1
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
« on: August 19, 2024, 11:40:15 am »
Perfect, thank you!
cheers
James
cheers
James
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.
Pages: [1]
2
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
« on: August 19, 2024, 01:05:23 am »
Apologies for the slow reply - a busy few days. Thanks again for your reply.
It seems deeply unfortunate that an innocent mistake can be so costly, but I accept that we're not going to change that, so it is as it is. It's a bonus that (hopefully) one of the two PCNs will ultimately be less costly than we expected. Is paying just £90 for that a likely outcome (assuming we get on with it once the new PCN arrives)?
Would it be sensible to be proactive in contacting TfL, or can we trust that they will issue a refund? I have no doubt that they will comply with the order of the court and cancel the OfR and CC and reissue the PCN, but us having jumped the gun and paid in full for both PCNs does complicate things a little.
cheers
James
It seems deeply unfortunate that an innocent mistake can be so costly, but I accept that we're not going to change that, so it is as it is. It's a bonus that (hopefully) one of the two PCNs will ultimately be less costly than we expected. Is paying just £90 for that a likely outcome (assuming we get on with it once the new PCN arrives)?
Would it be sensible to be proactive in contacting TfL, or can we trust that they will issue a refund? I have no doubt that they will comply with the order of the court and cancel the OfR and CC and reissue the PCN, but us having jumped the gun and paid in full for both PCNs does complicate things a little.
cheers
James
3
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
« on: August 16, 2024, 05:15:56 pm »
Thanks for your reply.
You're right in that had a mistake not been made, the first attempt at the SDs may well have been successful, but we're all human and all make mistakes. If fair allowance is not given for a simple, honest mistake on an unfamiliar form, that seems deeply unfortunate. However, two identical PE2s had a different outcome, and (as mdann52 pointed out) the difference is that TfL failed to contest one of them. It also strikes me as unfair that TfL submitted two sides of A4 in response to our tiny boxes of writing on the PE2 and PE3 - had we known we could attach a separate sheet, we would have done so (and no doubt constructed a more compelling argument in the process!), but when there's no indication that you're allowed to do that, and you've just had two forms rejected for minor admin issues, I think we can be forgiven for thinking we had to stick to the rules!
The SD for the second OfR was submitted together with the first (and stamped as received by the TEC well within 21 days, despite a 9-day postal delay). Of course both initial SDs contained the same error (role of "verifier" not specified - both my other half and the solicitor missed that this was necessary). The second attempt was corrected, but she then ran into the issue she needed a PE2 for each PCN, but only submitted one to cover both.
However, I would argue that both errors could at least in part (to the point where the benefit of the doubt could be given) be explained by the process:
1) That the forms originally supplied (with a green-printed background) did not highlight in (unprinted) white, unlike everywhere else on the form, that the respondent had to complete the section regarding the role of the "verifier". Ironically, the plain black/white copy one can download is clearer in this regard.
2) That (for the second attempt) the TEC supplied two PE3s and one PE2, implying that one PE2 would do the job for both, when it would not.
...of course this argument might not get me far, and point 1 seems particularly difficult to argue in the cold light of day, but if two intelligent graduate professionals (my other half and the solicitor) could get it wrong, one might argue that the process is unclear and not fit for purpose!
Would a full breakdown of the timeline in list form be useful? I appreciate that it's all dotted around this thread in response to specific questions.
cheers
James
You're right in that had a mistake not been made, the first attempt at the SDs may well have been successful, but we're all human and all make mistakes. If fair allowance is not given for a simple, honest mistake on an unfamiliar form, that seems deeply unfortunate. However, two identical PE2s had a different outcome, and (as mdann52 pointed out) the difference is that TfL failed to contest one of them. It also strikes me as unfair that TfL submitted two sides of A4 in response to our tiny boxes of writing on the PE2 and PE3 - had we known we could attach a separate sheet, we would have done so (and no doubt constructed a more compelling argument in the process!), but when there's no indication that you're allowed to do that, and you've just had two forms rejected for minor admin issues, I think we can be forgiven for thinking we had to stick to the rules!
