PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

ULEZ PCN, I got 2 PCN for driving in ULEZ
Bashboush
post Mon, 10 Jun 2019 - 00:09
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,862



I am not a resident of London. I am not totally aware of the ULEZ in London.
I spent a weekend in London and drove in an out of inner London. I drive a diesel car, which now i have learnt it is not compatible with ULEZ.
I am planning to challenge both PCNs on the basis that I am not a London resident, and I am not aware of the charge. I did not see any signage to advice to pay.
Any other advice?
one more thing, Both PCN issued to the registered keeper(Spouse) but I was the driver, I am intending to declare that on my representation in writing as there is no section if you were not the driver on the form they have sent.

Thank you in advance
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V  < 1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (20 - 39)
Advertisement
post Mon, 10 Jun 2019 - 00:09
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Bashboush
post Wed, 21 Aug 2019 - 23:39
Post #21


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,862



Attached Image
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Wed, 21 Aug 2019 - 23:52) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 12:08) *
QUOTE (numb15 @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:55) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:41) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:31) *
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 04:25) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 4 Jul 2019 - 18:17) *
A reply that long indicates they are feeling guilty about the whole thing. It is a complete shambles sign-wise, and clearly intended to make shedloads of money from penalties apart from the actual charge itself.

I agree.
I’m not sure what to write. If anyone have a template to start me off. I really appreciate it.

The gist of it is that the signs didn't tell you you have to pay anything, you'd not heard of the ULEZ before so you had no reason to suspect a payment was required. We've not seen any challenges against the ULEZ go to the tribunal before so we don't have anything to reference, but if you have a bash at it and put a draft on here, we'll add the legal bits for you.



did you pay the congestion charge




Seems like the user passed through it on a weekend, so they are not liable for the congestion charge as it only operates monday to friday. The ULEZ is 24/7, 365 days a year.


OK it makes a difference to how the appeal is developed





So. We were away for few weeks and when we came back found this through the post:

A letter saying that my appeal has been scheduled to be considered by an adjudicator on 31st Aug 2019

And then another heavy pack( about 40 pages) have the case summary, evidence list the law and the ULEZ campaign with the signage details and guidelines. Which none of them indicate the need to pay. anyway one thing about this pack is sent via the mail with signed for on the envelope!! As I said we were abroad when it was delivered and no one would’ve signed for it!, yet it was put through my mail box as signed for. Is that a problem? Or it is not concerning the appeal but the Royal Mail.
The other thing the last page of the case summary looks like it is misprinted and a lot of info are missing in there and to me it looks like it is the info that inform what is the action. I have no idea what it is suppose to say, as only the first few words of each paragraph is printed and the rest is blank. Then there is the signature.
Do you want me to post everything as I said it is a lot of pages and I not sure if the website will allow me.

Thank you.


This post has been edited by Bashboush: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 00:59
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image

Attached Image

Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image

Attached Image

Attached Image
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bashboush
post Wed, 21 Aug 2019 - 23:51
Post #22


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,862



QUOTE (Bashboush @ Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 00:39) *
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Wed, 21 Aug 2019 - 23:52) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 12:08) *
QUOTE (numb15 @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:55) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:41) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:31) *
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 04:25) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 4 Jul 2019 - 18:17) *
A reply that long indicates they are feeling guilty about the whole thing. It is a complete shambles sign-wise, and clearly intended to make shedloads of money from penalties apart from the actual charge itself.

I agree.
I’m not sure what to write. If anyone have a template to start me off. I really appreciate it.

The gist of it is that the signs didn't tell you you have to pay anything, you'd not heard of the ULEZ before so you had no reason to suspect a payment was required. We've not seen any challenges against the ULEZ go to the tribunal before so we don't have anything to reference, but if you have a bash at it and put a draft on here, we'll add the legal bits for you.



did you pay the congestion charge




Seems like the user passed through it on a weekend, so they are not liable for the congestion charge as it only operates monday to friday. The ULEZ is 24/7, 365 days a year.


