making it virtually impossible to notice in time to avoid entering the zone. Furthermore, there was no preceding notification sign to alert us of the upcoming CAZ. Due to our lack of familiarity with the area and insufficient visibility of the Clean Air Zone signage, we unintentionally entered the zone and remained parked until our departure the following day without paying the daily charge. We were only made aware of the charges upon receiving the PCNs, which we believe is not in line with fair and transparent enforcement practices.

   I have reviewed the signage layout using Google Maps (link provided for reference: [Google Maps Link](https://maps.app.goo.gl/NuAwJ4qSNm1ed19L7)), and it supports my claim that the sign does not stand out and is not easily visible to drivers unfamiliar with the area. This lack of clear signage contravenes the requirements for adequate warning and notification under the Transport Act 2000 and the Bristol Clean Air Zone Charging Order 2022.

2. First-Time Offence and Comparison to London:
   This was our first visit to Bristol and our first incident involving the CAZ. Had we been aware of the CAZ, we would have willingly paid the daily charge of £9. In London, first-time offenders who are unfamiliar with the CAZ are typically given a warning rather than an immediate penalty. I believe Bristol should adopt a similar approach, especially considering that non-residents may not be aware of the newly implemented CAZ.

3. Incorrect Penalty Charges:
   Each PCN issued to us includes a £60 penalty charge plus the additional £9 daily CAZ charge. According to The Road User Charging Scheme (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013, the road user charge should not be combined with the penalty charge. This discrepancy suggests that the PCNs may be invalid, as it is not lawful to impose both the penalty and the daily charge in this manner.

In light of these points, I respectfully request the cancellation of the PCNs issued. I trust that the council will consider the fairness and legality of the situation, taking into account the unclear signage, our lack of prior knowledge as non-residents, and the improper combination of charges.

Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to your positive response.

Yours faithfully,

--------
Thank you all your help on this matter so far. Any feedback of the appeal letter would be greatly appreciated.

I've tried uploading the other sides of the PCN again. Hopefully you can see them now. The premium rate phone number has been changed.

Thanks
Kevin

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: John U.K. on May 22, 2024, 04:10:02 pm
Have a thorough read of this thread

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/bradford-caz-pcn-any-grounds-for-appeal/msg19504/#msg19504

where the arguments about the lawfulness of demanding the unpaid fee within a penalty charge notice are well-rehearsed. In a nutshell, the order permits the Council to demand the fee, but the contents of a PCN are tightly regulated by
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1783/regulation/7/made and it does not allow an unpaid fee to be included.

See   https://www.ftla.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1642.0;attach=6982

In addition on that thread Slapdash poiints out
Quote
It is perhaps somewhat odd that the regulations allow for the charge to be payable (*) in addition to the penalty yet the mechanism of issuing a penalty does not allow it to be demanded as part of the penalty.

Birmingham and TFL may have produced their charging orders - which do not include the toll - having undertaken a more thorough review of what they were implementing with respect to the overarching regulations.

(*) There is a potential issue with that. The bristol order only allows the toll to be paid x days before or y days after.  -Bristol Order, Article 9(4)

We are not aware of cases with Bristol reaching the Tribunal as Bristol  DNCed (did not contest) at the last minute, though they have now changed the payment 'phone numberon their PCNs.

-------------------------
Quote
Other side of the PCN uploaded.

I cannot see the remaining sides of the PCN???





Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: mdann52 on May 22, 2024, 12:27:42 pm
Out of interest, where has this "the council cannot recover the Clean Air charge" come from?

From my reading, Reg 4(4) (https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1783/regulation/4/made) allows the Charging Order to decide if the cost for the road user charge is added to the PCN.

The Bristol Charging Order (https://www.cleanairforbristol.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022-08-25-FINAL-CAZ-Charging-Order.pdf) 11(1) allows them to charge the Road User Charge when a penalty is issued.

I may have missed the argument elsewhere, but on the surface it does appear the legislation allows this. Yes the legislation is badly written, but I can't see where it doesn't allow this to happen
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: Incandescent on May 22, 2024, 12:26:26 pm
The reason 99% of all PCNs are just paid on receipt means councils now just consider them to be a wonderful source of money, nothing else. This has been so since decriminalised parking enforcement was introduced in 1991. The attitude of far too many people seems to be "pay it to make it go away", combined with a naive belief that councils operate fairly and in accordance with the law they are enforcing. Nothing could be further from the truth !

