Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: BH1001 on November 05, 2023, 05:07:27 pm
-
Apologies for the delay
Have sent PM
-
(https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji106.png)
@BH1001 I've not heard back?
-
(https://emoji.tapatalk-cdn.com/emoji106.png)
-
I'll drop you a PM.
-
@cp8759
The hearing is on 8th May 2024 at 11:15
Can you please let me know if you are available to attend?
-
UPDATE:
The Adjudicator has granted a two week adjournment
Over to you ...
-
With all due respect, it wasn't my intention to carry out a DIY appeal - hence my numerous requests for advice on this thread.
I did provide the Notice of Rejection letter in a timely manner.
Obviously it's too late for you to get involved now, but if you could briefly outline your arguments against the NoR I could use that as guidance - if you can do it in the next 15 minutes that is
-
@BH1001 well it's an awful shame you've done a DIY appeal, as this could be won based on the wording of the notice of rejection, though I would add that I'd need to see the whole evidence pack to know for sure.
-
@cp8759
I requested a postponement on the grounds that I was hoping to get some support with the hearing and that I haven't been able to organise this in time. They have refused to do this and have said that they want to know why I need support with the hearing.
I'll let you know how that goes
-
@cp8759
It looks as though some wires have been crossed here. This is probably due to the administrative error by TfL which resulted in the mistaken linking of two separate PCN's (XJxxxx6224 and XJxxxx7557).
As advised, one of those two (7557) has now been cancelled as a result of that administrative error.
By the way, what on Earth happened to the original notice of rejection? You must have received it if you've appealed to the tribunal?
I posted the notice of rejection on this thread some time ago (see below) but I realise that by completely redacting the PCN numbers on that notice I may have added to the confusion. This notice of rejection quoted the numbers of both PCN's in the heading. I subsequently received a letter advising me that one of them (the un-appealed one) had been cancelled and this is also stated in the Case Summary that Tfl have provided. I think I may have got my wires crossed regarding the letter that they sent informing me of the fact that they had cancelled that PCN; that was what I thought you wanted to see and that is what I requested a copy of, and that is what I posted up here a few days ago when I received it.
They are still contesting the appealed PCN at the hearing on Wednesday - here is the post containing the link to the notice of rejection:
Letter of rejection here:
https://imgur.com/a/Fuo6QH0
My initial thoughts are (as per P2 para 2) how would it be possible for me to "make (myself) aware of any charges, tolls or other restrictions that may be in existence along along (my) route" if, as I have already informed them, I had got lost and didn't know where I was?
I apologise for any confusion that my redactions may have caused
Do you want me to request that the hearing be rescheduled?
-
I have requested a copy of the rejection letter and been advised that this is in the post.
@BH1001 we don't have time for that (I repeat, it's 2024 and we have this thing called the internet), just call the tribunal first thing in the morning (they open and 8 am on Monday) and ask them for a copy of the whole evidence pack to be emailed to you. You will receive a series of PDF files, one for each item of evidence TFL has supplied. One of those will be evidence item E and within that you will find the notice of rejection.
By the way, what on Earth happened to the original notice of rejection? You must have received it if you've appealed to the tribunal?
How do we arrange for an advocate/advisor to be on the call?
Well realistically there wouldn't be time to arrange that now, so the hearing would have to be rescheduled. I'm not sure you realise the urgency of the situation, you have a hearing on Wednesday and as far as I can see you have no firm grounds to argue.
I suggest you get hold of TFL's evidence from the tribunal via email as I have suggested above, post the notice of rejection on here and tag me in the response, if I think there is a viable appeal I may be able to help.
-
Here's the letter - interesting that it mentions my representations when I never actually appealed this one
https://imgur.com/a/U1KH6We
-
Another thing I didn't know I could/should do - you live and learn ;)
I have found the PCN on the website and it is confirmed there that it has been cancelled. I have requested a copy of the rejection letter and been advised that this is in the post.
I've updated my comms preferences and received the following by email
"Please be advised your hearing will now be conducted via telephone call as per your request. The adjudicator will call you on 24/04/2024 at 10:30 to proceed with the hearing".