OK it makes a difference to how the appeal is developed





So. We were away for few weeks and when we came back found this through the post:

A letter saying that my appeal has been scheduled to be considered by an adjudicator on 31st Aug 2019

And then another heavy pack( about 40 pages) have the case summary, evidence list the law and the ULEZ campaign with the signage details and guidelines. Which none of them indicate the need to pay. anyway one thing about this pack is sent via the mail with signed for on the envelope!! As I said we were abroad when it was delivered and no one would’ve signed for it!, yet it was put through my mail box as signed for. Is that a problem? Or it is not concerning the appeal but the Royal Mail.
The other thing the last page of the case summary looks like it is misprinted and a lot of info are missing in there and to me it looks like it is the info that inform what is the action. I have no idea what it is suppose to say, as only the first few words of each paragraph is printed and the rest is blank. Then there is the signature.
Do you want me to post everything as I said it is a lot of pages and I not sure if the website will allow me.

Thank you.



This post has been edited by Bashboush: Wed, 21 Aug 2019 - 23:52
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 08:07
Post #23


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,888
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



IMO you are overcomplicating matters and risk obscuring your main points which as I understand it are:

You did not see the ULEZ sign;
Even if you had you would not have known whether this was for information or regulatory purposes and what action you as a motorist were required to take when you drove past.

IMO, the rest is froth.

Point 1 is much stronger than point 2 because point 1 refers to the duties falling to you and the authority whereas point 2 really only bears on your knowledge.

You did not see the sign because it was not correctly displayed as your photo(s) show. After the fact you established that the required signs were in situ on your route but either incorrectly orientated or overwhelmed in the clutter of other signs and distractions e,g. junctions, traffic lights, crossing traffic, pedestrians etc. such that even the most attentive motorist could miss them.

Is this your case?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bashboush
post Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 09:36
Post #24


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,862



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 09:07) *
IMO you are overcomplicating matters and risk obscuring your main points which as I understand it are:

You did not see the ULEZ sign;
Even if you had you would not have known whether this was for information or regulatory purposes and what action you as a motorist were required to take when you drove past.

IMO, the rest is froth.

Point 1 is much stronger than point 2 because point 1 refers to the duties falling to you and the authority whereas point 2 really only bears on your knowledge.

You did not see the sign because it was not correctly displayed as your photo(s) show. After the fact you established that the required signs were in situ on your route but either incorrectly orientated or overwhelmed in the clutter of other signs and distractions e,g. junctions, traffic lights, crossing traffic, pedestrians etc. such that even the most attentive motorist could miss them.

Is this your case?



Hi.

Point 1 is true.
Point 2: I said that I can’t remember seeing any sign that is of regulatory purpose( i.e. to instruct to pay or make me want to find out if I have to pay, as the congestion CHARGE signs,..

I agree the rest is froth.


Is there anyway not to attend in person for the tribunal? Can I represent my spouse instead?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
John U.K.
post Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 10:04
Post #25


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 3,475
Joined: 9 May 2014
Member No.: 70,515



QUOTE
Can I represent my spouse instead?


Yes. If appellant is not present there must be written signed authorisation for the named representative.

There used to be space on the paper form for this... don't know about online .

This post has been edited by John U.K.: Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 10:06
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 10:49
Post #26


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,888
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



I said that I can’t remember seeing any sign that is of regulatory purpose( i.e. to instruct to pay or make me want to find out if I have to pay, as the congestion CHARGE signs,..


If you didn't see the sign, then you could not act upon it, even presuming action was required.

As regards point 2, why would the adj find that the use of specified or authorised sign was incorrect simply because you did not know its meaning? That it's of a different format from the congestion charge is not a compelling argument if it's an approved sign. Frankly, I would be wary of trying to use this argument.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bashboush
post Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 10:55
Post #27


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,862



QUOTE (John U.K. @ Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 11:04) *
QUOTE
Can I represent my spouse instead?


Yes. If appellant is not present there must be written signed authorisation for the named representative.

There used to be space on the paper form for this... don't know about online .


Can the hearing be over the phone ?

