I cant scan all the docs, please help according to these facts.

Sister was caught in yellow box by TFL.
Within 14 days wrote in some formal rep that didn't know traffic would stop.
Received rejection letter, that the excuse wasn't accepted, however TFL erred that the amount payable is £130 and the discount lost.
Appealed to Tribunal that the discount should be on hold, as wrote in within 14 days period, see link:
"https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/red-routes/penalty-charge-notices/enforcement-process"]https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/red-routes...rcement-process[/url]
Received this attached letter that they agree to accept £65 (only by post or by phone - online system still says £130).
Today TFL called (!) my sister to ask if she wants to pay £65!


Do they have a case that they are reducing now or it too late for them?

This post has been edited by Zwypl: Fri, 12 Jan 2018 - 12:27

Don't most authorities still mention the TSRGD 2002?

All the information is now posted.

What are the chances of success 60-70%?

I also want to ask if anyone had an experience of TFL calling by phone to ask if you want to pay the discounted rate?

I guess they need to know if to prepare their pack three days before the upcoming hearing 18th Jan, their discount offer expires on 16 Jan.

BTW their discount offer is only by post and telephone not online (online it is £130).

This is like pulling teeth.

The OP has this idee fixe and nothing, not even our range of questions, will apparently change matters.

OP, post the FULL PCN. This is the legal notice, not the website - other posters pl don't get at me and say that adjs do take what's published on websites into account. Some do, some don't, but we start with the PCN which we have still not seen in full. And OP pl don't tell me what is says, show me what it says.

Next the OP states 'TFL have to serve evidence by 18/1' and then 'I guess they need to know if to prepare their pack three days before the upcoming hearing 18th Jan'. And then they refer to a case number on TfL's letter, but it's redacted in the posted version.

Aaaaargh.

While we're on matters, what about the 4 references to payment, appeal and charge certificate in the NOR, 3 of which are incorrect and one is correct.

Eenie, meenie, miney, mo?

Please look at post 9 in this thread for all docs. No need to pull teeth. Thanks,

I cannot see the full PCN, or the date of the hearing, or ETA's letter with instructions to you and the authority regarding evidence.


And you refer to extra-procedural correspondence as if it was evidence, but I like to see it in an evidence pack with their reasoning.

Attached is the last and "only" correspondence from Tribunal (no evidence pack yet).

You have seen TFL's letter 2/1/18.

I don't have the back of the PCN/NTO.

Thanks for your help.

.

Sohow do you know what it states?

We're not the adjudicator, but hopefully we examine evidence in the same detail.

I suggest you contact ETA and ask for a postponement, 7 days should be enough. And do it today. This would ensure that you are not stumped by time limits.

The postponement would mean that you get to see the authority's evidence (including the PCN) before submitting yours in detail in which you would include the improper wording of the NOR in support of the 'penalty exceeded ...' grounds which is another way of saying that they've failed to comply with enforcement requirements and therefore are barred from pursuing the penalty consequently any penalty must exceed that to which they're legally entitled.

Your question regarding the likelihood of success is not central to this, you're committed and risk nothing financially whether directly or indirectly by electing for a postal decision.

The only risk is that the discount is expiring 14 days after their letter of 2/1/18.
BTW should they have sent their pack as it is already 3 days before the hearing

This post has been edited by Zwypl: Mon, 15 Jan 2018 - 12:38

So, what are you asking of us?

If you want to pay the discount, then do so. The way you present this issue now appears as if the responsibility for risking your £65 lies with us. Unfortunately, adjudication is an imperfect process and in situations like yours the outcome is as likely to be dependent upon the adjudicator as the facts and their presentation.

The NOR does refer to the correct regulatory period, but not in the correct context and, given the contradictions, IMO it does not clearly convey the required information.

Had the original PCN been given by hand and included reference to extended discount and had they served a NTO demanding the full penalty then IMO you would be on stronger ground than a PCN by post which may or may not have included this reference and the excess demand being in the NOR. This is further brought into doubt because they've implicitly acknowledged their error and offered the discount.

If pushed, on balance I'd pay (we don't have anything about the contravention and sometimes when an adjudicator might like to side with the appellant but can't if the law is applied strictly they look for other reasons like procedural errors, but we know nothing about the contravention)

Yesterday got letter dated 10/1/18 with re-offer of discount for 14 days.

Today got the evidence pack.

All attached.

Thanks.

Their evidence pack statement gives you all you could dream of in terms
of your original point: A full admission.

However, I echo the school of thought that an adjudicator would likely
shrug it off in view of repeated subsequent offers and, ultimately, the final
contest now only being for the discount amount.
And against what sounds very much like a clear contravention.


-
Just a minor note on TfL usurping Tribunal authority and specifying acceptance of £65
if they win but to be paid in 14 rather than the statutory 28 days.

If they accept 65 in case they win, what do I have to lose to appeal?

OP, you still have the problem that this is the first you've seen of their evidence and as such it gives you no reasonable time to counter their assertions in a considered manner before your evidence is due to be submitted.

I would still ask for a postponement and if at all possible ask for a personal heearing. But if this would cost you money e.g. travel expenses, lost wages etc (which you could not recover) then stick with a hearing on the papers.

I am gobsmacked at TfL's ignorance and arrogance and if this letter is a sample of what they produce for adjudication then they need to be smacked down:
1. The adjudicator decides whether to allow the appeal or not at the full penalty and will issue directions. These could include a recommendation that the authority cancel the PCN or offer the discount. In this case, TfL have the gall to undermine the adj's role (again) by saying that even if the adj directs that the full penalty be paid, they'll accept the discount anyway!
2. And their b****y gall in lecturing b****y motorists on complying with signs etc. when the b****y authority don't know their ar*e from their elbow as regards the prevailing law!
It's not the 2002 regs, it's 2016. And b****y turning right has no bearing - and if they are considering reps in this state of ignorance then they want their ars*s kicking:

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/9/made

see item 25 in the sign table and para. 11.

How the hell could an adj think that any reps had been given proper consideration when they don't even know the law?

3. And to paraphrase their laboriously long summary: we undertook to reoffer the discount and did not.

Having now seen their summary I would argue that it is wholly irrelevant that they reoffered the discount because this only occurred because the recipient decided to appeal - and it was this which was the catalyst for and the only reason that they re-offered the discount.

And I suspect I could find other points, but it's late!

Don't get too cross, HCA, they can't get the staff, y'know !

Thanks for you invaluable advice.

They say three times that the adjudicator should only direct to pay £65 (within 14 days) but then say at the end that £130 is due.

Am I correct that there is nothing to lose by going to appeal? As it cannot be more then £65 in any event!