How do we arrange for an advocate/advisor to be on the call?
-
@BH1001 sorry to tell you but you're taking a bit of an old-fashioned approach to everything, it is 2024 after all.
First and foremost, call the tribunal first thing and ask them to change the comms preference from post to email, this way you'll get updates from the tribunal at the same time as TFL, rather than a week or so later (Royal Mail isn't what it used to be (https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-67401045)). You can then ask them to email you a copy of the scheduling letter and you'll get it immediately, rather than some time maybe never.
Secondly as for the cancelled PCN, you can simply look it up on https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/challenge-a-pcn (if it's cancelled, take a screenshot).
I had also asked to see the notice of rejection because some of TFL's wording is flawed, see these cases:
Nayeem Haque v Transport for London (2220767288, 15 November 2022) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1KavlK0nNvWS2eI9ICkqjBQRg9-L-2mHc/view)
Mike Welch v Transport for London (2230428700, 18 November 2023) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ijJW4O3zHz-LOkVRi4QHmdf983n1yyJ8/view)
Lubavitch Synagogue v Transport for London (2230535074, 5 February 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1xokOkjdoJf0e5CBjBP7smnErCrMxps0m/view)
Commercial Plant Services Ltd v Transport for London (2240018512, 12 February 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qwj3XYfPvFZBh-ag3HYuQEUHtFXwxvHf/view)
Mathew Mathai v Transport for London (2240062219, 15 March 2024) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QoDnU5djhqtHMDDHbPiHIhVOC7KmHxIZ/view)
However I cannot check if this applies to your case as you've not shown us the notice of rejection, so please upload it so that we can take a look.
-
Okay
I called the London Tribunal and I've been informed that they have not been notified by TfL that one of the PCN's was being cancelled. I had to point to advisor to the paragraph in the Case Summary document which makes reference to this. The advisor said that they will be informing their line manager of this development. I had called for a copy of the letter that TfL sent notifying me that this PCN had been cancelled but, naturally, they have not been able to provide this as TfL have failed to inform them of this development. Unfortunately my OH tossed the letter away so I do not have a copy myself. I do recall that they had said that an administrative error had been made and that they had informed the London Tribunal of this, but that has turned out not to be the case. I've requested a copy of that letter from TfL and they've told me that a copy has been generated and will be sent in the post - I'll post a copy of that up when it arrives.
The advisor was also able to share that the hearing has been scheduled for 24th of this month and that a letter is in the post confirming this - it hasn't arrived yet but as soon as it does I will post those details here as well.
-
@BH1001 can you please post up the notice of rejection, and the case history from evidence item D? There might be a flaw in the notice of rejection word that we can exploit.
If you don't have the evidence in PDF form, you can call the tribunal and they will email it to you on request.
-
Quick update:
I've received a letter from TfL notifiying me that they are cancelling the 2nd PCN due to an 'administrative error'.
I've requested a telephone hearing for the original PCN (i.e. the one that I've posted up) and I'm awaiting confirmation of the date and time
-
Okay thanks for the heads up
-
Can I ask why a personal hearing is preferable to a postal one?
To avoid the sort of disaster you see in these threads:
http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=149680
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/warwickshire-cc-pcn-code-24-not-within-markings-of-bay-lakin-road-warwick/msg5240/#msg5240
-
I see - thanks
-
With the written word the adjudicator has to decide its meaning in the event of any uncertainty. There is no opportunity for those areas to be clarified.
In a personal hearing the opportunity exists to clarify these areas.
-
Can I ask why a personal hearing is preferable to a postal one?
-
Your personal hearing can be held over the phone if you ask them.
-
Oh I see
I hadn't realised and nobody mentioned this when I posted my appeal here for the experts to review
You live and learn!
-
I've received a notification from the adjudicator that the case (regarding both PCN's) has been allocated to a postal hearing
The standard advice on this forum is never, ever, opt for a postal hearing. You cna telephone the Tribunal on Tuesday and ask for it to be changed to personal/telephone.
As you case seems quite complicated, hopefully one of the kind experts here will be along soon with an offer to represent you.