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 11:49) *
I said that I can’t remember seeing any sign that is of regulatory purpose( i.e. to instruct to pay or make me want to find out if I have to pay, as the congestion CHARGE signs,..


If you didn't see the sign, then you could not act upon it, even presuming action was required.

As regards point 2, why would the adj find that the use of specified or authorised sign was incorrect simply because you did not know its meaning? That it's of a different format from the congestion charge is not a compelling argument if it's an approved sign. Frankly, I would be wary of trying to use this argument.

So what do you suggest? Just stick to I didn’t see any sign?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 12:48
Post #28


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,299
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 11:49) *
As regards point 2, why would the adj find that the use of specified or authorised sign was incorrect simply because you did not know its meaning? That it's of a different format from the congestion charge is not a compelling argument if it's an approved sign. Frankly, I would be wary of trying to use this argument.

The fact that a sign is authorised has no bearing on LATOR 1996 regulation 18, which IMO is the stronger point. The sign doesn't say anything about having to pay anything. It doesn't even say something like "go online for more information", it conveys no real information to someone who's never heard of the scheme.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 13:11
Post #29


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,888
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Where does LATOR come into this given that these are regulations made under the RTRA not the GLA Act?



Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 14:38
Post #30


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,299
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 14:11) *
Where does LATOR come into this given that these are regulations made under the RTRA not the GLA Act?

This is a fair, and somewhat concerning point. The order is here http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lez-scheme-order.pdf and it makes no reference to traffic signs at all.

Paragraph 4(3)(1) of Schedule 23 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/2.../23/paragraph/4 simply says that the GLA may "require the authority by whom any such order is made to place and maintain, or cause to be placed and maintained, such traffic signs in connection with that order as the Authority may determine."

The result is that if the GLA has not imposed any requirements as to signage on TFL (as seems to be the case), then no statutory requirements as to the adequacy of the signage exist at all.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 17:04
Post #31


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,593
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Surely the common law duty to act fairly comes into it.

Incidentally, today I read on Mr Mustards blog that he has won at London Tribunals for a client who got a ULEZ PCN. TfL DNC'd having submitted about 70-odd pages of tosh when the adjudicator adjourned the proceedings for TfL to confirm the signage adequacy as this had been one of the appeal issues.

With 130,000 PCNs already issued, generating £11.7 million for Tfl, plus, of course the charge itself for those who pay the charge, it is a "nice little earner" for them. I gather a rather large head of steam is building in London. The PCN total means a quarter of all cars entering the zone have now been fined. I suspect Mr Khan will find it difficult getting votes next time round
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 17:39
Post #32


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,888
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



The OP's committed to an appeal, so they could include all their arguments.

I'm not convinced by 'adequacy of signage' unless this is based on their siting as opposed to format - the post was silent on this point,

And every case turns on its own facts.

And it is dangerous to draw the general from the specific.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 18:01
Post #33


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,299
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 18:04) *
Surely the common law duty to act fairly comes into it.

Well yes, I'm not saying there isn't an argument to be made, but in the absence of a clear-cut regulation, the outcome is a lot more uncertain.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bashboush
post Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 18:43
Post #34


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,862



I believe that I do have a point when saying that I did not see any signage that would make me think that I have to pay. ( like when I first come to see a congestion charge signage I knows that I might need to pay a charge. ) but with this ULEZ signage it is just informing that it is a ULEZ.

I think this argument should stand.
I have no experience what sorbet in attending tribunal season. Do I need someone who is experienced in this to represent us.

Can I ask for a phone hearing.
Can I delay the hearing.

I’ll appreciate your comments on this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 18:48
Post #35


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,299
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



London Tribunals doesn't do telephone hearings, but no experience is required and the process is fairly informal. The adjudicator will not expect you to turn up and start quoting laws or legal procedures. You can ask for a delay if you have a reason to do so, a first adjournment is normally granted without any problems, but why do you want a delay?


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 23:55
Post #36


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,713
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Is article 4 complied with? I think not

assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-4557.pdf


--------------------
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
hcandersen
post Fri, 23 Aug 2019 - 06:48
Post #37


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,888
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



I believe that I do have a point when saying that I did not see any signage that would make me think that I have to pay.


