Free Traffic Legal Advice

Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: NotFair on July 29, 2023, 12:26:56 pm

Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: NotFair on November 01, 2024, 12:11:22 am
Unfortunately, I never got the chance to appeal. The NTO was paid immediately by Tusker (lease company), who then just recharged the £160 to me (along with a cheeky admin fee). This was despite them assuring me they would tell TfL to redirect the NTO to me.
Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: cp8759 on October 31, 2024, 11:51:13 pm
@NotFair I see you got the NTO and just paid up the full £160. Sorry to say but you've been mugged, even if you'd just denied the contravention they would have offered you the 50% discount so at the very last you've wasted £80. For various other reasons I won't go into, you could have almost certainly got this cancelled on appeal ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: cp8759 on September 07, 2023, 12:28:29 am
For later:

The GLA Roads and GLA Side Roads (Haringey) Red Route Consolidation Traffic Order 2007 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=18LVDhr4dYzBtjgLqAfJ6EarmaU_xnXJ1)
The GLA Roads and GLA Side Roads (Haringey) Red Route Consolidation Traffic Order 2007 A1 GLA Road (Archway Road) Variation Order 2008 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1MmbIiHR1drkMOYyVo9PfHNFLHh47eKqz)
The GLA Roads and GLA Side Roads (Haringey) Red Route Consolidation Traffic Order 2007 A1 GLA Road (Archway Road) Variation Order 2011 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1I8QLpGc-0MOAnlwxvw4cJVWHpV7L0ezU)
The GLA Roads and GLA Side Roads (Haringey) Red Route Consolidation Traffic Order 2007 A1 GLA Road (Archway Road) Variation Order 2013 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1Q6QD0NRwz33tvREddRmnMHFo78jbqzS0)
The GLA Roads And GLA Side Roads (Haringey) Red Route Consolidation Traffic Order (No.2) 2007 The Various Roads (Electric Vehicle Charging Points) Variation Order 2019 (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1st6oVg-jT48erb_0mhQnXDZwmNew4WSb)

Bump the thread when you get the NTO and I'll check that the restrictions match the sign. Or you could get ahead of the game and see if you can work it out.
Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: cp8759 on September 06, 2023, 05:54:24 pm
Once you've received the NTO in your own name, call Tusker Direct and ask them to send you:

1) A copy of their representations to TFL,
2) A copy of anything they've since received back from TFL.

The reason why you'd ask for this is evidence if you have a read of Rachid Amrane v London Borough of Harrow (2190142549, 04 May 2019) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1SUIfUtzRTi0RrHIDlXd6IxYbQCC9oELp&export=inline), ASM Locksmiths Limited v City of London (2210121090, 29 May 2021) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1PBV1DpSR3623nYkXsc7gcBPT6kthpIkd&export=inline) and Stanmore Quality Surfacing Ltd v London Borough of Waltham Forest (2230300412, 19 July 2023) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1m_JaK7s33RftA0FSVBGbZh-6Z0UhoBnL&export=inline).

While your case is issued under different regulations, the principle that only cancellation of a previous NTO gives the authority a power to serve another NTO on another person still stands.

If (as I suspect) TFL simply never writes back to Tusker Direct, you then have an additional ground of appeal.
Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: NotFair on September 05, 2023, 02:02:52 pm
Thanks.

They've advised me of their process - apparently I have to call them as soon as they tell me they've received it, to ask them to transfer liability, instead of pay it.

Is it worth adding anything to the reps already submitted?
Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: cp8759 on September 04, 2023, 10:56:43 pm
Here you go:

Dear Tusker Direct,

You will shortly receive a Notice to Owner from Transport for London in respect of PCN GF83565073, I intend to challenge liability for this penalty charge.

When you receive the Notice to Owner please challenge it on the ground that you are a lease company and you have leased the vehicle to me, Transport for London will then cancel your Notice to Owner and issue another one directly to me. With penalties issued by local authorities, payment extinguishes the right to appeal, so you must not pay or you will deprive me of the right to appeal this penalty.

If you ignore this and chose to pay the penalty rather than transfer liability to me, I will consider this to be a self-inflicted loss (as you are not obliged to pay and can transfer liability instead) and as such I will not be reimbursing you.

Please take this as my explicit consent for you to share my details with Transport for London, please feel free to get in touch should you have any queries about this.

Yours faithfully,

If it's a personal lease rather than a business to business one, we can add some other bits around the Consumer Rights Act 2015 (that basically forces their hand).
Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: NotFair on August 31, 2023, 09:41:41 am
That would be helpful, thank you.

