3. Messages

Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - mrbiz

Pages: [1]
1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: 46: Stopped where prohibited -> Representation made -> No decision received -> Notice to owner pay £160
« on: July 24, 2024, 01:54:32 am »
Hi,

TFL's shocking lack of transparency is demonstrated by the online chat I had with them. 

The gist of it is that they claim to have replied to my original online informal representation submission by email. 
I did not receive the email.  I do not believe it was sent because the result of the representation was not recorded in the PCN Status history.  When I asked why, TFL replied, "As this was a informal representation rejection, it would not show the same as a formal representation rejection."

That is blatantly not transparent.  Why would the representation sent on paper be treated differently from the one sent electronically?

To the best of my knowledge there is no fundamental difference between a representation lodged online and one sent on paper in terms of their legal standing and the process they undergo. Both methods are valid ways to challenge a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) and should be treated equally by Transport for London (TfL).


Code: [Select]
Mrbiz (11:28:08)
So what happened to the representation sent on 01/4/2024? I received no reply to that. The 14 days was supposed to be suspended until TFL replied. TFL did not reply

Mrbiz (11:29:10)
01 April 2024On Hold: SUS26 - Representation Received

Tanzela (11:31:29)
You had submitted a challenge on 01/04/2024. A reply was issued via email on 17/04/2024 advising that we had rejected your initial challenge , a informal representation rejection letter was issued and your options at that stage were to either pay the pcn at £80 or to wait for the Notice to Owner to be issued so that you could submit a formal representation however the Notice to owner being issued would mean that the pcn would increase to the amount of £160.00
As we did not receive any payment following the informal representation rejection letter being issued, the PCN continued to progress.

Mrbiz (11:33:34)
I did not receive that email. Furthermore, there is no record of the rejection on the PCN history.

Tanzela (11:36:10)
The email was sent as advised on that date.
The subject line would have been: tfl PCN Representation response.
It may have landed in your spam/junk mailbox if you did not receive it in the main mailbox.

Mrbiz (11:37:58)
I will look but were that the case why is -
16 July 2024Representation Rejected
TfL has rejected a representation received for this PCN.

Mrbiz (11:38:38)
noted in the PCN status history but not the rejection from 17/4?

Mrbiz (11:39:06)
Isn't the point of the PCN Status history to be transparent?

Tanzela (11:39:49)
[b]As this was a informal representation rejection, it would not show the same as a formal representation rejection.[/b]

Mrbiz (11:40:54)
Then why bother noting: 01 April 2024Email dispatched to: biz@inventory.london Subj Representation receipted?

Tanzela (11:42:07)
Our system automatically records these interactions based on certain correspondence received however i would not be able to advise any further than that.

Mrbiz (11:42:26)
Will I receive a transcript of this conversation?








Code: [Select]
PCN status history
16 July 2024Representation Rejected
TfL has rejected a representation received for this PCN.

27 June 2024On Hold: SUS26 - Representation Received
N/A

13 June 2024NTO/Enforcement Notice Batched
N/A

16 May 2024On Hold: SUS09 - DVLA Action
N/A

17 April 2024On Hold: SUS26 - Representation Received (15/05/2024)
N/A

01 April 2024Email dispatched to: biz@inventory.london Subj Representation receipted
N/A

01 April 2024On Hold: SUS26 - Representation Received
N/A

This is the letter I am proposing to  send:

Code: [Select]
[Your Name]
[Date]

Customer Services
Transport for London

Dear Sir/Madam,

Re: Formal Complaint Regarding PCN GF84462462

I am writing to formally complain about the lack of transparency and inconsistencies in the handling of my Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) GF84462462.

On 1st April 2024, I submitted an initial representation against the PCN, which was acknowledged and put on hold as per the confirmation I received. The PCN status history clearly shows this entry.

During a webchat on 23rd July 2024, your representative Tanzela claimed that a rejection email was sent on 17th April 2024. However, there are several issues with this claim:

1. There is no record of this rejection in the PCN status history. The only entry for 17th April 2024 states "On Hold: SUS26 - Representation Received (15/05/2024)", which contradicts the claim that a rejection was sent.