Then you fundamentally undermine your first point. You really, really, need to stand back and think.

At present you now seem to be saying that the sign you did not see did not say you had to pay, which clearly implies you did see it...

Mmmmmm wink.gif

You could say that on reviewing the authority's evidence of the sign upon which they rely it is apparent that even if I had seen it then ...,

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Fri, 23 Aug 2019 - 06:51
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bashboush
post Thu, 29 Aug 2019 - 18:10
Post #38


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,862



A quick advice please.

At the tribunal I am going to stick that I didn’t see any sign in regards to ULEZ.
My wording will be something like; I can’t remember seeing signs for ULEZ.
Then something in the lines of (as suggested by; hcandersen: that on reviewing the authority's evidence of the sign upon which they rely it is apparent that even if I had seen it then it will not make me thinks that I have to pay as it just says ULEZ.

Is there anything else I should mention? Are they going to ask me anything else?

I mentioned in a previous post that the last page of the case summary in the evidence pack is not printed properly. And I can’t work out what does it is supposed to say or what it is asking me to do?
Can I bring this up in the hearing? Does it have any weight?

The link for that page is;

https://ibb.co/GCZ23V2


Many thanks in advance. And appreciate any advice for the hearing
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bashboush
post Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 08:55
Post #39


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 93
Joined: 13 Dec 2012
Member No.: 58,862



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 23 Aug 2019 - 07:48) *
I believe that I do have a point when saying that I did not see any signage that would make me think that I have to pay.


Then you fundamentally undermine your first point. You really, really, need to stand back and think.

At present you now seem to be saying that the sign you did not see did not say you had to pay, which clearly implies you did see it...

Mmmmmm wink.gif

You could say that on reviewing the authority's evidence of the sign upon which they rely it is apparent that even if I had seen it then ...,



So I’ve been to the tribunal and it’s a very bad news.
Although the adjudicator believes that I didn’t see the sign and I’m not aware of the scheme, they said that they don’t have the freedom of cancelling the PCN as I did not satisfy them with my ground of appeal( I ticked the PCN didn’t happen and no PCN to pay)
Based on this refused my appeal.

I need to pay £360 for two PCNs !!!!

I don’t have this money at all. I’m not sure what to do?!
Is writing to the council explaining that I don’t have the money supplementing it with bank statements?
I don’t have that amount of money.
This is not what I expected. All what they did was going through the 6 ground of appeal and none of them apply.
Aaarrrgh
I am really gutted and feeling really low because of this. Where am I going to get the money from?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 09:01
Post #40


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,713
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (Bashboush @ Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 09:55) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 23 Aug 2019 - 07:48) *
I believe that I do have a point when saying that I did not see any signage that would make me think that I have to pay.


Then you fundamentally undermine your first point. You really, really, need to stand back and think.

At present you now seem to be saying that the sign you did not see did not say you had to pay, which clearly implies you did see it...

Mmmmmm wink.gif

You could say that on reviewing the authority's evidence of the sign upon which they rely it is apparent that even if I had seen it then ...,



So I’ve been to the tribunal and it’s a very bad news.
Although the adjudicator believes that I didn’t see the sign and I’m not aware of the scheme, they said that they don’t have the freedom of cancelling the PCN as I did not satisfy them with my ground of appeal( I ticked the PCN didn’t happen and no PCN to pay)
Based on this refused my appeal.

I need to pay £360 for two PCNs !!!!

I don’t have this money at all. I’m not sure what to do?!
Is writing to the council explaining that I don’t have the money supplementing it with bank statements?
I don’t have that amount of money.
This is not what I expected. All what they did was going through the 6 ground of appeal and none of them apply.
Aaarrrgh
I am really gutted and feeling really low because of this. Where am I going to get the money from?

post your appeal exactly as sent to the tribunal and the case number, lets see if there are grounds for review


--------------------
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

3 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: Sunday, 22nd September 2019 - 17:12
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.