Free Traffic Legal Advice

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.

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

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.


 

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.

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.

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

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

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

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]