PCN for stopping on a red route (for literally 50 seconds) |
PCN for stopping on a red route (for literally 50 seconds) |
Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 00:35
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 20 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,673 |
Hello Everybody,
First of all I'd like to thank whoever and everybody that make this forum so great and useful. I need some help. I received a PCN (46) for stopping my car on a red route (double red lines). On the 9th of Dec of 2017, at 2:45 am, as alleged in the PCN, I stopped my car on Edgware Road to alight a friend of mine who was not felling very well and was desperately in the need of a toilet (don't remember if he was about to vomit or defecate - sorry for the filthy details). Since I perceived that it was perfectly safe to do so (very few cars on the street at that time of the night) I stopped the car, my friend spoke to me some words while out of the car and rushed to the toilet of the restaurant in front of where I stopped my car. I then pulled off and left. To make things worse, I lost the period of 28 days in which the penalty charge is reduced by 50% since I was out of the country. Feeling outraged by a 130 pounds fine, I decided to make a representation. After all, I just had stopped the car for 50 seconds to alight a mate with intestinal problems and have not disturbed the traffic whatsoever (I remember, this happened at 2:45am of a Saturday). I sent then a letter to TFL explaining the circumstances to which I have been replied with another letter acknowledging my representation and stating that I have mentioned I was London Taxi and Private Hire (LTPH) licence holder and was on a job at the time of the contravention and asking for further evidence of my LTPH licence and a job sheet. I ignored this letter since I have never mentioned that I am a Taxi or Private Hire. (my guess is that every time someone disputes their PCN 46 they automatically reply with this request for further evidence of a taxi job because this must be the majority of the cases and they don't want to lose time analyzing case by case). They didn't even read my representation. Today I received another letter from TfL stating that my representation has been rejected since I stated that I am a LTPH license holder (which I never did) but failed to provide them with a job sheet and therefore I should proceed with the payment of 130 pounds or appeal to Environment and Traffic Adjudicator at London Tribunals. My question is: Do you think I have any basis to appeal given that - I stopped the car for a reason - it stayed idling for 50 seconds only (from 2:44:30 to 2:45:20 as stated in their notice of rejection) - They have alleged I made a representation that I didn't Please see attached the PCN and the notice of rejection. Thank you This post has been edited by 29Fuel: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 11:10 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Wed, 21 Feb 2018 - 00:35
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Mon, 26 Feb 2018 - 17:30
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,860 Joined: 12 May 2012 Member No.: 54,871 |
Hi Guys, I have just received a letter from TfL with the exact wording of the first representation I made on the above mentioned PCN. (it is quite similar to the draft I posted above). Please see it below: "On the day of the occurred I was taking a friend home after his company's year end celebration. Having abused of alcohol, he was feeling really sick and since he was about to throw up, he urged me to stop so that he could reach the toilet of the Persian restaurant in Edgware Road that can be seen in the photos. Under the pressure of the situation and noticing the place was safe, I stopped for just some seconds at that place. You could check at the footage that I didn't leave the car (this is a LHD vehicle) and I left the place right after having stopped, not blocking the traffic or creating any danger to anyone whatsoever. On this basis, I would kindly request for this PCN to be reconsidered. Thank you and sorry for the hassle." What do you guys think? Would you mind help me with the wording with the final representation to the tribunals? Thank you so much OP - we need to see original documents suitably redacted/edited of personal details (name, address, PCN No. and Reg. No.) when/if this goes to appeal TfL will produce originals in evidence and if your evidence is different, your honesty and credibility could be seriously undermined. Please bear in mind that telling lies to an adjudicator is a serious matter with penalties to match with fines running into thousands and prison terms. I don't understand your reluctance - what do you have to hide? |
|
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 11:01
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 20 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,673 |
please see below the original
|
|
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 11:19
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
That the letter starts representation notes request for additional information, gives rise to concern that there may have been an earlier representation and response. requesting that information
As it stands the advice we can give, if my fears are proved correct could land you with a fine of £5000 -------------------- All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
|
|
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 11:37
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 20 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,673 |
