PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Toll Bridge Invoice
lolotte
post Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 20:20
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 7 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,308



my car was driven over Itchen Bridge in Southampton on the 29th Feb and being the drivers first time they have ever used the bridge (only lived in the city a year - I know, not an excuse)

They pulled up and didn't realise they don't take card. seems daft......they didn't have change on them and so they reversed (safely) and turned around and went via Bitterne.

today, i received the letter through the post dated 16th March. It was sent second class.

the top of the letter says 'failure to pay authorised toll charge but then below it says 'Contravention: Prohibited U-Turn'

It says it's an invoice but then says I can be prosecuted.

The fine/invoice is £16.20 (£1.20 toll and £15 admin charge) but if it's a matter of the U-Turn, can they still charge the toll?
While typing this, i noticed they charged for both ways. that's a real kick in the teeth. as the car didn't pass the toll booth.

I now see the sign on google map that says no u-turn.

Realistically, what can someone do in that situation? not that they will make the mistake again... but if someone was to pull up and not have the correct change

they haven't provided any photo evidence either. should I be asking for that?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V   1 2 3 > »   
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 20:20
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 20:25
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



Well that's a new one - to me at least. A kick in the teeth an extra 60p? Ouch.

no idea how they can charge anything if you didn't actually use the bridge and this is not a PCN - I suspect it may not be appealable.



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lolotte
post Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 20:33
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 7 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,308



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 20:25) *
Well that's a new one - to me at least. A kick in the teeth an extra 60p? Ouch.

no idea how they can charge anything if you didn't actually use the bridge and this is not a PCN - I suspect it may not be appealable.


I meant to say - I know its not a parking charge but I didn't know where to put it

I get it if it was just for an illegal U-Turn but do the council have power to enforce an invoice / fine for that? or is that why they have also put failure to pay toll?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 20:39
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



The law

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1983/5/...19830005_en.pdf


its just not worth going before a magistrate for £16


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lolotte
post Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 20:51
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 7 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,308



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 20:39) *
The law

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1983/5/...19830005_en.pdf


its just not worth going before a magistrate for £16


maybe not but section 28 'Failure to pay tolls' makes no mention of not having the money or U - Turns

it says byelaws but gives no details, can anyone help with that?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 20:57
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



The point is this isn't like a parking ticket, It's a penalty issued under different legislation and can only be heard in a magistrate's court. It's a very small sum as these things go.

But by all means call or email them to enquire if there are any options open to you. Is there anything on the back of the letter?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
lolotte
post Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 21:10
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 28
Joined: 7 Jun 2018
Member No.: 98,308



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 20:57) *
The point is this isn't like a parking ticket, It's a penalty issued under different legislation and can only be heard in a magistrate's court. It's a very small sum as these things go.

But by all means call or email them to enquire if there are any options open to you. Is there anything on the back of the letter?


i'll drop an email

I've asked for clarification on what they allege, U-Turn or failing to pay the fee.

Also asked to send me a photo.

Seems excessive really to charge twice for one journey.



also, would they send a £16.50 fine to a magistrates court?

This post has been edited by lolotte: Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 21:17
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 20 Mar 2019 - 21:25
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



You croosed the bridge drove up to the toll booth, then turned around and drove back. So 28 applies you did not pay when you should have


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 00:04
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



They cite prohibited U turn but are not charging anything for it, I suspect that honour would be reserved for the police as a road traffic contravention.
TBH, it probably isn't what you want to hear but pay and lesson learnt.
Whether they would sent it to magistrates is a question we cannot answer.
But would cost them nothing to do so, they would claim costs on conviction.

The only thing that bothers me is the requirement to name the driver with the inherent that if you don't, it will be taken as you.
No issue with regard to the toll, that will have been paid but if the Old Bill subsequently come after you for the U turn ???
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
ford poplar
post Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 03:58
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,816
Joined: 20 Dec 2008
Member No.: 24,962



GSV?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Barry S
post Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 05:05
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 344
Joined: 9 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,866



Here's the signage on the Southampton side: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8988472,-...6384!8i8192

No mention of the levels of the toll on that side...For that, you have to be on the Woolston side: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8980768,-...3312!8i6656
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
zwekk
post Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 12:58
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 120
Joined: 10 Nov 2018
Member No.: 100,869



QUOTE (Barry S @ Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 05:05) *
No mention of the levels of the toll on that side...For that, you have to be on the Woolston side: https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8980768,-...3312!8i6656


Check the entire route and make sure that is indeed the case because at least two routes I've seen have a clear sign. Section 16 of the act requires a list to be exhibited "at or near".