The SD for the second OfR was submitted together with the first (and stamped as received by the TEC well within 21 days, despite a 9-day postal delay). Of course both initial SDs contained the same error (role of "verifier" not specified - both my other half and the solicitor missed that this was necessary). The second attempt was corrected, but she then ran into the issue she needed a PE2 for each PCN, but only submitted one to cover both.
However, I would argue that both errors could at least in part (to the point where the benefit of the doubt could be given) be explained by the process:
1) That the forms originally supplied (with a green-printed background) did not highlight in (unprinted) white, unlike everywhere else on the form, that the respondent had to complete the section regarding the role of the "verifier". Ironically, the plain black/white copy one can download is clearer in this regard.
2) That (for the second attempt) the TEC supplied two PE3s and one PE2, implying that one PE2 would do the job for both, when it would not.
...of course this argument might not get me far, and point 1 seems particularly difficult to argue in the cold light of day, but if two intelligent graduate professionals (my other half and the solicitor) could get it wrong, one might argue that the process is unclear and not fit for purpose!
Would a full breakdown of the timeline in list form be useful? I appreciate that it's all dotted around this thread in response to specific questions.
cheers
James
4
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
« on: August 16, 2024, 01:06:14 am »
Many thanks mdann52 - some very useful comments there.
You're absolutely right. I hadn't noticed, but TfL only made representations to the court in relation to one of the two PCNs - the one for which the PE2 was rejected. I hadn't noticed that the response only had one PCN number on it. That almost certainly explains the situation.
A helpful comment about one PE2 judgement not setting a precedent for the other - thank you. It seems frustrating that TfL's opinion is enough to swing the verdict. You would think that, like with the Small Claims Court (at least as I understand it), the "little guy" is given the reasonable benefit of the doubt when dealing with a larger entity which does this day-in, day-out (and can afford legal professionals without batting an eyelid). The facts on both PE2s are still the same, and are presumably either valid grounds for appeal or not, so I'm not sure why TfL saying "not our problem if you misunderstand / make an innocent mistake on the form and don't get a replacement submitted in time because of two 9-day postal delays" has any influence on that. Whoever made the second judgement clearly accepted that we had done our best, however flawed that was. However, it is as it is, we're trying to be pragmatic, and I don't think we have much appetite to fight this as a matter of principle unless there's a high chance of success, so your feedback on that point is appreciated.
For the avoidance of doubt, the three 9+ day delays have all come since supplying our new address, so the redirection isn't in play there. I suspect that the TEC have sat on them like a chicken on an egg - both when sending and receiving them. Our post is normally very reliable, so I'm highly suspicious that the common denominator here is the efficiency of the TEC. Annoying, when TfL used "postal issues" being the defendant's problem as one of the reasons they feel the unsuccessful PE2 should be rejected (which it was, of course). Ironically, the only pieces of correspondence to arrive via redirection (the two OfRs) both arrived quite quickly, from memory!
It sounds like it would be pragmatic to be proactive with TfL, and contact them about next steps with the PCN with the upheld SD. Thank you again for all of your advice here.
cheers
James
You're absolutely right. I hadn't noticed, but TfL only made representations to the court in relation to one of the two PCNs - the one for which the PE2 was rejected. I hadn't noticed that the response only had one PCN number on it. That almost certainly explains the situation.
A helpful comment about one PE2 judgement not setting a precedent for the other - thank you. It seems frustrating that TfL's opinion is enough to swing the verdict. You would think that, like with the Small Claims Court (at least as I understand it), the "little guy" is given the reasonable benefit of the doubt when dealing with a larger entity which does this day-in, day-out (and can afford legal professionals without batting an eyelid). The facts on both PE2s are still the same, and are presumably either valid grounds for appeal or not, so I'm not sure why TfL saying "not our problem if you misunderstand / make an innocent mistake on the form and don't get a replacement submitted in time because of two 9-day postal delays" has any influence on that. Whoever made the second judgement clearly accepted that we had done our best, however flawed that was. However, it is as it is, we're trying to be pragmatic, and I don't think we have much appetite to fight this as a matter of principle unless there's a high chance of success, so your feedback on that point is appreciated.