2. I did not receive any such email. When I pointed this out, Tanzela suggested it might have gone to my spam folder, but this does not explain the absence of this crucial communication from the official PCN status history.

3. Tanzela stated that as this was an "informal representation rejection", it would not show the same as a formal representation rejection. This explanation lacks credibility, as the PCN status history does record other communications, including the initial receipt of my representation on 1st April 2024.

Furthermore, a Notice to Owner was issued on 13th June 2024, and I submitted a second representation on 27th June 2024. This representation was rejected on 16th July 2024, which is recorded in the PCN status history.

The discrepancies between the PCN status history, the claims made by your representative, and my actual experience raise serious concerns about the transparency and accuracy of TfL's communication and record-keeping processes. It appears that crucial information about the handling of my case is either not being recorded properly or is being selectively omitted from the official history.

I request a thorough investigation into these inconsistencies and a clear explanation of:

1. Why the alleged rejection on 17th April 2024 is not recorded in the PCN status history.
2. Why I was not properly informed about the status of my initial representation.
3. How TfL justifies progressing to a Notice to Owner without clear communication about the outcome of the initial representation.

Given these issues, I believe it would be appropriate to cancel this PCN or, at minimum, reinstate the option to pay the reduced fine.

I look forward to your prompt and detailed response to these concerns.

Yours faithfully,

Mrbiz

2
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: 46: Stopped where prohibited -> Representation made -> No decision received -> Notice to owner pay £160
« on: June 24, 2024, 12:48:18 pm »
Hi,
Thanks for the advice.
I posted my appeal by first class post today (Documents here)
Thanks for your help.
Fingers crossed there will not be a next step

3
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: 46: Stopped where prohibited -> Representation made -> No decision received -> Notice to owner pay £160
« on: June 22, 2024, 10:58:57 am »
Hi Guys,

As I think I am on a stopwatch to submit the representation, I thought I would go ahead but ran into problems.

Since the orignal PCN issued 1/4/2024 says, “You can informally challenge the penalty charge notice at any time before the Notice to Owner is served. If your informal representations is rejected, or if you did not receive a reply and a Notice to Owner Is served, representations against the penalty charge must be made in the form and manner and by the time specified in the Notice to Owner”

The Notice to Owner specifies:  “Written representations can be made online via our website tfl.gov.uk/redroutes and following the link 'Make a Representation’ where you can add copies of any evidence or alternatively sending it by post to Red Routes,
PO Box 335, Darlington. DL1 9PU.”

Following their instructions: I just went online to resubmit my representation but there does not appear to be an option to do this.

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/challenge-a-pcn-details?pcnId=GF84462462&vrm=BJ09VBO&journey=Challenge&skippedIssuedPage=true

If you examine the above URL you will see “journey=Challenge&skippedIssuedPage=true”  this part of the URL is specifying that the representation/challenge should be skipped.  This means that it is impossible to submit online.

Consequently, the only means of submitting a representation is by post.  Is that corect?

4
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: 46: Stopped where prohibited -> Representation made -> No decision received -> Notice to owner pay £160
« on: June 22, 2024, 10:26:35 am »
 :-\

5
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: 46: Stopped where prohibited -> Representation made -> No decision received -> Notice to owner pay £160
« on: June 20, 2024, 11:44:20 pm »
They emailed me the confirmation.

How is this draft for new appeal?