-
I've received a notification from the adjudicator that the case (regarding both PCN's) has been allocated to a postal hearing
-
@BH1001 if they've rejected representations in respect of a PCN against which representations had not been made, that is a serious departure from the statutory requirements.
Please can you confirm what's happened so far with your appeal?
-
People give their time free on this forum, and have to earn a living as well, so sometimes responses aren't as quick as one would like
No I do appreciate that and I'm very grateful for the support provided here, it was just that the deadline was looming and as I hadn't heard anything I decided I was just going to have to go ahead and submit it anyway.
In the process of doing that, I have realised that TfL have listed two PCN's on the Notice of Appeal pro forma, and although I do have two penalties outstanding, I have only lodged one appeal with them (i.e. the one that this thread is concerned with). Is this an administrative error on their part and if so should I inform the adjudicator that I am only applying to the tribunal in respect of the first PCN and not the second?
-
People give their time free on this forum, and have to earn a living as well, so sometimes responses aren't as quick as one would like.
I'm not sure "inappropriate" is strong enough, but I'm struggling to think of a stronger word; maybe "ill-considered". Of course you could be rude and say it is "total tosh".
Other than that, OK
-
I'm just going to submit this as clearly nobody has got any thoughts or comments that they would like to share
Thanks for the support
-
I've drafted this for my appeal to the adjudicator - does anyone have any comments or suggestions before I send it in?
"I am appealing TfL’s decision to reject my appeal on the following grounds:
TfL’s response is inappropriate as it relies upon an assumption on their part that the driver of a vehicle will always know where the ULEZ enforcement zones are situated in relation to their current location. This is plainly illogical, and is all the more inappropriate in this case, given the fact that, as I have already stated to them, I had lost my bearings and didn’t know which road I was on as I approached and then entered the charging zone.
I reiterate my view that the signage was problematic as one sign was placed too high up on the post to be easily read (see image) particularly when approached from an oblique angle, as was the case when I approached the junction with Sheepbarn Lane and Skidhill Lane where the entry point to the charging zone is situated. The other sign at the junction not only points away from Skidhill Lane (see image) but is also some distance from the road and would therefore have been impossible for me to see as I approached the junction from Skidhill Lane (see image). The junction with Sheepbarn Lane and Skidhill Lane is a busy one and it is hazardous to be both checking for traffic and trying to check for ULEZ warning signs which are poorly located and very difficult, if not impossible to see.
I would also like to draw the adjudicator's attention to the fact that there was no ‘type D’ signage on Skidhill Lane which would have alerted me to the fact that I was approaching the charging zone had it been installed there."
-
Could I also argue that the signage was inadequate due to the absence of a type D sign (as specified in DfT authorisation GT50/139/0183) on the road along which I approached the junction where the entry point to the charging zone was situated?
[attach=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Exactly, but all the more so when you've lost your bearings and are driving on unfamiliar back lanes
I'm assuming this is a stock response
-
It's the usual tosh we see so often from councils and also Transport for London. Of course you knew about the existence of the ULEZ, but the reason signs are put up is because it is clearly impossible to know every single one of the exact entry points into the zone. TfL seem to be saying just because you knew there was a ULEZ, you should know when you've entered it. What tosh !!
-
Letter of rejection here:
https://imgur.com/a/Fuo6QH0
My initial thoughts are (as per P2 para 2) how would it be possible for me to "make (myself) aware of any charges, tolls or other restrictions that may be in existence along along (my) route" if, as I have already informed them, I had got lost and didn't know where I was?
-
My arguments were basically as follows
The bottom of the sign is over 10 feet from ground level and therefore it is very difficult to see it clearly from the driver's perspective when turning right from Skid Hill Lane into Sheepbarn Lane, and because of the oblique angle of the sign and the height of it, it is impossible to see it at all once you've joined the road, (unless you are driving a convertible!)
There are no warning signs to be seen when approaching the junction along Skid Hill Lane so drivers are relying solely on that one sign that has been put up on the opposite side of the road, 10+ metres high and at an oblique angle when viewed from the road you are joining the ULEZ from - please see link to pictures
https://imgur.com/a/x6LoZOK
Letter of rejection to follow
-
If you cannot find you rerps post up best you can from memory.