For the avoidance of doubt, the three 9+ day delays have all come since supplying our new address, so the redirection isn't in play there. I suspect that the TEC have sat on them like a chicken on an egg - both when sending and receiving them. Our post is normally very reliable, so I'm highly suspicious that the common denominator here is the efficiency of the TEC. Annoying, when TfL used "postal issues" being the defendant's problem as one of the reasons they feel the unsuccessful PE2 should be rejected (which it was, of course). Ironically, the only pieces of correspondence to arrive via redirection (the two OfRs) both arrived quite quickly, from memory!
It sounds like it would be pragmatic to be proactive with TfL, and contact them about next steps with the PCN with the upheld SD. Thank you again for all of your advice here.
cheers
James
5
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
« on: August 16, 2024, 12:45:52 am »
Thanks for your replies, both.
Reply to HC Anderson first:
Both PCNs issued: 5th January 2024*
Both CCs issued: 28th February 2024*
Both OfRs issued: 9th April 2024
*Only gleaned via PCN look-up, as she never received them.
Redirection commenced 14 Jan for 3 months, later extended (because this was dragging on), without a break, to a total of 9 (hence still active, although both TfL and TEC are now corresponding with her at our new address, so it will probably not be extended further).
TfL made reference in their representations to the court (re: PE2) to the PCN not having been challenged within 21 days as claimed, but that is not what was claimed - the form says that the OfR was responded to within 21 days (albeit rejected because of an admin issue), as required. Perhaps not pivotal, but feels like they've scored an unfair point there. Hopefully the officer of the court can read!
cheers
James
Reply to HC Anderson first:
Both PCNs issued: 5th January 2024*
Both CCs issued: 28th February 2024*
Both OfRs issued: 9th April 2024
*Only gleaned via PCN look-up, as she never received them.
Redirection commenced 14 Jan for 3 months, later extended (because this was dragging on), without a break, to a total of 9 (hence still active, although both TfL and TEC are now corresponding with her at our new address, so it will probably not be extended further).
TfL made reference in their representations to the court (re: PE2) to the PCN not having been challenged within 21 days as claimed, but that is not what was claimed - the form says that the OfR was responded to within 21 days (albeit rejected because of an admin issue), as required. Perhaps not pivotal, but feels like they've scored an unfair point there. Hopefully the officer of the court can read!
cheers
James
6
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
« on: August 14, 2024, 10:22:21 pm »
An update...as if it couldn't get any more ridiculous!
I'm not sure if I mentioned this previously, but this thread was started in response to receiving notification of rejection of one of two PE2 (for one of two PE3s, and in turn of one two PCNs). That rejection was dated the 1st of August (see above). Given that both PCNs, PE3s and PE2s were essentially identical, I assumed that a further letter rejecting the second one would shortly be received. We paid both penalties (2x £279).
Yesterday, I believe it would be 9 days later, a new letter from the TEC has arrived, also dated 1st August, upholding the second PE2 (and hence PE3), and ordering the that the order for recovery be revoked and the Charge Certificate be cancelled. It is my assumption that TfL should now re-issue the PCN, and she could just pay the £90...except she's already paid £279 in relation to that offence.
I have four questions for your kind consideration:
1) Presumably she can get a £189 refund. Is that something to refer to TfL?
2) Why on earth would two identical PE2 & PE3 forms result in different judgements?
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?)?
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
I'm not sure if I mentioned this previously, but this thread was started in response to receiving notification of rejection of one of two PE2 (for one of two PE3s, and in turn of one two PCNs). That rejection was dated the 1st of August (see above). Given that both PCNs, PE3s and PE2s were essentially identical, I assumed that a further letter rejecting the second one would shortly be received. We paid both penalties (2x £279).
Yesterday, I believe it would be 9 days later, a new letter from the TEC has arrived, also dated 1st August, upholding the second PE2 (and hence PE3), and ordering the that the order for recovery be revoked and the Charge Certificate be cancelled. It is my assumption that TfL should now re-issue the PCN, and she could just pay the £90...except she's already paid £279 in relation to that offence.
I have four questions for your kind consideration:
1) Presumably she can get a £189 refund. Is that something to refer to TfL?
2) Why on earth would two identical PE2 & PE3 forms result in different judgements?
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?)?
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
7
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
« on: August 07, 2024, 01:06:58 am »
Thanks - that's good to know for the future. Although hopefully there isn't a "future" event!