Can I oblige the lease company to follow this process?

The lease company is Tusker Direct.
Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: cp8759 on August 31, 2023, 12:30:47 am
No, you need to tell the lease company to make representations against the Notice to Owner on the basis that the vehicle was leased to you. What's the name of the lease company?

I can provide some draft wording for you to send to them if that would help.
Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: NotFair on August 30, 2023, 09:55:25 pm
TfL have rejected informal reps (as is the norm for them).

They really haven't responded properly to any of the points raised in the appeal, and I think there could be a 'failure to consider'-esque argument now.

The rejection letter states an amount due (£80, which is 50% of the full amount) but doesn't say anything about how long this offer is valid for. The text at the bottom of the first page explaining timelines ("28 days from the PCN") is also unclear and quite confusing in the context of a rejection letter.

A complication here is that this is a lease vehicle, and the lease company's annoying policy is to automatically pay up on receipt of an NTO. Can I submit formal reps before an NTO is issued?

(https://i.ibb.co/202gqW9/Whats-App-Image-2023-08-30-at-15-25-03.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/crbxSr3/Tf-Lrejection2.png)
Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: cp8759 on August 09, 2023, 01:29:51 pm
For later reference: The GLA Roads and GLA Side Roads (Haringey) Red Route Consolidation Traffic Order 2007 A1 GLA Road (Archway Road) Variation Order 2013. (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1Q6QD0NRwz33tvREddRmnMHFo78jbqzS0)
Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: NotFair on August 05, 2023, 07:13:01 pm
Thanks. I submitted informal reps earlier today with TMA2004 point removed, as suggested.
Let's see how it goes.
Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: cp8759 on August 05, 2023, 06:22:05 pm
Quote from: NotFair on August 03, 2023, 10:24:55 pm
I lifted point 2 from the known flaws spreadsheet (and concurrent Pepipoo thread). Is this not correct at all?
It's been overturned in Christopher Phipps v NEPP - Essex County Council  (IF00014-2211, 17 February 2023) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1w5IDGdNrhpEmwMCKuu5xWvKmDiial3se&export=inline) and that was upheld on review in Christopher Phipps v NEPP - Essex County Council  (IF00014-2211, 24 March 2023) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1AV1NlcBxcEBvYFAzh4lMxYUm_JnwVfCQ&export=inline), the point as first argued was that it's not a civil contravention at all under any Act.

I've updated the PCN spreadsheet to reflect the current position.
Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: NotFair on August 03, 2023, 10:24:55 pm
Quote from: cp8759 on August 03, 2023, 10:13:18 pm
Delete point 2 (which is entirely wrong), and amend point 3 to refer to The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022.

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 were abolished last year.

Many thanks.
I lifted point 2 from the known flaws spreadsheet (and concurrent Pepipoo thread). Is this not correct at all?
Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: cp8759 on August 03, 2023, 10:13:18 pm
Delete point 2 (which is entirely wrong), and amend point 3 to refer to The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022.

The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 were abolished last year.
Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: NotFair on August 03, 2023, 08:59:32 pm
Here's my attempt:

Quote
I write to appeal this PCN as it fails a number of basic procedural criteria necessary for enforcement.

1. The PCN is barely legible due to poor print quality; this is a procedural impropriety. A large proportion of the PCN is unreadable, including important details such as the PCN number, date of service, VRM, charge amount and discount details, and payment instructions. Accessing the TfL portal to look up the PCN took multiple trial-and-error attempts. The London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (under which this PCN should have been issued - see below) states that the PCN must contain this basic information, which it does not, due to illegibility.

2. The PCN has been issued under the Traffic Management Act 2004. No stopping is not a contravention under this Act. The PCN has been issued under the wrong Act; this is a procedural impropriety.

3. Regulation 9A of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007 (the General Regulations) states that PCNs must state that a Notice to Owner "may" be served. However, this PCN states that a Notice to Owner "will" be issued. This is a procedural impropriety.
Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: cp8759 on August 02, 2023, 10:49:33 pm
Quote from: NotFair on August 02, 2023, 06:06:27 pm
I am wondering how I can prove lack of water damage.
Paper that is water damaged normally bulges out and becomes crinkled, and is usually pretty obvious. If the paper is the correct shape and size and it rests flat on a flat surface, it's unlikely the misprinting can be explained away as water damage.

Obviously we can't examine the physical PCN ourselves so we just have to go by what you tell us.

You can include as many grounds as you wish, as long as they're at least arguable. You only need to succeed on one point.

