Free Traffic Legal Advice

To follow up, I have now received the Notice of Rejection from Bristol.

I made two sets of representations through their web portal.

First (15 June 2023)
Ground for Representation: The Council has made a procedural error when dealing with my case or the PCN.  If you believe there has been a failure on the part of the Council in relation to this notice or its enforcement, you must explain this to us.

You wrote:

Representations made in appeal against PCN BS53377428 on 15 June 2023.

To whom it may concern,
I request that you cancel PCN BS53377428 for vehicle VO61 EGE, served on 2 June 2023. I make this request due to procedural errors in the issuing of the PCN which invalidate the notice. There are at least three principal errors in the notice with respect to procedure, and several additional errors in respect to the pro forma, any of which is sufficient cause for the PCN to be cancelled. The principal errors include:
1. The time interval between the alleged contravention and the Date of Service exceeds the statutory 28-day limit.
The alleged contravention occurred for failing to pay a CAZ charge before 3 May 2023. As this is a camera-enforced PCN, the latest date for a Date of Service would therefore be 31 May 2023. The Notice was served on 2 June 2023, which is a 30-day interval. Note that the Date of Service here assumed follows the convention detailed on the PCN of the Date of Notice plus two working days.

2. The PCN has failed to demonstrate a contravention on all points, since the make of car is listed as “Unknown”.
The CAZ charge is only applicable to certain vehicles, dependent on engine design and fuel type. To demonstrate that a contravention has occurred, the onus is on the Council to check the vehicle particulars before issuing PCN fines. The “due diligence” required of this process includes detailing the particulars of the contravention on the PCN; since the vehicle make is not detailed, the threshold for demonstrating due diligence is not met.

3. The alleged location of the contravention is unclear.
The PCN states the “Camera Location” as “Marlborough Street (CAZ0014)”. The exact location is unclear to the recipient of the PCN. As with point 2, this further indicates a failure to demonstrate due diligence.

On these points, I therefore request that the PCN is cancelled. If the PCN is not cancelled promptly, then it should be expected that this case will go to Tribunal, where the above points and further particulars of the pro forma errors will be demonstrated as proof of an invalid procedure. I further advise the Council that any attempt to access more particulars of my personal data from the DVLA, or to store and/or process my data, without due cause will be considered a breach of my rights under the GDPR Act, and legal representations will be made, including for financial recompense.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Second (21 June 2023)
Ground for Representation: The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.  The amount of the penalty charge is set in the relevant charging order.  This ground applies if a different penalty charge is claimed.

You wrote:

Further representation made in appeal against PCN BS53377428 on 21 June 2023

Dear Bristol City Council,

Further to the representations submitted on 15 June 2023 for the above PCN, I additionally submit the following as a clear reason why the PCN should be immediately cancelled.

I challenge liability on the basis that the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case. The PCN carries an 0870 premium rate telephone number, and I contend that as in Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022) this amounts to a demand that exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case. I have attached the rulings related to this case for your convenience.

It follows that the PCN must be cancelled.
[Documents were attached as per @cp8759's suggestion]

Attach copies of these two cases:
Andrew Young v London Borough of Croydon (2190531198, 27 January 2020)
Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022)

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Here are links to the rejection letter:
Page 1
Page 2
Page 3
Page 4 (Tribunal advice and 'Ways to pay')

Despite the offer to uphold the initial fine at £60 + £9, I intend to take this to tribunal.
I've tried to review the relevant laws* (though none of the associated legal judgements), and I note the following:
1) Bristol did not respond to representation #2. As I noted in the earlier post, the website said they would only consider the first representation made, though I can see no basis for this limit in the laws. Under the Road User Charging Scheme Regs (Part III, 9), they are bound to consider representations made within the 28 day period (with 56 days to respond); technically they are still within this limit, though they've already served the Notice of Rejection.

2) The Rejection letter still carries a charged 0870 number.

3) While I disagree with the response on principle, I cannot see any obvious failures in their response to my initial representations. I think arguments could be based on each, but it's beyond me to make them effectively.

Any help or advice appreciated at this point.


*The Transport Act
The Road User Charging Schemes Regulations 2013
The Traffic Management Act

Make representations online via the council website, we don't want to risk any issues with the post. Here's a draft:

---

Dear Bristol City Council,

I challenge liability on the basis that the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case. The PCN carries an 0870 premium rate telephone number, and I contend that as in Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022) this amounts to a demand that exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case.

It follows that the PCN must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully

---

Attach copies of these two cases:
Andrew Young v London Borough of Croydon (2190531198, 27 January 2020)
Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022)

Thanks cp8759 for the prompt response.
I have already made the representation via their online portal - having posted on PePiPoo and got limited response I went ahead with my proposed objections at day 13.
However, I have noted your suggested wording, and will use it should this go to tribunal.