Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: vijaysriram101 on December 02, 2024, 11:00:25 am
-
Hi All, I have posted on 18/12/2024 my responses to the Red Routes ,PO Box 335 Darlington DL1 9PU as they requested more information on my representation, However I have received the letter back and can see the update in the TFL PCN history as `23 December 2024On Hold: SUS26 - Representation Received
N/A`. It looks like the explanation letter I sent was not even opened. Im totally stressed as I'm not very clear as why the letter was returned unopened.
Thanks in advance for all your help.
-
also if you're sending pics of your car make sure the reg plate is clearly visible in the photo. otherwise it's just a random pic of any volvo
-
You need to spell this out at the start.
I am writing to add more information for my representation to challenge the issuance of the above PCN, which I believe is due to a misread of the offending vehicle's license plate - it appears the offending vehicle has the VRM GV22JDX, which is a black Mercedes, whereas my car has the VRM GY22JDX. The V may have been read as a Y.
-
Hi All, Could you please review my representation letter
Dear Sir/madam,
Re: PCN: GX19893768
I am writing to add more information for my representation to challenge the issuance of the above PCN, which I believe is due to a misreading of my vehicle's license plate.
On 01/11/2024 at 18:00, I was working from home and have provided proof of an office meeting that occurred during this time. Therefore, I could not have been at London Westhorne Avenue.
Upon reviewing the DVD evidence provided, I have identified a significant error. The vehicle captured in the video/image is clearly a Mercedes Benz GLC 300, which can be easily distinguished from my Volvo XC90.
Key Differences:
1. Rear Lights: The vehicle in the image has horizontally mounted rear lights, typical of a Mercedes Benz GLC 300. In contrast, the Volvo XC90 has vertically mounted rear lights on the D-pillar.
!image: PCN_Challenge4.jpg
Where as a Volvo’s rear light looks like the below
!image: pcn_challenge7.jpeg
2. Rear Quarter Window: The rear quarter window in the image matches that of a Mercedes Benz GLC 300, not a Volvo XC90. I have included images for comparison:
• Volvo XC90: Volvo XC90 Rear Quarter Window
!image: pcn_challenge8.jpeg
• Mercedes Benz GLC 300: Mercedes Benz GLC 300 Rear Quarter Window
!image: PCN_challenge5.jpeg
The rear quarter window glass in the below image doesn’t looks like a Volvo.
Sample picture of Merc GLC rear quarter window glass
3. Wheel Disc: The wheel disc design in the image differs significantly from that of my Volvo XC90. Below is an image of my car's wheel disc for comparison: !My Car's Wheel Disc
Volvo wheel disc:
!image:
Merc Wheel disc:
4. License Plate: My car's license plate has the dealer’s name "Riverside" printed on it, which is not visible in the image of the car that entered the yellow junction box.
License plate of the car in that incident:
Given these distinct differences, it appears that there has been a misreading of the license plate, leading to the incorrect issuance of this PCN. The car involved in this incident is not mine and clearly looks like a license plate misread.
There is no clone; the car in the photo is not mine, it has a different number plate, and it is not the same make/model as mine.
I kindly request that you review the photographic evidence closely and consider the clear distinctions between a Mercedes Benz GLC 300 and a Volvo XC90, and cancel this PCN.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
attaching a pic of the rear of your car with the lights onto highlight the difference might also help to wake them up.
they won't bother researching photos of the difference so put it in front of them
-
Looks to me they have only read the first line of your rep and pressed the 'cloned' car button reply button (or maybe they didn't even get that far, and it was an auto response to the 'it wasn't my car' reason for representation). Surely you can just reply with words to the effect of Please review your own photos - there is no clone - the car in the photo is not mine, it has a different number plate and it is not the same make/model as mine.
-
It doesn't seem to be a clone but a plate misread although we have seen plates altered by a bit of tape to make them different.
-
thank you, Please find the attached image copy of the letter received from the TFL requesting for more information.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
If it's of any benefit, a Volvo SUV's rear lights are vertically mounted on the D-pillar, and not horizontal along the rear-quarter corner and tailgate/hatch (as depicted in the council's pic).