The other, weaker case, is that smart cards could include debit cards with a chip and pin.

In any case, the offence requires a mens rea and it seems improbable that a court would find against a drive who wanted to pay by debit card but had no change for the toll offence. The u-turn offence is a harder one and perhaps they would argue that a driver should operate the helpline if caught short on change.

This post has been edited by zwekk: Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 13:14
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Neil B
post Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 13:25
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 29,268
Joined: 16 Jan 2008
Member No.: 16,671



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 21 Mar 2019 - 00:04) *
They cite prohibited U turn but are not charging anything for it, I suspect that honour would be reserved for the police as a road traffic contravention.

The only thing that bothers me is the requirement to name the driver with the inherent that if you don't, it will be taken as you.
No issue with regard to the toll, that will have been paid but if the Old Bill subsequently come after you for the U turn ???

I know I'm speculating a bit but I'm thinking they don't want to know if you just pay it?
Then no need to identify driver?

Satisfy their stats/audit and other sins forgotten.

As others, I certainly wouldn't risk riling a Mag by taking court time over £16, even if the nearest applicable
sign was on the moon.


--------------------
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 May 2018 - 12:30) *
Neil is good at working backwards.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 01:29
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Wow we really need to stop advising people to pay just because there's mention of a criminal prosecution. Let's analyse the situation rationally for one minute:

1) For any prosecution for contravening a no-u turn sign, a Notice of Intended prosecution would need to be served on the registered keeper within 14 days of the alleged offence. As this did not happen, a prosecution for this offence is now impossible no matter how overwhelming the evidence might be.

2) The Hampshire Act 1983 provides as follows (typos included):

28.—(l) If any person refuses or reglects to pay any toll or
pay tolls, part thereof lawfully due from him, the persons appointed to
receive tolls may refuse to permit the person so in default to pass
through or by any toll-gate or other place at which such toll
should be paid and may stop and prevent the person so in default
from passing through or by the same.

(2) A person who—

(a) passes through or by any toll-gate or other place at
which any toll should be paid or otherwise passes over
or onto the bridge, in either case with intent to avoid
paying any toll lawfully due from him; or

(b) operates or attempts to operate a machine provided by
the county council for the collection of tolls authorised
in pursuance of this Act by the insertion of objects
other than current coins of the realm of the appropriate
denomination or tokens authorised by the county council
to be used for the payment of such tolls; or

(с) otherwise interferes with such a machine as is mentioned
in paragraph (b) above with the intention of dishonestly
obtaining for himself a pecuniary advantage;

shall be guilty of an offence and liable on summary conviction
to a fine not exceeding £200.


On the facts disclosed, subsections (b) and (с) are irrelevant as there's no mention of any attempt to operate or attempt to operate any machine, nor is there any mention of any interference with any such machine. So the only provision that is relevant is subsection (a), where there is an explicit mens rea requirement: the council must prove that the defendant passed over the bridge with the intent to avoid payment.

Therefore a prosecution has no chance of success. The OP crossed the bridge in the mistaken but innocent belief that he would be able to make lawful payment by means of a debit card, a not unreasonable assumption in this day and age. While most traffic offences are strict liability, that is not the case here, and I see no chance of the council proving intent to avoid payment.

Personally I would just write to the council, explain the circumstances and point out that as the bridge was not driven over with any intent to avoid payment, no prosecution under section 28 of the Hampshire Act 1983 can succeed.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 01:32


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 06:21
Post #15


Member


Group: Closed
Posts: 9,710
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



This case had similar comments:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1284571

With respect to cp8759, it's still too risky, all the Council has to do is take the case to the Mags Court on the basis of non-payment.

Mags will ignore the finer points made and pose the question "did you pay?". Answer "No" and you get a large fine with victim surcharge etc. Simple------on to the next case.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 08:28
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 06:21) *
This case had similar comments:-

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...t&p=1284571

With respect to cp8759, it's still too risky, all the Council has to do is take the case to the Mags Court on the basis of non-payment.

Mags will ignore the finer points made and pose the question "did you pay?". Answer "No" and you get a large fine with victim surcharge etc. Simple------on to the next case.