However, all we can do is point things out and give advice if a PCN recipient wants to know how to submit representations and what the law requires the council to do. The basic principle of PCNs was set out many years ago by a High Court judge. This basically is that councils are given penal powers to demand payment if a set of statutory conditions for that request, (the PCN), are complied with. If they are not, (even just one of them),  then no liability for the penalty exists.

My advice is to submit representations on the two PCNs based on what you consider is the very poor signing, and also point out you are total strangers to Bristol, and consider that the council should issue warnings to people living remotely from Bristol, instead of just issuing a PCN, for a first time contravention.
In addition, you should point out you showed the PCN to somebody knowledgeable on CAZs, who advised you to read the regulations controlling enforcement of their CAZ. On reading these regulations, it  seems there are no powers within the regulation for PCN content that allows them to require payment of the CAZ charge in addition to the PCN penalty.

Post-up their response when you get it.  If you want, post up a draft of your reps here for review.

PS: The relevant regulations are printed at the top of the PCNs.
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: foybles on May 22, 2024, 11:49:21 am
Thanks for your response John & Incandescent.

Other side of the PCN uploaded.

It's no doubt easier just to pay the 2 PCN's rather than have go through all this, take so much time up with the likely hood of the appeal being turned down but I really do feel sharply the injustice of Bristol City Council administering this CAZ in this manner.

A warning letter should be sent out as is done in London. I received a warning letter in London, I now know the new regulations & will not contravene.

I did read the points being made that the daily charge shouldn't be added to the PCN charge but I wasn't clear on how to appeal on these grounds & wether this discharged the obligation to pay both charges. Shall I appeal on the charges being wrongly applied rather than poor signage & potential bus lane obstruction?

Many thanks
Kevin

Google maps
https://maps.app.goo.gl/NuAwJ4qSNm1ed19L7

[attachment deleted by admin]
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: Incandescent on May 22, 2024, 11:29:38 am
foybles, there are one or two CAZ cases currently running on this forum, so have a look at them first.

The problem we have on this forum is that the statutory register of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal is not open to on-line access by the public unlike that of London Tribunals.  The 2018 case was discovered almost by accident, but it was quite clear that the regulations for road user charging schemes do not allow the road user charge to be added to the PCN.  The Birmingham CAZ Order is quite clear that payment of their PCN penalty discharges the obligation to pay the charge as well. Clearly the Birmingham lawyers have actually read the regulations !

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1783/contents/made

Regulation 7 defines the content of a road user charge scheme PCN.

What they are doing is fairly outrageous (nothing strange there in this benighted UK of ours). No council in the land chases up unpaid parking charges, the PCN discharges that obligation. The RUC regs are badly written.
Title: Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: John U.K. on May 22, 2024, 11:19:19 am
Please have a read of
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/

and post up the remaining sides of one of the PCNs (Bristol have had 'form' in the past with their 'small print').

I note they are still asking for the CAZ charge in addition to the penalty charge.

I'm sure Incandescent will be along soon with some pertinent advice - Bristol has shown a marked reluctance in the past to test appeals at adjudication,
Title: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City Council
Post by: foybles on May 22, 2024, 11:05:21 am
Hello,

Having read through the forum, I would like some advice on wether I have a case to appeal 2x Clean Air Zone PCN's received when on a visit to Bristol.

Me & my partner live in a village in another county & were not aware Bristol had introduced a clean air zone. We entered the city without noticing any CAZ signage & remained parked for our overnight stay in a multi-storey car park near the hotel. We received the second PCN on our way home the following day. Each PCN charge is for £60 + £9 CAZ daily charge. We would of course have happily paid the £9 charge had we been made sufficiently aware of Bristols CAZ.

I feel it is unfair & punitive. It being our first incident we are now aware of the CAZ after receiving the PCN's. I believe it would be fair to be given a chance to pay the daily charge retrospectively or just simply be given a warning as is done in London, since London's zone expansion. If one is to contravene again then one can argue it is right to implement the charge.

I have retrospectively looked at the signage entering the CAZ using Google maps & included a screenshot. You can see the CAZ sign is difficult to see & does not stand out clearly amongst other signage clutter on the far side of a bus lane. All other vehicles must travel in single file alongside the bus lane. The "alternative route" to avoid the CAZ can only be entered by using the break in the bus lane. I feel with the combination of poorly laid out signage & proximity of the bus lane it's virtually impossible to see the CAZ sign soon enough to avoid using the zone if you chose to do so. I have also not found a notification sign ahead of the zone, that is not to say there isn't one.

If we have grounds to appeal what is our best approach?

Many thanks
Kevin

[attachment deleted by admin]