Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Charsiu on July 05, 2024, 02:04:58 pm
-
The adjudicator cannot take mitigation into account, this is the domain of the authority alone as said by Enceladus. Unless you could show that the authority have a policy (which the officers have not followed) which relates to circumstances you can prove* then I cannot see why the keeper would want to risk the discount.
*- civil standard of balance of probabilities.
-
Thanks for your thoughts and input, I'm pretty much aligned in your thinking; in that there has been no changes in the RK therefore she was the one whom got fined back in 2022, and subsequently can't reasonably plead for leniency on the second (technically third) PCN when she left the zone on the Sunday.
Bit of a stretch to bank on the adjucator recognising that the first offense in 2022 was by the partner, and the two this time round was my SIL. :-\
-
If the historic PCN was sent to her husband, has the registered keeper changed since then from hubby to mrs? Or did he open her mail? Just because "the car" has been clocked in the ULEZ before doesn't mean it was with the same RK, so that argument may be irrelevant.
The last V5c update was Feb 2021 and that well predates PCN Y338857187 referenced in the NOR, so the RK hasn't changed.
TfL reoffered the discount in the NoR. The discount window expires close of business on Sunday the 1st Sep. Our Administartor @cp8759 seems confident that if you submit an appeal to the Adjudicator within the discount windows then TFL will accept the discount rate if you lose the appeal. I'm aware that that happens with TFL PCNs, but usually when it involves a business and a parking contravention.
So if you have nothing further to lose by having a go at an appeal then I would do so. But it seems to me risky as to the discount. If they won't accept the discount rate if you lose the appeal then you would, or rather your sister, be in for £180.
Other than the NoR is some sort of a bad attempt at creating a one size fits all rejection I don't see much to put before the Adjudicator. It's a bit black & white. Were you in the ULEZ at the time alleged, yes you were. Was your car emmissions compliant, no it wasn't, so there is no exemption that applies. The Adjudicator has no discretion regarding mitigation so it's highly likely you'd lose. Probably the best you can hope for is that TFL "do not contest".
See what others have to say and PM @cp8759 and ask him to look at the current status of your cases.
Is it worth a shot with the Adjudicator? On balance I feel you might be best of paying it at the discount before Sunday.
-
If the historic PCN was sent to her husband, has the registered keeper changed since then from hubby to mrs? Or did he open her mail? Just because "the car" has been clocked in the ULEZ before doesn't mean it was with the same RK, so that argument may be irrelevant.
That's a good point, they would not have made changes to the Registered Keeper, so I suspect he either intercepted the PCN fine, or I imagined she would have opened it and gave it to him to handle.
-
If the historic PCN was sent to her husband, has the registered keeper changed since then from hubby to mrs? Or did he open her mail? Just because "the car" has been clocked in the ULEZ before doesn't mean it was with the same RK, so that argument may be irrelevant.
-
You've shown us page 1 of the Notice of Rejection. Please post up the remaining pages.
..................
Our records show that a Penalty Charge Notice - YJ38857187 was issued to you on 09/07/2022 which you paid. We believe this was sufficient notice given to you to make you aware of the ULEZ and the need to correctly purchase a charge for each day of entry into the ULEZ
The wording of the sentence above suggests that the reviewer may have waived the second PCN, had they looked at the correct PCN charge in question and realised there was not enough notice for my SIL to realise the penalty.
.................
The TFL website shows PCN Y338857187 to be a ULEZ PCN for the same car, that was paid in 2022. The V5c was last updated in Feb 2021 so the RK hasn't changed. Hence it's hard to see how your sister can now argue that she was unaware of the ULEZ? It's the expansion of the zone that she fell victim to.
What exactly did your represenations say?
There was another 7-8 pages of the rejection, so I had just linked to the album on my previous post (Remaining Pages). But here it is again REMAINING PAGES AGAIN (https://imgur.com/a/48iEeWn)
It didn't occur to me to check the "incorrect" PCN, and you are absolutely right! Their vehicle was caught in ULEZ back in 2022, I noticed the e-mail receipt was to the husband - I wonder if he ever told her back then! ;D
In this case, I might just tell her to just pay up - bit much to ask TFL for leniency when the car was fined previously, not plausible in their eyes which I understand.
My representation was essentially stating the facts of the events (as I have on this post) and asking for leniency and waiving of the second PCN. The PCN from 2022 completely skewered that for both my SIL and myself, I suspect she's having words with the other half!