That the letter starts representation notes request for additional information, gives rise to concern that there may have been an earlier representation and response. requesting that information As it stands the advice we can give, if my fears are proved correct could land you with a fine of £5000 Oh.. comm'on.. are you really trying to help? Did you read the entire thread? I made this representation on 1st instance (which was rejected). Since the guys here wanted to have the exact wording of the representation made in 1st stance, I called TfL to request for the wording of what I sent to them online, which is the piece you see above. In my opinion it is outrageous to be fined by 130 pounds for having stopped my car for bloody fifty seconds, 3am in the morning, to help a mate. TfL should be ashamed for this. This post has been edited by 29Fuel: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 11:46 |
|
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 12:16
Post
#25
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 20,915 Joined: 22 Apr 2012 Member No.: 54,455 |
QUOTE In my opinion it is outrageous to be fined by 130 pounds for having stopped my car for bloody fifty seconds, 3am in the morning, to help a mate. TfL should be ashamed for this. Indeed it is, but the only place you might get the PCN cancelled on a de minimis basis is London Tribunals. So if you feel sufficiently strongly about it, take them all the way, but you lose the discount so it would be a double-or-quits gamble. You have to bear in mind it is a stopping restriction, not waiting, so 50 seconds is a long time for a no stopping restriction, just like stopping in a yellow box junction. TfL lost all the buses subsidy recently so are grubbing around to make the money up. This post has been edited by Incandescent: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 12:18 |
|
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 12:28
Post
#26
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 20 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,673 |
QUOTE In my opinion it is outrageous to be fined by 130 pounds for having stopped my car for bloody fifty seconds, 3am in the morning, to help a mate. TfL should be ashamed for this. Indeed it is, but the only place you might get the PCN cancelled on a de minimis basis is London Tribunals. So if you feel sufficiently strongly about it, take them all the way, but you lose the discount so it would be a double-or-quits gamble. You have to bear in mind it is a stopping restriction, not waiting, so 50 seconds is a long time for a no stopping restriction, just like stopping in a yellow box junction. TfL lost all the buses subsidy recently so are grubbing around to make the money up. I have already lost the discount mate. Don't have much to lose honestly. |
|
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 13:00
Post
#27
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 20 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,673 |
Guys, I will make the below representation to the London Tribunals.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- I am appealing the PCN: XXXXXXXXXX and the subsequent Notice of Rejection issued by the Transport for London, in which I was issued with a 130 pounds penalty charge for having stopped my car for 50 seconds at 02:45am on 09/12/2017 at O/S 45 – 51 Edgware Road W2. I make the appeal on the following grounds: 1- Failure to consider I have made a representation on 1st stance to Transport for London explaining the exceptional circumstances for me to have stopped my left hand drive car (number plates XXXXXXX) on the 09/12/2017 at 02:45 am, for 50 seconds, at O/S 45 – 51 Edgware Road W2. Transport for London has replied to me with a notice of rejection, stating that I mentioned in my representation that I am a London Taxi and Private Hire (TLPH) license holder and was on a job at the time of the contravention. I never made such statements, which clearly shows that Transport for London didn’t even analyse my representation carefully. Please see attached my representation to TfL and their notice of rejection of my representation. 2- Exceptional circumstances The reason why I have stopped my car, as stated in the representation made to the TfL, was to alight a friend who urged me to stop to go seek for a toilet in the Persian restaurant located at the place of the alleged contravention, as he was not feeling well. 3- De minimis The length of time my car was stopped at the alleged prohibited place (red route or clearway) was de minimis as it idled for just 50 seconds at that place (as stated in the notice of rejection issued by the Transport for London). This happened in the middle of the night (02:45am) with very light traffic in the roads. I haven’t blocked any traffic or created any danger to anyone whatsoever and have just done it in light of the exceptional circumstances explained above and because it was perfectly safe to do so. In the light of the foregoing, I respectfully ask the Adjudicator to allow this appeal. Thanks for your time, My Name This post has been edited by 29Fuel: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 13:02 |
|
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 16:09
Post
#28
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
I'm with you on this.
TBH if you put the contravention aside and any moral aspects of abandoning a mate (Which I think some are concentrating on), the failing to consider should win it. No guarantees and that you did not write back and correct them may (only may) count against. But IMO sending an NOR that fails to address what you wrote and digresses into something entirely different can only be seen as a failure to consider and hence grounds alone to cancel the PCN. |
|
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 17:54
Post
#29
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,265 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
You feel strongly about it and I agree with DD.