Dear Transport for London,
I am writing to appeal the "Notice to Owner" issued for PCN number GF84462462. My appeal is based on the following grounds:
Confirmation of Previous Appeal: On 01 April 2024, I received a confirmation from TfL regarding my initial representation against this PCN. This confirmation, with representation reference number 50552837, acknowledged the submission of my appeal and stated that the enforcement process would be suspended.
Discounted Fine Offer: In the same confirmation, TfL extended an offer for a discounted fine of £80. This offer was made as part of the appeal process and was accepted by me in good faith.
Legal Principle: It is a well-established legal principle that once an offer has been made and accepted, it cannot be unilaterally withdrawn or altered by the offering party. In this case, TfL made a clear offer of a discounted fine, which I accepted by virtue of my compliance and willingness to pay the reduced amount.
Reliance on the Offer: Based on the confirmation received and the discounted fine offer, I reasonably relied on this information and made financial decisions accordingly. It would be unfair and potentially detrimental to now impose a higher fine.
Consistency and Fairness: For the sake of maintaining public trust and ensuring fair treatment, it is crucial that TfL honors its commitments and follows through on the terms it has previously communicated.
Given these circumstances, I respectfully request that TfL adheres to the originally offered discounted fine of £80, as communicated in the confirmation dated 01 April 2024. This approach would be consistent with the principles of fairness, good faith, and the legal concept that an offer, once accepted, creates a binding agreement.
I trust that upon review of this appeal and the associated documentation, TfL will recognize the validity of my position and honor the discounted fine as initially offered. I look forward to your favorable consideration and prompt resolution of this matter.
Thank you for your attention to this appeal.
Sincerely,
mrbiz

6
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: 46: Stopped where prohibited -> Representation made -> No decision received -> Notice to owner pay £160
« on: June 18, 2024, 09:38:43 am »
I am ashamed to say when I submitted the original representation I was not:
1.  Aware of the existence of this site
2.  Aware that I should have been addressing TFL rather than Islington Council.

Can I now use this opportunity to rewrite my representation?

Here is a paraphrased version of my original very bad representation:

Subject: Appeal against PCN GF84462462 issued on 01/04/2024

Dear Islington Council,

I am writing to appeal the Penalty Charge Notice GF84462462 issued to my vehicle registration BJ09VBO on April 1, 2024 at 09:05 on Upper Street in Islington.

The grounds for my appeal are as follows:

1. The PCN was issued on Easter Monday, April 1, 2024, which was a bank holiday. As per the precedent and common practice in the UK, parking restrictions are generally relaxed on bank holidays, with rules often mirroring those of Sundays unless explicitly stated otherwise on signage.[3][4][10]

2. The road sign provided[2] indicates restrictions for the "RED ROUTE" from Monday-Saturday 7am-7pm, with exceptions allowing parking from 10am-11am and 2pm-3pm for a maximum of 20 minutes. However, the sign does not explicitly state that these restrictions apply on bank holidays as well.

3. Islington Council's own website[7] states that on bank holidays when Arsenal is not playing at home, motorists can park for free in resident bays or pay and display bays without a permit or payment. While it does not mention loading bays specifically, the general relaxation of restrictions on bank holidays is acknowledged.

4. There was no traffic or obstruction caused by my vehicle at the time, as evidenced by the lack of traffic mentioned in my initial statement.[USER_INPUT] Parking briefly to load/unload goods should be permitted on bank holidays when not causing an obstruction or safety hazard.

In light of the above, I believe the issuance of this PCN on Easter Monday was incorrect and contrary to the established precedent and practice of relaxed parking enforcement on bank holidays in the absence of explicit signage stating otherwise.[3][4][6][10] I have provided photographic evidence of the relevant signage[2] and referred to Islington Council's own guidance.[7]

I therefore request that this PCN be cancelled. Please let me know if you require any further information or evidence to support my appeal.

Thank you for your consideration.

Sincerely,
mrbiz

[1][2][3][4][6][7][10]