Sadly, we used our initiative when they supplied two PE3s and one PE2, wrote both PCN numbers on the single PE2 (and what was to say that that wasn't the correct procedure?), and the TEC rejected it as incorrectly completed (and had the cheek to put a large question mark in highlighter pen next to the twin PCN numbers, as if we'd written something utterly incomprehensible!). My assumption from that point was that they work in the straightest of straight lines, even if it's blindingly obvious to anyone reading that form what was intended.
Anyway, I definitely am rambling now. I think we know what we need to do. Thanks all for your assistance - much appreciated!
cheers
James
Sadly, we used our initiative when they supplied two PE3s and one PE2, wrote both PCN numbers on the single PE2 (and what was to say that that wasn't the correct procedure?), and the TEC rejected it as incorrectly completed (and had the cheek to put a large question mark in highlighter pen next to the twin PCN numbers, as if we'd written something utterly incomprehensible!). My assumption from that point was that they work in the straightest of straight lines, even if it's blindingly obvious to anyone reading that form what was intended.
Anyway, I definitely am rambling now. I think we know what we need to do. Thanks all for your assistance - much appreciated!
cheers
James
8
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
« on: August 06, 2024, 06:01:51 pm »
Thanks for your replies. All greatly appreciated.
Perhaps it's obvious if you read these things all the time and know the processes and terminology, but (frankly) I'm not stupid, so if I'm having trouble deciphering it all for the first time, heaven help the majority of the population!
Here are the extracts from the final PE3 and PE2 forms (with old address detail redacted):
As you can see, space is extremely limited, and full sentences were not really possible. It is not clear if you could attach a fuller explanation on a separate sheet, but I assume not (given the harsh/petty two-PCN-numbers-on-one-PE2 rejection). Of course TfL afforded themselves the luxury of a side and a half of A4 in their comments in response to this for the attention of the court officer. Anyway, these were her best efforts, for right or wrong. She also happens to be dyslexic, which doesn't help.
cheers
James
Perhaps it's obvious if you read these things all the time and know the processes and terminology, but (frankly) I'm not stupid, so if I'm having trouble deciphering it all for the first time, heaven help the majority of the population!
Here are the extracts from the final PE3 and PE2 forms (with old address detail redacted):
As you can see, space is extremely limited, and full sentences were not really possible. It is not clear if you could attach a fuller explanation on a separate sheet, but I assume not (given the harsh/petty two-PCN-numbers-on-one-PE2 rejection). Of course TfL afforded themselves the luxury of a side and a half of A4 in their comments in response to this for the attention of the court officer. Anyway, these were her best efforts, for right or wrong. She also happens to be dyslexic, which doesn't help.
cheers
James
9
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
« on: August 06, 2024, 10:46:09 am »
Thanks for your replies.
Sorry Neil - perhaps I am waffling in your eyes, but I am just trying to explain the situation as best I can. This is all entirely alien to me, and there's quite a lot to it.
The first PCN is XJ14734752, and the VRM is SC58BEE. That should take you to the second one, also.
They have listed a huge gap between the registration of the debt (9th April, the first correspondence we received being on the 12th) and the receipt of the Statutory Declaration (OoT) - 28th May - but this included two rounds of pedantic rejections from the TEC. The first PE3 was sent to the TEC on the 16th April, and everything was returned as quickly as we could.
To answer your questions, H C Andersen:
In terms of calling it quits and just paying up, I called the TEC earlier, who referred me to TFL. They confirmed that if the charges against the PCNs are still on their website, it hasn't gone to debt recovery yet, and they can just be paid, and that's the end of it. I suspect that (unless someone can see a rabbit which can be pulled from a hat) that's what we'll do, wish for a plague on all their houses, and draw a line under it!
Thanks again for all your help, all.
cheers
James
Sorry Neil - perhaps I am waffling in your eyes, but I am just trying to explain the situation as best I can. This is all entirely alien to me, and there's quite a lot to it.
The first PCN is XJ14734752, and the VRM is SC58BEE. That should take you to the second one, also.