-
I'm just trying to retrieve my representations from TfL - I don't seem to have kept a copy which it a bit remiss I admit. Once I have that I'll post it up here along with their letter of rejection...
-
Unfortunately I have already submitted my representations as it was getting a bit tight for time.
Predictably TFL have rejected my appeal
For meaningful advice please post your reps and the letter of rejection.
-
Hi
Predictably TFL have rejected my appeal
Can anyone advise on how to escalate to the adjudicator?
I'm wondering which grounds I can appeal on - 'no penalty charge is payable under the charging scheme' seems to be the closest on the grounds that the signage was unclear and poorly situated.
-
Both the Wilcox adjudication and one of the DfT authorisations are on file on this site.
Could someone please provide a link to the DfT authorisations?
I've looked everywhere and cannot find it :-\
-
I don't think the photos have been taken at a particularly helpful angle, certainly the 2nd photo showing the driver's view appear to have been taken from a "convenient" angle and an adjudicator could well make an adverse inference from that.
If you want to take this to the tribunal, go back to the junction and stand next to the "Skill Hill Lane" sign here (https://maps.app.goo.gl/PMDCuNRFqgpG4wFAA) and get some wide-angled photos showing the whole width of the road.
As far as I can work out, the offside sign that should be visible to the driver emerging from the junction wouldn't be visible because it's turned 90 degrees and is now parallel to the road, but you've not taken any photos to illustrate that point. If that particular sign is not visible to someone pulling out of the junction, that's your strongest point.
-
Hi
Thanks for the reply
Unfortunately I have already submitted my representations as it was getting a bit tight for time.
The link to the pictures is here
https://imgur.com/a/x6LoZOK
-
I will go over and take some pictures
Is there any defence regarding unlawful signage?
No, but there's a defence of inadequate signage. I suggest you show us the photos you've taken so we can advise you on the strength of your case.
-
Okay well then wish me luck
OK then. Good Luck !
-
Okay well then wish me luck
-
Whilst there may be nothing, councils and also TfL are under a duty to place such signage such as to clearly convey to drivers the restriction. Of course, whether signs are adequate or not is subjective. For TfL all is perfection, so you'd have to put the argument on inadequacy to an adjudicator.
-
So is there nothing in the guidance that stipulates how high or low the sign needs to be? I looked but couldn't find anything ...
-
Oh yes well spotted - sorry I meant feet not metres :D
That makes a bit if a difference, but would 10 feet not be too much either?
It's too high for me, but I'm not an adjudicator. Problem is if the sign is too low, a lorry or bus will obscure it, if too high, the motorist will miss seeing it !
-
Oh yes well spotted - sorry I meant feet not metres :D
That makes a bit if a difference, but would 10 feet not be too much either?
-
The bottom of the sign is over 10 mtrs from ground level
You sure of that !
10 metres is 32 feet; a double-decker bus is 14 feet, so more than double the height of a London bus. Something wrong somewhere !
-
Yes well it wouldn't surprise me if the regulations were left intentionally vague, especially the new authorisation for TfL
I've been over to take some pictures of the road and the signage and I think the latter is possibly defective.
The bottom of the sign is over 10 mtrs from ground level and therefore it is very difficult to see it clearly from the driver's perspective when turning right from Skid Hill Lane into Sheepbarn Lane, and because of the oblique angle of the sign and the height of it, it is impossible to see it at all once you've joined the road, (unless you are driving a convertible!)
There are no warning signs to be seen when approaching the junction along Skid Hill Lane so drivers are relying solely on that one sign that has been put up on the opposite side of the road, 10+ metres high and at an oblique angle when viewed from the road you are joining the ULEZ from - please see link to pictures
https://imgur.com/a/x6LoZOK
If anyone could possibly help with the best way to put the appeal together on these grounds that would be greatly appreciated.
Good luck with your appeal, hope you can beat the blood sucking TFL and the dictator mayor!
-
Yes well it wouldn't surprise me if the regulations were left intentionally vague, especially the new authorisation for TfL
I've been over to take some pictures of the road and the signage and I think the latter is possibly defective.
