Hi,

We have a fleet pay option for the ULEZ, however we sent a different vehicle to London that doesn't typically go, it happened to be Euro 5 and we knew that we would have to pay the £100 surcharge as its a HGV. Problem was due to an oversight it wasn't added to our fleet autopay option.

So a lovely PCN arrived this morning asking for £1000 or £500 if we pay by 29th October as below.

[attachment=67344:PCN.jpg]


Looking at the PCN however it has the location down as Borough Road at 10:00. I checked our tracking system and the vehicle was on City Road A501 at this time, in fact it was never south of the Thames at all.


[attachment=67351:map.jpg]


I accept that we were in the wrong due to our admin error but if they have they made an admin error that that cancels this extortionate tax out I think it would be fair dos, any thoughts?

If the vehicle was outside the zone submit the tracking info. If it was inside do not (you do not have to incriminate yourself and legally location is not required The road user charging adjudicators seem to be sticklers so would likely find that you were in the zone if you prove you were for them.

Use the photos and GSV to prove you were not on the road claimed.

Then second point, if the PCN is cancelled enforcement cannot continue. the authority cannot just change it's mind that would breach the common law duty to act fairly

I would major on the cancellation - why not call them and say you checked and it was cancelled with £0 owing. Say you believe they cannot reinstate it after cancellation.

Why warn them?

Well there's an extra £500 at stake here so getting a manager to shut it down may be the best thing to try first. They can't change what their system says.

Why not?
Devil's advocate but it is purely an internal system.
Had the cancellation been sent out on an official notice, different matter but this is simply historical data from an internal system.

What bugs me over it is that the dates suggest that the system/people had cancelled it and it was resurrected when the challenge was received.
I would be asking for an explanation, especially given that the location is incorrect.
The question would be part of any appeal I put in.

2nd the motion not to supply tracker information btw.

Phone lines are closed until Monday morning so I have then to make a decision as to whether phone them or appeal.

I have a screenshot timed, dated and with the URL as well as a saved copy of the web page so even if they were forewarned it would look questionable if they modified that?

I'll not supply tracker information in either case. Would a written statement from the driver stating that they were not on Borough Street on that date be useful?

I am looking at this in that the authority have to provide evidence that your vehicle was in the Zone.
This they have done by specifically stating that the vehicle was in Borough Street and using video/photographic evidence in support.
If you can show that their evidence is incorrect, their own evidence disproves their case.
Streetview and their piccies does that.

Just be clear.
Contravention did not occur.
The vehicle in question was not in Borough Street as alleged…. screen shots of Borough Street v Their piccies to support.

+1

Must admit, in any parking or moving traffic PCN I would happily say to supply the tracker information, that the vehicle is in contravention is irrelevant in those cases, it was not in contravention where they said it was.
But with the ULEZ being a zone, placing inside the zone could be seen as enough.
Not enough experience on how adjudicators decide on zonal contraventions.
Hence my reticence in supplying information that confirms within the zone.

We have a screen shot of the status timeline which is made available to all with a TFL PCN. If they tampered with it I would say that wouldn't look good for them.

Angry mob.

I have your PM. You have until the 12th of Jan to register your appeal so lets enjoy xmas then I will add in a few legal bits to re enforce it. Will this be on the papers or will you attend.

I believe I have 2 weeks from the date of the letter (12th December) to get the reduced amount of £500 in case this fails so I sent another appeal on. (Can you usually send 2 appeals?). Just over the Christmas period that would leave it in for Boxing day so I didn't want to forget about it.


I have received this email:



This post has been edited by Angry Mob: Mon, 23 Dec 2019 - 09:30

If you appeal to the tribunal, the discount is no longer an option, you win and pay nothing or lose and pay the full charge. TFL is likely to answer you just by saying that your options are to pay or appeal to the tribunal and it is not required to consider any further challenge you send (which is correct).

This post has been edited by cp8759: Mon, 30 Dec 2019 - 17:14

[attachment=69073:TFL.jpg]

TfL aren’t going to roll over and cancel - you’ll need to take this to tribunal.

The location issue is the prime factor here, the audit trail a secondary matter for consideration.

The contravention is stated at the location, not within an area, so if the vehicle was not at the location alleged and TfL’s own video prove this then I don’t see how an adjudicator could find the contravention was proved.

Difficult one as presumably you'd be gambling with £500 of company money and it's not tax deductible if the PCN is served on the company and not a person.

Why would it not be tax deductible?

I've looked at this before:

Parking fines
A situation in which an employer pays, or reimburses, a parking fine which is the employee’s liability should be dealt with as above. The fine will be the employee’s liability if the penalty notice was actually handed to him or her at the time of the offence, or if the employee owns the car. In such circumstances a deduction may be allowed to the employer for the fine paid on behalf of the employee.

But if the notice was fixed to a car owned by the employer, and the employer pays the fine as the registered owner, an employment income charge will not arise to the employee. The fine should then be disallowed in computing the employer’s taxable profit. If the employee voluntarily pays a fine in these circumstances, and the employer reimburses it, the employee will be chargeable to tax the reimbursement as earnings. A deduction for the expense may then be allowed to the employer.

https://www.gov.uk/hmrc-internal-manuals/bu...manual/bim42515

Yes, addressed to the company.

If I wanted to go to the adjudicator do I just wait now until the 14 days have expired?

Anyone care to speculate on my chances?

OP, where is 'the full copy of the evidential record' sent to you 'under separate cover', para. 5 of the NOR refers?

Their letter dated 14 Jan is grossly misleading. While TfL may use their power of discretion to extend the discount period, they may not extend the period for making an appeal. The letter suggests nothing would happen until 28 Jan whereas the 28-day period for making an appeal ended on 12 Jan, 2 days before this letter was even written.

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Mon, 20 Jan 2020 - 12:37