-
Post deleted
-
You've shown us page 1 of the Notice of Rejection. Please post up the remaining pages.
..................
Our records show that a Penalty Charge Notice - YJ38857187 was issued to you on 09/07/2022 which you paid. We believe this was sufficient notice given to you to make you aware of the ULEZ and the need to correctly purchase a charge for each day of entry into the ULEZ
The wording of the sentence above suggests that the reviewer may have waived the second PCN, had they looked at the correct PCN charge in question and realised there was not enough notice for my SIL to realise the penalty.
.................
The TFL website shows PCN Y338857187 to be a ULEZ PCN for the same car, that was paid in 2022. The V5c was last updated in Feb 2021 so the RK hasn't changed. Hence it's hard to see how your sister can now argue that she was unaware of the ULEZ? It's the expansion of the zone that she fell victim to.
What exactly did your represenations say?
-
What do the TfL timelines show for each PCN?
First One
PCN status history
19 August 2024 Representation Rejected
TfL has rejected a representation received for this PCN.
03 July 2024 Email dispatched to: xxx@gmail.com Subj Receipt E112465931 for your payment
N/A
03 July 2024 Paid
TfL has received full payment for this PCN.
29 June 2024 PCN Batched
N/A
Second One
PCN status history
19 August 2024 Representation Rejected
TfL has rejected a representation received for this PCN.
02 August 2024 On Hold: SUS26 - Representation Received
N/A
23 July 2024 On Hold: SUS29 - Further Evidence Requested
N/A
11 July 2024 Representation submitted Under review
N/A
10 July 2024 Email dispatched to: xxx@gmail.com Subj Representation receipted
N/A
10 July 2024 On Hold: SUS26 - Representation Received
N/A
02 July 2024 PCN Batched
N/A
-
What do the TfL timelines show for each PCN?
-
So my SIL received the rejection letter today, but confusingly it quotes a PCN and date not related to her case:
Our records show that a Penalty Charge Notice - YJ38857187 was issued to you on 09/07/2022 which you paid. We believe this was sufficient notice given to you to make you aware of the ULEZ and the need to correctly purchase a charge for each day of entry into the ULEZ
The wording of the sentence above suggests that the reviewer may have waived the second PCN, had they looked at the correct PCN charge in question and realised there was not enough notice for my SIL to realise the penalty.
Anyone know of a way to ask TFL to re-review the above, without having to proceed to the next formal stage?
To clarify the sequence of events in terms of payment and issue dates:
Friday 23rd June - ENTERED ULEZ
Sunday 25th June - EXIT ULEZ
Wednesday 3rd July- First PCN Received (XJ31432319)
Wednesday 3rd July - First PCN PAID
Friday 5th July - Second PCN Received (XJ31678760)
(https://imgur.com/UDt0uNp)
Link to first page - got problems with image link not loading up in the post (https://imgur.com/UDt0uNp)
Remaining Pages (https://imgur.com/a/48iEeWn)
-
Well TFL asked for all pages of the V5, so send them all pages of the V5c.
"Particulate Matter" is explicitly mentioned and that only applies to a diesel. I doubt if TFL would bother checking the MOT status.
You should be able to upload the V5c online using the "Update your representation" button on the TFL site when you view PCN XJ31678760. Make sure you make reference to "further evidence".
Let's see what the Notice of Rejection actually says, if they continue to reject.
-
V3 NOx 0.142 = Not compliant. The limit is 0.08g/km.
Odd that the MoT checker said it was petrol though.
-
It's definitely a diesel, here's the emission part of the V5:
(https://imgur.com/2oiVlsh)
V5 Emissions Here - Got problems embedding images (https://imgur.com/2oiVlsh)
Based on the age, I'm guessing it's likely to be non-compliant.
-
That's a 2013 petrol Hyundai I30 according to the MOT checker.
If so it must be Euro 4 (since 2005) which is what it needs for compliance.
I reckon that's compliant if the vehicle type is as per DVLA.
No it's not. It's a an I30 Active Blue Drive CRD. That's a 1.6 diesel.
''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
Update.
Actually the MOT checker says it's petrol and the VED checker says it's diesel. So my apologies to slapdash. Something is amiss.
@Charsiu
Please check if the I30 is petrol or diesel?
-
That's a 2013 petrol Hyundai I30 according to the MOT checker.
If so it must be Euro 4 (since 2005) which is what it needs for compliance.
I reckon that's compliant if the vehicle type is as per DVLA.