They have listed a huge gap between the registration of the debt (9th April, the first correspondence we received being on the 12th) and the receipt of the Statutory Declaration (OoT) - 28th May - but this included two rounds of pedantic rejections from the TEC. The first PE3 was sent to the TEC on the 16th April, and everything was returned as quickly as we could.
To answer your questions, H C Andersen:
- TfL claim that the PCN was issued on the 5th of January, and the CC on the 28th February.
- A postal redirection was in place from the 14th January and we have a receipt from RM to confirm this.
- Sadly the redirection was applied too late to catch the PCN, and that was the expensive part. The CC not being redirected appears to have only cost her 2x £9.
- The new owners of her old house were asked to be on look-out for a PCN once she realised she'd forgotten to pay the two £12.50 charges, but they say nothing arrived. Of course that's pretty sketchy, and wouldn't get us far, I suspect.
In terms of calling it quits and just paying up, I called the TEC earlier, who referred me to TFL. They confirmed that if the charges against the PCNs are still on their website, it hasn't gone to debt recovery yet, and they can just be paid, and that's the end of it. I suspect that (unless someone can see a rabbit which can be pulled from a hat) that's what we'll do, wish for a plague on all their houses, and draw a line under it!
Thanks again for all your help, all.
cheers
James
10
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
« on: August 06, 2024, 01:40:52 am »
Thanks for your replies, both.
I agree with the rather brutal reality of your statement, Incandescent. I don't like it...but, pragmatically, if she accepts that the undelivered PCN was her fault (which it probably was), and if the £279 per-PCN from the OfR still applies, everything afterwards (which arguable was not her fault) hasn't actually increased the size of the penalties appreciably, so there's very little point in railing against it any further.
When she responded to the OfR with a Statutory Declaration, our new address was provided, and that has been used by both TfL and the TEC ever since. Both entities have used the new address correctly previously, but it was incorrectly rendered by the TEC (in two ways, I've just noticed) in their most recent correspondence (i.e. our address on the latest TEC letter is wrong in two places). I think that's probably an irrelevance, though.
Latest letter (with name, address and PCN number redacted) as follows:
My reading of that is that the PE2 has been rejected, which in turn means the PE3 has been rejected, and we're back to square one (i.e. the terms of the OfR). What's not clear is what happens next, and if we need to do anything at this stage, or wait for further correspondence.
Can I come back to the earlier questions? I'm going to assume that the failure of RM to deliver (at least) the CC is not going to get us anywhere (even though it's not actually our fault either!)...but what about the procedure from here, if we conclude that we just want to cough up and draw a line under it? It's far from clear what we do next.
1) Will a further demand be made, or (without them specifying such) should we refer back to the original OfR (which states a figure and how to pay)? It has taken the TEC almost two months to respond, and I'm reluctant to just sit and wait, especially given the record in the case of post going missing. I don't want my first ever visit from a bailiff (or to pay their fees!).
2) Should we contact the TEC (or TfL) for clarification to expedite a resolution?
Even leaving aside the bitter taste in the mouth left by the appeals process (which feels unfair and unjust, to say the least), the clarity over the procedure is exceptionally poor, and I'm left extremely nervous about what might happen next.
cheers
James
I agree with the rather brutal reality of your statement, Incandescent. I don't like it...but, pragmatically, if she accepts that the undelivered PCN was her fault (which it probably was), and if the £279 per-PCN from the OfR still applies, everything afterwards (which arguable was not her fault) hasn't actually increased the size of the penalties appreciably, so there's very little point in railing against it any further.
When she responded to the OfR with a Statutory Declaration, our new address was provided, and that has been used by both TfL and the TEC ever since. Both entities have used the new address correctly previously, but it was incorrectly rendered by the TEC (in two ways, I've just noticed) in their most recent correspondence (i.e. our address on the latest TEC letter is wrong in two places). I think that's probably an irrelevance, though.
Latest letter (with name, address and PCN number redacted) as follows:
My reading of that is that the PE2 has been rejected, which in turn means the PE3 has been rejected, and we're back to square one (i.e. the terms of the OfR). What's not clear is what happens next, and if we need to do anything at this stage, or wait for further correspondence.