The bottom of the sign is over 10 mtrs from ground level and therefore it is very difficult to see it clearly from the driver's perspective when turning right from Skid Hill Lane into Sheepbarn Lane, and because of the oblique angle of the sign and the height of it, it is impossible to see it at all once you've joined the road, (unless you are driving a convertible!)
There are no warning signs to be seen when approaching the junction along Skid Hill Lane so drivers are relying solely on that one sign that has been put up on the opposite side of the road, 10+ metres high and at an oblique angle when viewed from the road you are joining the ULEZ from - please see link to pictures
https://imgur.com/a/x6LoZOK
If anyone could possibly help with the best way to put the appeal together on these grounds that would be greatly appreciated.
-
Quick question
Is there a height stipulation in the signage regulations (i.e. the distance between the bottom of the sign and ground level) or has the DfT granted a free pass for all the ULEZ signage exempting them from adhering to any sort of regulation whatsoever?
Hey BH, I'm in the process to appeal as well, but I find the ULEZ sign authorisation and the TSRGD 2016 is rather confusing as well. I think in the 2022 authorisation, ULEZ sign need to follow it's equivalant signs to the standard that's designated in both the TSRGD 2016 and ROAD TRAFFIC REGULATION ACT 1984. This would be a hard battle man, the standard are set a bit vague, at least in my understanding.
-
Quick question
Is there a height stipulation in the signage regulations (i.e. the distance between the bottom of the sign and ground level) or has the DfT granted a free pass for all the ULEZ signage exempting them from adhering to any sort of regulation whatsoever?
-
Thank you that is very helpful
Will be going down to take some pictures tomorrow
-
Both the Wilcox adjudication and one of the DfT authorisations are on file on this site.
There was a subsequent DfT authorisation in 2022.
It's a pity that Noel Wilcox delusion is misleading so many people.
I understand he is now proposing some action against TfL because they failed to repay other people's penalties.
The result of his adjudication in 2021 is not at all unusual. TfL simply dropped the ball and he won by default. That win does not set any kind of precedent as Noel seems to think.
We often see councils fail to produce the required evidence or sometimes just don't contest.
It was nothing of note in that particular case.
-
I've just seen this on a social media site as an example text for an appeal based upon signage
Anyone care to comment?
Noel Wilcox was never 'fined' at all; he accrued penalties of £7,000, not the often quoted £11,500.
He didn't 'win' his case, TfL LOST it by not providing the evidence the adjudicator asked for.
It was a one-off because they have that evidence and have presented it in numerous subsequent adjudications: That is, that TfL have special authorisation for the signs, from DfT, that overrides the TSRGD requirements.
-
Good luck then.
-
I'll take a picture and send that off with my representations
Will keep you posted
-
Well, nothing to stop you giving it a go, just bear in mind that you'll be up for the full PCN penalty if you lose at adjudication. The text on its own is no good, you have to show that the sign you passed is not fully visible, and also fails to convey that a charge is payable for non-compliant vehicles.
Good luck !
-
I've just seen this on a social media site as an example text for an appeal based upon signage
Anyone care to comment?
"Your ULEZ signage was not clear and visible enough. The signage failed to display charge information, thereby contravening the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD). Schedule 10 of the TSRGD defines and outlines the requirements for these signs, emphasizing the need for clear and visible display of the charge amount, applicable time periods, and any exemptions. This was not adhered to, and your request for payment is consequently unlawful.
The legislation that outlines the requirements for "Charge Information Signs" for Low Emission Zones (LEZs) is found in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD). Specifically, Schedule 10 of the TSRGD provides detailed specifications for traffic signs related to LEZs, including charge information signs. Schedule 10 of the TSRGD defines a "charge information sign" as a sign that indicates the amount of the charge payable for entering an LEZ. The sign must be displayed in a prominent position and be easily visible to drivers. The sign must also include the following information:
The amount of the charge
The applicable time periods for the charge
Any exemptions from the charge
The TSRGD also specifies the design and layout of charge information signs. The sign must be rectangular in shape and have a white background with black lettering. The lettering must be of a size that is easily readable from a distance. Local authorities have some discretion in the design of charge information signs, but they must ensure that the signs comply with the general requirements of the TSRGD.
