Free Traffic Legal Advice

Wouldn't a SAR be better than an FOIR?

Given the council cannot release personal details under FOI

As mentioned in the letter, you can expect the police to do searches into the insurance used by the driver at the time, and they'll seek to prosecute you for permitting use without insurance unless you can provide evidence they were insured, if the Motor Insurance Bureau shows no policy was held

This offence can be dual-charged with Failure to Furnish, meaning that even if you defend that you may still be convicted of insurance offences.

I didn't think the online form required inputting all the required details under the legislation? I haven't had to do it myself though, only seen screenshots, so happy to be corrected.

I think it's going to come down to the DoB - the driving licence number still only contains two digits for year of birth, so it's possible for two people born in different centuries to have the same licence number, minus the last few random digits

Surely the police can't withdraw a CoFP and prosecute the OP within the 28 day period where court action is suspended?

The police could decline to accept it, as legally there's no presumption of service if sent by email

If police have acknowledged receipt, that becomes a non-issue

1) Presumably she can get a £189 refund. Is that something to refer to TfL?

Arguably, she should get a full refund and be given the opportunity to pay at the reduced rate or make representations. The balls in TfLs court to reissue the PCN, but they should refund you if you contact them (this may also be done automatically, but I'm not sure how reliable TfL's systems are nowadays!)

2) Why on earth would two identical PE2 & PE3 forms result in different judgements?

Just out of interest - do you know if TfL opposed them both? If they didn't oppose one, either through an admin issue or incompetence, then that might explain it

3) Does this inconsistency open the door for the first PE2/PE3 to be reconsidered, and is there a process for doing that? Would that be one of the two (at-cost) appeal routes outlined in the rejection letter? If the appeal is upheld, is the appeal cost refunded (by TfL?)?

No, as each PE2/3 is considered independently and doesn't set a precedent. If you want it reviewed you need to apply on an N244, which comes with a £109/£307 fee from memory, depending if the hearing is on papers or in person.

As long as the judge has acted lawfully in rejecting the PE2, the decision will be upheld.

4) (Slightly flippantly) What on earth are Royal Mail playing at? That is the third time in relation to this matter that there has been a 9-day delay in the post...not to mention serious question marks about the original PCN and Charge Certificate. We don't generally have postal issues, so forgive my cynicism...but is it possible that the problems here do not, in fact, relate to Royal Mail at all, and that TfL potentially failed to post the PCN and CC, and that the TEC are not processing their post in a timely manner (in either direction)? Is there any grounds for taking that up with an appropriate body? Significant delays on the part of the TEC might seem like pedantry, but not when they have rejected a PE2 which was required, at least in part, by "postal issues".


cheers


James

There will be a delay between an order being made and it being sent it. If different sorting offices are involved, 9 days isn't unreasonable for redirected first class post, given how the system works.

You now wait and see what the council do

The key question here is did you ever receive a formal notice of rejection, and did you appeal to the tribunal following that notice? How good your appeal is doesn't matter at the TEC stage, just the reasons for getting here.

I'm not convinced that hire agreement meets the requirement of Schedule 2, as it doesn't include a DoB or licence number (unless that's been retracted)