Can I come back to the earlier questions? I'm going to assume that the failure of RM to deliver (at least) the CC is not going to get us anywhere (even though it's not actually our fault either!)...but what about the procedure from here, if we conclude that we just want to cough up and draw a line under it? It's far from clear what we do next.
1) Will a further demand be made, or (without them specifying such) should we refer back to the original OfR (which states a figure and how to pay)? It has taken the TEC almost two months to respond, and I'm reluctant to just sit and wait, especially given the record in the case of post going missing. I don't want my first ever visit from a bailiff (or to pay their fees!).
2) Should we contact the TEC (or TfL) for clarification to expedite a resolution?
Even leaving aside the bitter taste in the mouth left by the appeals process (which feels unfair and unjust, to say the least), the clarity over the procedure is exceptionally poor, and I'm left extremely nervous about what might happen next.
cheers
James
11
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
« on: August 05, 2024, 06:42:36 pm »
Thanks for your reply, which I think confirms my thinking - that there aren't any viable grounds for appeal, that leniency isn't going to be shown, and that the only option now is to pay up. On that basis, I didn't think it worth posting full details and asking for actual help - just asking a few specific questions about the procedure - I don't want to waste anyone's time. Yes, undoubtedly all of her own making (and she is philosophical about having to pay, albeit begrudgingly, naturally), and I am a little frustrated that so many balls were dropped...but we are where we are.
The trouble is that I'm not particularly clear on exactly where we actually are! As far as I can see, we haven't ever been presented with an actual "bill" of what is owed (although it's possible that a number was presented in the first piece of correspondence which included the OfR), or told how to pay it.
Could I ask the following questions, please?
1) Given that the Charge Certificate should have been delivered (by that time a postal redirection was definitely in place), is there any mileage in pursuing that, or is it a dead end, and a Royal Mail failure is our problem, not TfL's? They have also misspelled our address, but it got to us nonetheless. I appreciate that we may well wish to just pay up to avoid risk of escalating costs, even if there were, say, a 75% chance of success.
2) The latest letter (dated 1st August) is not written in particularly plain English for the layperson, IMO, but appears to be suggesting that the PE2 has been refused (I'm guessing this is a "final refusal" letter you reference - happy to post a copy of that if it helps). This relates to one PCN, so presumably a second is on the way. Would we expect to receive further correspondence detailing what is now owed and what to pay?
3) Would it be sensible to contact the TEC to confirm the procedure from here?
Thanks again for your help.
cheers
James
The trouble is that I'm not particularly clear on exactly where we actually are! As far as I can see, we haven't ever been presented with an actual "bill" of what is owed (although it's possible that a number was presented in the first piece of correspondence which included the OfR), or told how to pay it.
Could I ask the following questions, please?
1) Given that the Charge Certificate should have been delivered (by that time a postal redirection was definitely in place), is there any mileage in pursuing that, or is it a dead end, and a Royal Mail failure is our problem, not TfL's? They have also misspelled our address, but it got to us nonetheless. I appreciate that we may well wish to just pay up to avoid risk of escalating costs, even if there were, say, a 75% chance of success.
2) The latest letter (dated 1st August) is not written in particularly plain English for the layperson, IMO, but appears to be suggesting that the PE2 has been refused (I'm guessing this is a "final refusal" letter you reference - happy to post a copy of that if it helps). This relates to one PCN, so presumably a second is on the way. Would we expect to receive further correspondence detailing what is now owed and what to pay?
3) Would it be sensible to contact the TEC to confirm the procedure from here?
Thanks again for your help.
cheers
James
12
Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) / ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
« on: August 05, 2024, 02:04:33 am »
Hi All,
I've just been writing for well over half any hour, made a typo, hit "Undo"...and everything I'd written vanished! Not an auspicious start!
My other half failed to pay the ULEZ charge on two consecutive days in December 2023, but the situation appears to have descended into a never-ending farce. The fact that I am writing about this in August 2024 tells a story! However, here are the salient points:
So...a bit of a mess!
A few questions, if I may:
Any thoughts on those points, or anything else, would be very much appreciated. Thanks for your time!
cheers
James
I've just been writing for well over half any hour, made a typo, hit "Undo"...and everything I'd written vanished! Not an auspicious start!