-
TFL seem to think that there is a possibility that your car has had a change of registration. There's a known issue with the DVLA and the ULEZ databases in cases of a change of VRM, whereby a vehicle's emissions status and or data doesn't necessarily transfer to the new registration for several months. And sometimes never. Affects private plates, new VRMs from the DVLA due to cloning and vehicles imported from abroad. TFL manually updates their database in such cases.
Your car has a Northern Ireland VRM. Does any of those scenarios apply here? EG is it a private plate as opposed to the original VRM?
Did you say anything in your formal representation to suggest there has been change of VRM? Or that the car is actually ULEZ compliant? The copy of the reps you posted above on July 8th suggest you didn't?
Your car is a diesel. A diesel car doesn't actually have to be fully Euro-6 compliant to be exempt. It just has to meet the Euro-6 NOx standard and PM (Particulate Matter) standards.
Hence they want to check the V5c logbook. And the certificate of conformance if there is no emissions data.
Incidentally "Nitrates of Oxide". Long time since my school chemistry, is there even such a thing? I believe they meant to say Oxides of Nitrogen.
I'm checking with my sister, but I'm pretty sure the VRM is the original number. The vehicle model does match when we check against TFL's website so just assumed the penalty is completely legitimate. I'll get her to send me the documents to respond either way - turns out I can upload to the original appeal on their website, so no need to post to their physical address! :)
-
TFL seem to think that there is a possibility that your car has had a change of registration. There's a known issue with the DVLA and the ULEZ databases in cases of a change of VRM, whereby a vehicle's emissions status and or data doesn't necessarily transfer to the new registration for several months. And sometimes never. Affects private plates, new VRMs from the DVLA due to cloning and vehicles imported from abroad. TFL manually updates their database in such cases.
Your car has a Northern Ireland VRM. Does any of those scenarios apply here? EG is it a private plate as opposed to the original VRM?
Did you say anything in your formal representation to suggest there has been change of VRM? Or that the car is actually ULEZ compliant? The copy of the reps you posted above on July 8th suggest you didn't?
Your car is a diesel. A diesel car doesn't actually have to be fully Euro-6 compliant to be exempt. It just has to meet the Euro-6 NOx standard and PM (Particulate Matter) standards.
Hence they want to check the V5c logbook. And the certificate of conformance if there is no emissions data.
Incidentally "Nitrates of Oxide". Long time since my school chemistry, is there even such a thing? I believe they meant to say Oxides of Nitrogen.
-
Thanks for your input, I've reworded the appeal to make it a bit more apparently and cohorent.
You didn't post this, but their response suggests that they haven't got the gist of you sent me 2 PCNs, I paid one and am making reps in respect of the 2nd for the reasons I've set out below......
No, the appeal is more than clear that she was penalised twice, it literally starts off with: "I am writing to formally appeal against my second ULEZ charge levied against my vehicle on the 23rd June 2024"..."I received a second PCN for driving out of the ULEZ zone on my return back to Liverpool.", etc.
They just ignored those points.
-
Thanks for your input, I've reworded the appeal to make it a bit more apparently and cohorent.
You didn't post this, but their response suggests that they haven't got the gist of you sent me 2 PCNs, I paid one and am making reps in respect of the 2nd for the reasons I've set out below......
-
We received a response today through the post, date marked 23rd July which leaves us a less than a week to respond.
Seems like an almost generic response asking for vehicle registration details and makes no mention of our previous appeal and situation. There's no mention of how we can submit the paperwork electronically, which means we'd have to photocopy the paperwork and then physically send to a PO Box address.
Worth getting Royal Mail signed for delivery just to get the proof of delivery?
(https://imgur.com/a/48iEeWn)
Response Letter (https://imgur.com/a/48iEeWn)
-
I think that having 2 PCNs for the same set of facts is rather lost in the reps.
I drove into London;
I wasn't aware;
I didn't see;
On *** I received a PCN for *** (date) which I promptly paid;
On *** I then received this PCN effectively for driving out of contravention.
I now understand that the restriction applies per day, but would suggest that the levying of two penalties based upon the same error is a little disproportionate and would therefore ask the authority to exercise discretion on this occasion..
Thanks for your input, I've reworded the appeal to make it a bit more apparently and cohorent.
Fingers crossed!
-
I think that having 2 PCNs for the same set of facts is rather lost in the reps.
I drove into London;
I wasn't aware;
I didn't see;
On *** I received a PCN for *** (date) which I promptly paid;
On *** I then received this PCN effectively for driving out of contravention.