-
Please post up the letter, redacting yr name & address.
I cannot see why they need further evidence as your opening post seems convincing.
However, can you get a photo with a 3/4 image of your own car similar to the angle (if not from the same height!) as the 4th photo in yr opening post.
This link (https://www.google.com/search?num=10&client=firefox-b-e&sca_esv=e5ef70f8f2be8644&q=Mercedes-Benz+GLC&udm=2&fbs=AEQNm0BglSNKPbDQcL4Et01QEIYvg5bRO_M3ywqCa9xtNRWwAm_qOe_c9lI78Uqe-Ht_ugkYVWG4KbuNih5Uc00qY9UsbxF5VDU6oWu6wKyMxQ4JqagJJK-QQoCSu8w72odwBSkF0Dty4JiRehICCf1FuOKpbUcU7LBCFyYaFzUs-fthpG_D_JAWOEC_Si5U8dtbrZHBJo9rnWf7VYPPoxisFPWFcZbF-w&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwi4zanHi62KAxVDWEEAHcIFAvMQtKgLegQIFBAB&biw=1152&bih=525&dpr=1.67) will lead you to images of a merc - select one(s) that indicate the distictive size window shape of the Merc in the video.
Also you could edit the number plate photos with arrows to highlight the differences.
That you car was x miles away is irrelevant - the point is that it is clearly not the vehicle captured by the TfL camera.
It ;looks as if they are trying to tick boxes to justify accepting your reps.
See what others say and post your draft submission here before sending in.
----------
EDIT - crossed with Stamfordman's post: make sure you included is point about Y/V.
-
GV22 JDX is a black Merc so that looks like the misread - Y for V.
I wouldn't worry about this - they are unlikely to push it to the tribunal.
Just go back to them with pics of your car, what you were doing that day and where your car was, and point out the GV22 JDX possibility.
-
Hi All,
I have received a letter stating that I'm required to provide a proof of my car being at my location at the given time of the incident.
As my floodlight camera is not working, I dont have any proof of my car being parked at my garage.However going thru the DVD shared by the TFL, it looks like Merc GLC200 and I can compare those images of that car and write a detailed explanation.
Could you please advice what are the other docs that help me to add more value to this explanation.
Many thanks
-
I have checked my status of representation and it says that requested for more information in the TFL website on 9th of December. However, I have not received any letter via royal mail post or email. I did rang them and updated the same. There was no clear response from the customer service.
Thank you in advance.
-
Just wait for the authority's response.
Your reps were rather long for what essentially boils down to:
PCN issued to me as keeper of vehicle VRM GY22JDX, a black Volvo however, as can be seen in the authority's pictures and video, the vehicle concerned was a Mercedes.
Let's hope the authority can see the wood for the trees.
-
Im not able to view the entire representation passage. However I have attached the PCN status history.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
A bit premature - update us when you get a reply. They should accept a simple plate misread.
-
Please show us your representation.
-
Thanks for your response. Currently I have made a representation and its under review. Could you please suggest the ways that can help me to resolve this PCN
-
Is there a question in there somewhere?
OP, where are you in the process pl?
-
I am writing to formally appeal the Penalty Charge Notice issued to me for an alleged traffic violation on 01/11/2024 at 17:11, regarding "Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited" at Baring Road/Westhorne Avenue.
I believe this notice has been issued in error for the following reasons:
My vehicle was parked in my garage at my home in midlands at the time of the incident and have not travelled to London. I was working from home on an office commitment and did not travel to London that day.
The license plate in the photographic evidence attached to the PCN does not match my car's license plate. I have included a photograph of my car's license plate for your review.
My Google Maps activity clearly indicates no travel to London or its vicinity on the date in question. I have attached this record as evidence.
I respectfully request that this PCN be reviewed and canceled based on the provided evidence.
After examining the video footage provided on the DVD, it is evident that the vehicle involved in the incident was a Mercedes-Benz GLC with the license plate GV22 JDX, and not my vehicle with the license plate GY22 JDX.
I m have made a representation and its under review. Can anyone suggest better ways to prove them that I was not in the place of the incident.
[attachment deleted by admin]