Mick


+1 its £16 any Not even worth the time to go to court


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 08:53
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Easy to see the lack of intent on the first crossing but on the return trip?
U turn and drive back over seems a clear intention not to pay.
Only defence I see is if the driver took steps to inform the toll operators of their problem?

Remember that magistrates will likely also be shown signage at bridge entry...…
"correct money or smartcard only"
https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@50.8987489,-...33;1b1!2i40

This post has been edited by DancingDad: Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 09:02
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 12:42
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 06:21) *
With respect to cp8759, it's still too risky, all the Council has to do is take the case to the Mags Court on the basis of non-payment.

All the council has to do? I'd be very rich if I could just send invoices out to people and then take them to mags court on the basis of non-payment. The toll fee is not an amount recoverable summarily, and at the moment the council don't even know the identity of the driver (they haven't bothered to ask). There is no realistic prospect of conviction and if they were foolish enough to attempt a prosecution, all it takes is an email to the CPS to get them to take it over and discontinue, as per the CPS Code for Crown Prosecutors. It wouldn't even get to court as the CPS would stop it.

To be honest, if push comes to shove, I highly doubt the council would even try.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 13:02
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 08:53) *
Easy to see the lack of intent on the first crossing but on the return trip?
U turn and drive back over seems a clear intention not to pay.
Only defence I see is if the driver took steps to inform the toll operators of their problem?

Firstly I doubt the return crossing would be seen as a "return trip", in light of the fact that the first trip was aborted due to the impossibility to effect payment so that it should be seen as one continuous crossing. However even if it is a separate trip, no way of paying whatsoever was on offer for the return trip as there are no toll booths in the other direction, a defence of duress of circumstances therefore arises: If (due to the lack of intent to avoid payment) the first crossing was lawful, and it isn't possible to proceed further without committing an offence (i.e. smashing through the barriers), it cannot be an offence to turn back over the bridge (because otherwise someone who's not committed any offence finds himself in a "trap" from which no lawful escape is possible without committing some offence or another, and the courts will not accept Parliament intended to create a "no fault" offence in the absence of explicit words to that effect).

That's quite aside from the fact that I doubt it would even occur to the council to lay a charge for the return trip.

I think this case quite clearly demonstrates why most road traffic offences are strict liability: Once you introduce a mental element, these sorts of technical regulations become very hard to enforce. To be honest I suspect if the legislation were enacted today, it would be strict liability.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 13:14
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 13:02) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Sat, 23 Mar 2019 - 08:53) *
Easy to see the lack of intent on the first crossing but on the return trip?
U turn and drive back over seems a clear intention not to pay.
Only defence I see is if the driver took steps to inform the toll operators of their problem?

Firstly I doubt the return crossing would be seen as a "return trip", in light of the fact that the first trip was aborted due to the impossibility to effect payment so that it should be seen as one continuous crossing. However even if it is a separate trip, no way of paying whatsoever was on offer for the return trip as there are no toll booths in the other direction, a defence of duress of circumstances therefore arises: If (due to the lack of intent to avoid payment) the first crossing was lawful, and it isn't possible to proceed further without committing an offence (i.e. smashing through the barriers), it cannot be an offence to turn back over the bridge (because otherwise someone who's not committed any offence finds himself in a "trap" from which no lawful escape is possible without committing some offence or another, and the courts will not accept Parliament intended to create a "no fault" offence in the absence of explicit words to that effect).

That's quite aside from the fact that I doubt it would even occur to the council to lay a charge for the return trip.

I think this case quite clearly demonstrates why most road traffic offences are strict liability: Once you introduce a mental element, these sorts of technical regulations become very hard to enforce. To be honest I suspect if the legislation were enacted today, it would be strict liability.


Toll is payable both ways and is for crossing the bridge, not passing the Toll Booths.
Toll Booths are manned (or look it on GSV) plus you can guarantee there will be help phones.

To me that makes it one inadvertent trip over the bridge before realising they could not make payment then a deliberate return trip plus no attempt to pay for the unintentional..... which makes that intent to avoid payment.

Sorry CP, you know I have a lot of respect for your acumen but in this case, to suggest fighting is asking for a (possible) £200 fine in Maggie court against paying the actual tolls and a small admin fee.

No Brainer to me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V   1 2 3 > » 
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 20:46
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here