I now understand that the restriction applies per day, but would suggest that the levying of two penalties based upon the same error is a little disproportionate and would therefore ask the authority to exercise discretion on this occasion..
-
You might wish to add where you drove from and where to in London. You didn't see any signs informing you of how or where or how much to pay.
Google Street View is not up to date so I'm not sure how much signage/information they would have encountered on arrival, so didn't want to embellish too much/at all. Will add where they departed from (Liverpool).
-
You might wish to add where you drove from and where to in London. You didn't see any signs informing you of how or where or how much to pay.
-
Reps look OK to me. They will probably reject them and offer the discount, so you'd be in for £90, but you might get lucky.
-
Thanks all for the input, here is my draft representation:
I am writing to formally appeal against my second ULEZ charge levied against my vehicle on the 23rd June 2024. The Penalty Charge Notice reference number is XJ31678760.
On the evening of Friday 21st of June I drove down to visit my sister, niece and nephew for the first time in many years. Although I trust there was signage on the boundaries I must have overlooked these at the end of the 4 and a half hour drive, and due to my lack of knowledge of ULEZ and its boundaries, I did not realize that my vehicle was subject to any charge.
Upon receiving the PCN for the Friday 21st June entry, I educated myself on the ULEZ regulations and then paid promptly as it was ultimately my fault (Payment Reference: E112465931 - unfortunately I have since disposed of the first PCN and do not have another reference number).
I understand the importance of adhering to environmental regulations, and I assure you that this was an unintentional oversight. As this is my first offence, I kindly request leniency and the cancellation of the second ULEZ charge on this occasion.
I sincerely hope that you will consider my appeal favorably and grant a waiver for this first-time, unintentional offence.
Thank you for your understanding and consideration. I look forward to your positive response.
Yours faithfully,
Best case would be the waiver of this fine, worst would be £180?
-
Post a draft representation on here before sending it to TFL. As a general rule if TFL reoffers the discount and TFL is notified of a tribunal appeal while the discount is still available, TFL will accept the 50% discounted amount even if you lose at the tribunal, so arguably there's no risk in taking this all the way.
It is however imperative to make representations within 14 days, and file the tribunal appeal immediately upon receipt of the notice of rejection.
-
was wondering if there is any grounds to appeal on the basis its her first offence and not from London? Appreciate it's bit of an ignorant stretch, but still worth an ask.
It's always worth an ask, but don't be surprised if they refuse it. I would submit reps on the basis of being a total stranger to London, living in <oop north somewhere>. Explain the circumstances first. A ULEZ PCN was received and paid, (give number and date), then a second PCN arrived. State plainly, but without getting confrontational, that you consider this to be an excessive punishment for not being aware of the ULEZ. also say that clearly you are now aware of the ULEZ conditions so the offence will not occur again.
-
You've redacted the vehicle reg. Please reinstate it as per the instructions in the "READ THIS FIRST -" (http://"READ THIS FIRST -" sticky post at the top of the forum.) sticky post at the top of the forum. It's only necessary to redact your own name & address, where present. Please leave everything else visible, especially the PCN number, the vehicle reg, all times and dates and locations and all Enforcement Authority info.
-
See TfL's website and the Charging Order:
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/penalty-charges-for-ulez
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/consolidated-lez-scheme-order-londonwide-ulez-variations-29-august-2023.pdf (reg 7(1)
Both state that a penalty is payable for each day(midnight-midnight) that the car is used on a ULEZ road.
Wait for others.
-
Hi All,
Family member came to visit from the North couple weeks back, arrived Friday evening and left Sunday evening (Saturday she didn't use her car).
She received a PCN on Wednesday for not having paid for the ULEZ charge for the Friday, she paid the (£90?) fine as it was essentially down to our ignorance. She received another PCN today for the Sunday she left, and was wondering if there is any grounds to appeal on the basis its her first offence and not from London? Appreciate it's bit of an ignorant stretch, but still worth an ask.
For context, I live within the M25 and all of our cars in the immediate family are all ULEZ compliant, so it was never something we paid any real attention to - now we're paying with our wallets!
Photos of PCN here:
ULEZ PCN (https://1drv.ms/f/s!As_e_pwBk-z-3GWH08pPfEmvV4zo?e=dfKoSu)
(https://i.imgur.com/MTdyg9H.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/pZ1kKlQ.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/POU0haY.jpg)
(https://i.imgur.com/w4nhq62.jpg)
Thanks in advance.