Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hello ftla correspondents,

PLease let me know if you, living in  (or near possibly) a CAZ, LEZ, ULEZ area were sent a letter to your home  giving notification OF;

- a preview of the signage and their meaning ,
- which vehicles would be  charged
- how  charges are demanded
- how to pay
- time limits
- start dates


My reason for asking is that I have a case  about to reach court, against one CAZ authority, questioning the lawfulness of a CAZ pcn concerning signs and pre-evident (i.e. published/notified)  meaning.

I need to know if CAZ local authrities routinely, or only sometimes, sent letter sent local residents.
In your reply let me know what CAZ scheme area you are/were in.

Further, if you still have a copy, by all means send it to me; I'd be delighted.

E.G. I do know that the ULEZ extension was notified in  great detail to residents within the area of greater London extending up to and including Ruislip.

John




- attchments can be added to a reply, by clicking the 'Attach-choose file' button, found below the reply text editing box.

Thanks slapdash. And, interesting because its Broistol that we are ocncernd with specifically; no tbecause they failed to send letters to locals, like you received from Bath, but because they did send them locally, but not to The far corne of North Wales, from where we vistited!

The Question being:  Why give details if the signs are so clear, self-evident  meaningful, not to be missed by the outsider, who learns by receiving a pcn, w/o charge.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect every authority implementing one to notify every vehicle keeper.

If you have a Bristol CAZ PCN I suggest a search. There is an argument that the PCNs are all invalid by adding the £9 toll to the penalty.

And not just an argument. This unlawfulness was stated in 2018 by the Chief Adjudicator of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, no less. I've got the file but I'm on the wrong PC at the moment so will post later.

I don't think it's reasonable to expect every authority implementing one to notify every vehicle keeper.

If you have a Bristol CAZ PCN I suggest a search. There is an argument that the PCNs are all invalid by adding the £9 toll to the penalty.

You're correct. Just the locals will do, because it s not going to be in the highway code.
The rest can pay a pcn. That may be unfair, but its to omuch toruble to send them a crge when we can just as easily senfd them a pcn? Is that the way to go?

Thanks for suggestion. That argument is interesting, but I think the situation has changed wrt to the £9.00 added to the charge; it was  amatterof wording at an earlier stage (2018), if i rmeember correctly; they dont ask for the chare to be paid now, merley raised the penalty amount, or someting similar.

And not just an argument. This unlawfulness was stated in 2018 by the Chief Adjudicator of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, no less.

Quite, but as yet untested within the context of a CAZ charge as far as I am aware. Hopefully a different adjudicator wouldn't go against it.

If you have a PCN, please to post here all sides of it, redacting only name and address.

See

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/

If you have a PCN, please to post here all sides of it, redacting only name and address.

See

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/

Thanks fellows,

The case is now out of time to appeal to the adjudicator.
However it does appear they have summed up th echarges and arrived at an incorrect fugure. Perhaps that would help.
I shall post the pcn up here shortly.

I am happy to take out a civil case to correct the authority and government in issuing permision for these signs.
We have a strong case, and shall see what the judge says upon application; We have given the LA until next tuesday to come to agreement and drop te charges, and sent copy to the Ceif Executive.

Of course the lA is happy to take up the cabinets permission, as if it can't be questioned 1. for fairness; 2) for conflict in law with primary driving duty of care; a diriver who doesnt see the signs is to be commended.

We have a strong case,

Uh?