In August 2023, Hertfordshire scaffolder Noel Willcox won a legal battle against your so-called "organization" over the signage for London's Low Emission Zone (LEZ). Here is a summary of the key points of the case:
Willcox was fined £11,500 for driving his company truck in and out of its depot in Harefield, North West London. Willcox argued that the LEZ signs were not clear or visible enough, and that he had not been aware that he was entering the zone. The tribunal ruled in Willcox's favour, saying that the LEZ signs were not "authorised and lawful". The ruling may have implications for the signage for the ULEZ, and for other drivers who have been fined for entering the LEZ.
On the basis that there is no difference between that case and this, we reject your request for payment."
-
I'm not
The signage legislation applies to both doesn't it?
-
Don't confuse the London Low Emission Zone, (LEZ), with the London Ultra Low Emission Zone, (ULEZ), the two are different.
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/low-emission-zone.
and
https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone
-
Yes I take your point
I will go over and take some pictures
Is there any defence regarding unlawful signage? I've read that the signs may not be legally compliant. A chap named Noel Wilcox successfully challenged TFL over fines received for entering the Low Emission Zone (LEZ). He successfully argued that the signage was unclear and consequently illegal, and I believe he's taking it a step further with a similar challenge to ULEZ signage which is more or less identical.
-
Well if it was just a question of hedging my bets I probably would have done, but I strongly object to paying this stealth tax and will do anything I need to do to avoid supporting it
I'm not sure paying £180 is better than paying £12.50 whether you support the scheme or not. Of course you could just ignore all the correspondence, but eventually that will end up with bailiffs at your door and a bill of over £500, of which £270 would go straight to TFL.
Anyway, as google street view is not up to date with the new signs installed since the latest ULEZ expansion, the only way to assess the adequacy of the signage would be for you to go back and get some photos.
-
Well if it was just a question of hedging my bets I probably would have done, but I strongly object to paying this stealth tax and will do anything I need to do to avoid supporting it
-
Hm. I think I'd have paid up the £12.50. Gambling you'll win a PCN case where the discount alone is £90, full penalty £180 on a possible inadequate signage appeal is taking a big risk IMHO.
-
Hi - thanks for the reply
It looks as though I must have got onto Skid Hill Lane (outside ULEZ) and turned right into Sheep Barn Lane (inside ULEZ) in an attempt to get back to where I had come from
https://maps.app.goo.gl/krsGFRBDaErCgfGr5
-
Both the locations you've gives us links to are well within the zone. Honestly if you saw a sign saying you were within the zone, it would have been best to just pay the £12.50, but we are where we are.
You need to go to https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/ulez-where-and-when and compare your route to the ULEZ boundary in order to work out exactly where you would have entered the zone.
-
Hello all
Just wondering if I can get your opinions on this
I received a ULEZ PCN through the post on 03 Nov (copy attached).
I had strayed into the zone after joining the main road into Biggin Hill (A223) from a B road after losing my bearings (link to google map street view attached). I must have driven past a sign warning me that I was entering the ULEZ at some point but I can’t remember seeing it. I realised I was in the zone after seeing an enforcement camera warning sign and after that it was too late to do anything about it. I contacted ULEZ and said that I had may have strayed into the zone and asked if it was possible for me to know for certain if I had done so before I paid the charge, but they said that there was no mechanism for them to be able to tell me whether I had (or actually whether they had caught me on one of their cameras) and so I had to pay up just in case. This seemed unfair so I decided to take my chances, planning to appeal on the grounds of inadequate/unlawful signage (I believe that’s a possible line of defence) and/or that I had got lost and didn’t realise I had entered the zone until it was too late.
I’ve also put up a link showing the location of the enforcement camera.
Does anyone think there’s a chance with this appeal?
Many thanks in advance for any advice you can offer
(https://i.imgur.com/sCo6FWF.jpeg)
https://maps.app.goo.gl/ci2aYLnTqeePBoPm7
https://maps.app.goo.gl/NCf2sfN3qrXwp5ZL6