Can you just clarify - Transport for London has replied to me with a notice of rejection, stating that I mentioned in my representation that I am a London Taxi and Private Hire (TLPH) license holder and was on a job at the time of the contravention. I never made such statements, which clearly shows that Transport for London didn’t even analyse my representation carefully. We know you didn't say it but, incidentally, are you a TLPH? And assuming the answer is 'no', then I think you should tag on 'as I am not --' after 'statements'. -------------------- |
|
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 18:13
Post
#30
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 20 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,673 |
We know you didn't say it but, incidentally, are you a TLPH? And assuming the answer is 'no', then I think you should tag on 'as I am not --' after 'statements'. No. I am not a LTPH license holder. Thanks for the tip on the wording This post has been edited by 29Fuel: Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 18:42 |
|
|
Tue, 27 Feb 2018 - 18:16
Post
#31
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,860 Joined: 12 May 2012 Member No.: 54,871 |
You feel strongly about it and I agree with DD. Can you just clarify - Transport for London has replied to me with a notice of rejection, stating that I mentioned in my representation that I am a London Taxi and Private Hire (TLPH) license holder and was on a job at the time of the contravention. I never made such statements, which clearly shows that Transport for London didn’t even analyse my representation carefully. We know you didn't say it but, incidentally, are you a TLPH? And assuming the answer is 'no', then I think you should tag on 'as I am not --' after 'statements'. Conversely, if you are a TLPH, you could claim the 3 minute boarding/alighting exemption! |
|
|
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 13:07
Post
#32
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 13 Joined: 20 Feb 2018 Member No.: 96,673 |
Guys,
An update for you. I appealed the PCN the way I said I'd do and after 5 or 6 days I received a letter from the London Tribunals inviting me for a hearing on the 8th of April which is not mandatory. If I won't attend to the hearing they will judge the appeal on the basis of the documentation I have sent to them. All good! However, the best part comes now! On the last 13th of March I received a letter from TfL stating the following: We have recently received notification of your appeal against the above mentioned Penalty Charges for Vehicle Registration XXXXXXXX from London Tribunals. We have reviewed the issue of the Penalty Charge (PC) and the handling of your representation. As a result it has come to our attention that an administrative error occurred in the processing of the representation, and we will not be contesting this appeal. London Tribunals have been notified and will send you confirmation of our decision shortly. If you have any queries about the hearing you must contact London Tribunals on telephone number 0207 520 7200. Yours sincerely, contracts and operations manager of TfL I am happy with the result but was thinking that TfL is afraid of any sort of penalty they could receive from the London Tribunals for being overly abusive on the enforcement of their fines (this pcn was outrageous). Anyway. Thanks everybody for the help. This post has been edited by 29Fuel: Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 13:08 |
|
|
Mon, 19 Mar 2018 - 13:59
Post
#33
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 23,582 Joined: 12 Feb 2013 From: London Member No.: 59,924 |
Nice one - looks like TFL knew it had messed up. TFL does make some bizarre rejections these days.
|
|
|
Tue, 20 Mar 2018 - 00:10
Post
#34
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 1,860 Joined: 12 May 2012 Member No.: 54,871 |
Guys, An update for you. I appealed the PCN the way I said I'd do and after 5 or 6 days I received a letter from the London Tribunals inviting me for a hearing on the 8th of April which is not mandatory. If I won't attend to the hearing they will judge the appeal on the basis of the documentation I have sent to them. All good! However, the best part comes now! On the last 13th of March I received a letter from TfL stating the following: We have recently received notification of your appeal against the above mentioned Penalty Charges for Vehicle Registration XXXXXXXX from London Tribunals. We have reviewed the issue of the Penalty Charge (PC) and the handling of your representation. As a result it has come to our attention that an administrative error occurred in the processing of the representation, and we will not be contesting this appeal. London Tribunals have been notified and will send you confirmation of our decision shortly. If you have any queries about the hearing you must contact London Tribunals on telephone number 0207 520 7200. Yours sincerely, contracts and operations manager of TfL I am happy with the result but was thinking that TfL is afraid of any sort of penalty they could receive from the London Tribunals for being overly abusive on the enforcement of their fines (this pcn was outrageous). Anyway. Thanks everybody for the help. Well Done, but there is no provision for penalties for TfL (or any other Enforcement Authority) from London Tribunals, so fear has nothing to do with it - They belatedly realised they'd messed up and acted correctly. |
|
|
Tue, 20 Mar 2018 - 09:33
Post
#35
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,265 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
Well done.
But a tip for the future. Always opt for a personal hearing, especially so in circumstances like these. -------------------- |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 12:21 |