Citations:
[1] https://pplx-res.cloudinary.com/image/upload/v1711976177/user_uploads/yjphfwsqy/image.jpg
[2] https://pplx-res.cloudinary.com/image/upload/v1711974641/user_uploads/fygeadfqw/image.jpg
[3] http://www.ukparking.info/myths/24/sundays-and-bank-holidays
[4] https://www.bromley.gov.uk/traffic-management/street-parking-advice/8
[5] https://www.london.gov.uk/who-we-are/what-london-assembly-does/questions-mayor/find-an-answer/parking-restrictions-and-bank-holidays
[6] https://www.westminster.gov.uk/parking/bank-holiday-parking-controls
[7] https://www.islington.gov.uk/contact-us/bank-holiday-services
[8] https://hackney.gov.uk/parking-bank-holidays/
[9] https://www.islington.gov.uk/parking
[10] https://www.lambeth.gov.uk/parking/parking-restrictions/where-you-can-park/parking-bank-public-holidays
[11] https://www.islington.gov.uk/parking/parking-restrictions
[12] https://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/appeals-process-parking-england/
[13] https://www.camden.gov.uk/parking-public-holidays
[14] https://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/how-to-appeal/
[15] https://www.islington.gov.uk/parking/parking-restrictions/~/media/ecd00cb3d3704334ad88f023e5d171d8.ashx
[16] https://www.gov.uk/appeal-against-a-penalty-charge-notice/out-of-time
[17] https://www.islington.gov.uk/parking/where-to-park
[18] https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/parking-tickets/appealing-parking-tickets/appealing-a-parking-ticket/
[19] https://www.citizensadvice.org.uk/law-and-courts/parking-tickets/appealing-parking-tickets/when-to-appeal-a-parking-ticket/
[20] https://nationaldebtline.org/fact-sheet-library/penalty-charge-notices-ew/

7
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: 46: Stopped where prohibited -> Representation made -> No decision received -> Notice to owner pay £160
« on: June 17, 2024, 12:58:20 am »
Hi,
Thanks your advice is much appreciated.

Registration: BJ09 VBO
PCN Number: GF84462462
Representation reference number: 50552837
Documents:  https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1axey2qfE0OrroTFk7dHQn0QcD-Dzjfhw?usp=sharing

8
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / 46: Stopped where prohibited -> Representation made -> No decision received -> Notice to owner pay £160
« on: June 15, 2024, 09:01:14 pm »
Hello,

Please learned friends, what should I do next?

On 1/4/2024 9:05 AM I received a PCN for being parked in loading zone on a red route.
I submitted a representation online and received a confirmation of receipt.
No decision has been made regarding my representation (See PCN status history below).
Today, I received a "Notice To Owner" telling me to cough up £160 or else...
This contradicts what the confirmation said (See Confirmation below).
They were supposed to suspend the 14 days to pay the lower amount of £80 if the representation was rejected but they never made a decision before telling me to pay £160.
 

Code: [Select]
PCN status history
13 June 2024NTO/Enforcement Notice Batched
N/A

16 May 2024On Hold: SUS09 - DVLA Action
N/A

17 April 2024On Hold: SUS26 - Representation Received (15/05/2024)
N/A

01 April 2024Email dispatched to: biz@inventory.london Subj Representation receipted
N/A

01 April 2024On Hold: SUS26 - Representation Received
N/A
++++


Code: [Select]
Confirmation

Representation reference number: 50552837

Make note of this number for your records.

Check the status of your challenge by going to View a PCN with your PCN number and number
plate (Vehicle Registration Mark).

We sent a receipt to biz@inventory.london

Your representation has been made against the following PCN(s):
GF84462462

What happens next?
The amount of your PCN will not increase until we investigate and respond to you
representation. We may contact you to ask for more information.

When we make a decision we'll send a letter accepting, or a notice rejecting, your representation.
This may be served to the email address entered.

To avoid getting penalties in the future, sign up for Auto Pay.

If your representation is rejected
Thank you - your representation has been submitted
We'll review your representation and send a response to the registered keeper/liable party.
The enforcement process will now be suspended. We aim to respond to you within 15 days -
please contact us if you have not received a response after 21 days.

4/1/24, 5:20 PM Confirmation - Transport for London

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/your-representation-has-been-submitted?ReferenceNumber=50552837&SendEmail=True&EmailAddress=biz... 2/2
If we reject your representation, the notice will outline two options:

Pay the penalty charge by the deadline on the notice
Or use the form enclosed with the notice to appeal to an independent adjudicator at London
Tribunals

Pages: [1]