If you've not made reps yet, write a draft based on all of the above and we'll tidy it up for you.
Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: NotFair on August 02, 2023, 06:08:43 pm
Quote from: cp8759 on August 02, 2023, 05:57:10 pm
Some of your images are not loading up, please see guidance here (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/) on how to post, imgur typically works very well.

Those are just the CEO (or PSCO) photos, which you have uploaded subsequently anyway :)
Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: NotFair on August 02, 2023, 06:06:27 pm
I am wondering how I can prove lack of water damage.

I don't believe it's water damaged - PCN was definitely in this condition when removed from the windshield - but I imagine an adjudicator would assess 'on the balance of probabilities'.

The top half of the PCN (top two uploaded images) is largely illegible, and it is this half which contains the specific information such as PCN number, penalty amounts etc. The bottom half of the PCN (3rd and 4th images) are printed normally.
It could be argued that if the printer was/is faulty, the whole PCN would have been illegible.

This is why I thought TMA2004 & may/will flaws might be a better approach. But I suppose I could include those as well as the illegibility.
Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: cp8759 on August 02, 2023, 05:57:10 pm
Gerald Styles rejected the will / may argument in Jamal Hossain v Transport for London (2200229658, 05 August 2020) (https://bit.ly/33YaLve), but it's always possible another adjudicator might take a different view.

There's another argument about whether the person who issued the PCN was wearing the required uniform, but that depends on whether it was a PCSO employed by the MET police, or a direct employee of Transport for London.

However by far the strongest argument is the faulty printing of the PCN, as long as there's no evidence of water damage it should be an easy appeal. This would however be dependant on you going to a hearing in person and exhibiting the PCN to the adjudicator, but providing you can do that (or someone can go on your behalf) it's hard to see how you couple possibly lose.

Some of your images are not loading up, please see guidance here (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/) on how to post, imgur typically works very well.
Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: NotFair on July 31, 2023, 05:00:11 pm
I do not believe there is any water damage. There are some blue streaks in the paper (you can see them in the 2nd photo in the original post) though.

Might the known flaws (TMA2004, may/will wording) constitute stronger grounds for appeal?
Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: cp8759 on July 30, 2023, 01:24:40 am
TFL photos:

(https://i.imgur.com/lzdg3Gb.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/nQGHNB9.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/lgfiyqP.jpg)

(https://i.imgur.com/oTHFug8.jpg)

Please can you confirm whether there is any indication of water damage to the PCN?

If not, and it is undisputably a printing fault, then the PCN is so hopelessly defective that it's a virtually guaranteed win.

GSV: https://goo.gl/maps/SskfLZhYhnQShbBD8

I'll get hold of the traffic order.
Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: NotFair on July 29, 2023, 03:38:38 pm
Quote from: cp8759 on July 29, 2023, 02:56:17 pm
Give us the PCN number and number plate please.

VRM: YS21TNO
PCN: GF83565073
Title: Re: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: cp8759 on July 29, 2023, 02:56:17 pm
Give us the PCN number and number plate please.
Title: TfL red route - largely illegible PCN (thermal paper) & known flaws?
Post by: NotFair on July 29, 2023, 12:26:56 pm
Crossposted from pepipoo.

My vehicle was stopped in a loading bay erroneously on a red route, outside of loading hours. Driver admits the error. Had they parked the adjacent parking bay, all would have been fine!

The windscreen PCN issued is, for the most part, totally illegible. It's printed on thermal paper and the CEO's printer/paper must have been faulty.
The PCN number is itself very hard to read and I only succeeded in getting the photo evidence from the TfL website following arduous trial-and-error. At least two of the characters (first and last) are ambiguous.

Would there be any grounds for appeal here? Still within the discount period for informal reps. The PCN number is so illegible that it makes getting on to the website, viewing the evidence (and making [discounted] payment) very hard.

Looking at the known flaws spreadsheet, it would appear this PCN also has the TMA2004 and may/will flaws.

Thanks!

(https://i.ibb.co/yPgnkdY/1690623589698.jpg) (http://"https://ibb.co/7CrJpjR")

(https://i.ibb.co/9VLfV4V/download-1.jpg) (http://"https://ibb.co/MG4jG1G")
(https://i.ibb.co/PCY5KVY/download-2.jpg) (http://"https://ibb.co/f0SCfTS")
(https://i.ibb.co/M1nvWfb/download-3.jpg) (http://"https://ibb.co/3F13Gvw")
(https://i.ibb.co/YfchJ4d/download.jpg) (http://"https://ibb.co/HGtqRLP")