Free Traffic Legal Advice

Gather as much as you can and ensure you are in plentry of time.

Useful information would probably be:-

- Screen shot of VSA showing NOx,
- Copy of the part of charging order which states the all other vehicle clause and your description that your vehicle is covered by this
- Your V5c
- Screenshot showing ULEZ compliance
- CoC if arrived

You also need to do as much as you can to show that the supporting documentation matches your model.

The CoC when it comes will not be specific to your actual car unfortunately (it will show a type, not a vin).

Good luck. If they reject there is a tribunal available.

Don't use links. Embed screenshots or photos.

I am not saying pay it, but ...

I understand your point about continuous charging. Given the primary purpose is parking and charging is secondary having to move it after seems unreasonable. (But tying up a scarce resourse all day does too, so there is a balance).

It seems reasonable to at least expect you to start charging on arrival with the contents of the sign. Why didn't you.

Your account suggests you were running late, paid for an hour, and were going to charge for 35mins on return. Seems a little odd.

At tribunal on those facts it seems slim.

But, if you make reps against the NTO you should get the discount reoffered.

But is the V5C in your name ? If it's a company car or a PCP/h you are likely going to get an admin charge. You should get it back if you eventually win, but typically that charge will be around £30.

CP has requested the order, there is a chance that it doesn't mandate charging. That's a winner. But thats not a particularly high chance.

If the V5 is in your name I would wait for the NTO and make a representation. That may give enough time for the order to come back.

If not I would be giving serious consideration to paying the 35 now to avoid an admin charge as well.

There are a couple of inaccuracies in the response. They state your vehicle had finished charging. Did you state that it hadn't started. (Possible failure to consider).

Same with the suggestion that it was magically the wrong "type" of vehicle because it wasn't plugged in (that would he a different contravention).

The wording of the order may he problematic (and unjust).

Compliant vehicles
4. A vehicle is a compliant vehicle if—
(a) the vehicle meets the standards required of a compliant vehicle for the purposes of this Scheme;
and
(b) particulars of the vehicle are for the time being entered in the national register.

It fails (b). But charging solely on that basis would be unfair.

EMISSIONS STANDARDS FOR COMPLIANT VEHICLES
1.—(1) A vehicle meets the standards set out in Tables 1 and 2 if—
(a) the vehicle is certified by the appropriate national approval authority as having been manufactured
to satisfy the EC emissions standard specified for that vehicle in column (e) of the Table;

This could be a problem.

Although the levels meet Euro 4 the emissions data as certified by the VCA - who I believe are the approval authority - state it as Euro 3. This could be an issue.

Even if the manufacturer CoC states it was manufactured to Euro 4 it may not be plain sailing.

It would be an absurd result that it was chargable to CAZ but not ULEZ but differences in the wording could make that so.

You might want to redact your name and address.

It doesn't seem absurd to me that a contravention in a bay on a red route cannot be enforced via CCTV.

That is the situation everywhere else and that interpretation gives consistency across all of London (and indeed the country).

A worry would be that if the position changes that becomes one less hurdle towards enforcing other contraventions by CCTV.