My other half failed to pay the ULEZ charge on two consecutive days in December 2023, but the situation appears to have descended into a never-ending farce. The fact that I am writing about this in August 2024 tells a story! However, here are the salient points:
- Neither the PCNs nor the Charge Certificates were received. This is most likely due to a house move. She misplaced her V5C, and didn't apply for a new one (at the new address) until she'd turned all the packing boxes at the new house upside down. Furthermore, a postal redirection wasn't in place until just over two weeks after the offending dates. However, she was on good terms with the new occupants of her old address, and they assured her that nothing turned up (not that that's worth a jot, legally, I know). However, it wouldn't explain why the Charge Certificates weren't received - they should have arrived via redirection by that stage. Not a great set of circumstances, granted, but we are where we are...and it's not 100% her fault!
- The first we heard of enforcement action was when we received the Order for Recovery from the TEC (via postal redirection), quite a long time after the event. PE3 forms were submitted, and I believe an email was sent (which was listed as an option) as an emergency alternative to a PE2, as the OfR was received too late for the PE3 to be submitted in time (presumably due to the redirection - and although the V5C had been changed by this point, they presumably don't re-check the registered address). Forgive me if the email thing sounds implausible and I've got it wrong - it's months ago - but that is my recollection. Two printed PE3 forms were supplied with the OfR. These have a green background, with every field to be completed (un)shaded in white...except where the solicitor states their role, which is on the green background. Both my other half and the solicitor (who is a friend, so comeback isn't an option) missed this final field, and failed to complete it. The first PE3s were rejected on the basis that the forms were incomplete.
- The rejection notice included two more PE3s (all-white, this time), and a PE2. These were duly completed, with both PCN numbers on the PE2. These were also rejected on the basis that there should have been one PE2 per PCN/PE3, with a large question mark being drawn next to the twin PCN numbers on the PE2 - rather petty, I thought. A great deal of compassion for innocent mistakes appears to be shown at the TEC...!
- Fresh PE2s and PE3s were printed (not supplied this time), completed and submitted. Third time lucky!
- Some time later, we received a reply (by Recorded Delivery - more on that later) from TfL stating that they did not consider postal issues to be valid grounds for us to go back to the PCN (or even Charge Certificate) stage, and referring the matter back to the TEC. I've just noticed that the TfL website mentions the Interpretation Act 1978 s.7 in this context,
- Finally, yesterday we received a letter from the TEC stating that the PE2 was rejected (but offering an appeal process, at cost). They are not obliged to give a reason for the rejection, and have not done so. The actual implications of this are somewhat unclear from the contents of the letter (might CC the Campaign for Clear English...!), but on a 10th reading it sounds like that means the PE3 will not be considered.
So...a bit of a mess!
A few questions, if I may:
- This has been dragging on for months, and is pretty stressful. It is affecting my other half in particular. The nature of her work (in the public sector, ironically) means that she works away and can do very little admin during the week - although her role might play well in court, if it ever got that far. The process once it leaves TfL is unclear, and very slow. Does anyone know what is likely to happen next, and when we might know the bottom line? Will they send a demand for payment? Frankly, she'd just like it to go away at this stage. They definitely know how to wear you down!
- Ideally, she would like to pay the original £90/contravention, as she would have done without hesitation if the PCN had been successfully delivered, but I think has accepted that it is likely to be at least at the £180/event rate. However, if the PE3 is not going to be considered because the PE2 has been rejected, presumably this will be higher, and will at least be subject to a debt registration fee. I'm struggling to find out what that fee might be. Does anyone know what the implications will be here?
- One of the options on the PE3 form is that the keeper of the vehicle did not receive the PCN - presumably with "lost in post" being the most obviously scenario. However, this basis for appeal was rejected because postal issues are not TfLs problem (or words to that effect). Two thoughts here:
- Given that they later replied via Recorded Delivery, does that affect the validity of that statement? If normal post is good enough for a PCN or a Charge Certificate, why use it for later correspondence?
- Can they actually provide proof of postage without something being sent via Recorded Delivery? There is always the chance that, rather than it being a Royal Mail issue (most likely, I think), they actually didn't send either document in the first place!
Any thoughts on those points, or anything else, would be very much appreciated. Thanks for your time!
cheers
James
Pages: [1]