Tfl penalty charge notice Options

[Tk83]

Good afternoon,

I was signposted to this forum and I am posting on behalf of my housemate. I hope you can assist in the best way of handling this.

My housemate has a Vauxhall Vivaro 2900 sport and received 3 penalty charge notices contravention code 52g - failing to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle goods vehicles exceeding max gross weight indicated. I understand this applies to vehicles over 2000kg - his vans gross payload is 1243 and is currently empty. From my understanding this means that the penalty charge has been issued in error?

If somebody could confirm this (and how he would go about appealing this) I would be very grateful. Apologies if this is a simple enquiry but my flat mates English isn’t perfect and my knowledge of car related issues is limited. If any other information is required I will do my best to supply it.

Many thanks in advance

[Advertisement]

[PASTMYBEST]

The GVW is as it says on the tin 2900 KGs

[The Rookie]

Clearly the restriction has to apply to maximum allowable weight, otherwise everyone would claim the truck was empty at the time. How you think it would work any other way would be worth hearing. Bang to rights.

This post has been edited by The Rookie: Wed, 23 Sep 2020 - 16:10

[PASTMYBEST]

Although it would appear you are bang to rights. Te authority must have reason to believe that the vehicle is over the max weight. If you make a representation to the effect, that the kerb weight is listed at xxxx and they ask you to prove the weight then they did not have this reason to believe so should not have served a PCN. But if you do that, whilst they are likely to reoffer the discount they do not have to so there is a risk

[Tk83]

Thankyou for the replies. I don’t have any experience in this area and just wanted to post on behalf of my housemate. He had a similar van model before this one and hadn’t had any issues and I think assumed this new one would be fine too. I gather this one may be heavier than his last one? I honestly have very little knowledge of vehicles. But as I said many thanks for your input, at least he knows the situation now

[hcandersen]

And the situation is that in law the GVW of the vehicle is all the evidence that's needed for a successful prosecution, therefore it more than meets the legal threshold at adjudication. Bang to rights.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made

Item 13, Part 2 table.

Nothing to do with what a vehicle + load actually weighs at the time. In fact, load isn't even part of the definition.

[Tk83]

I have an additional question if that is ok? The contraventions occurred on 05/08/2020 and 07/08/2020 and the date of the notice is 18/09/2020. Was this issued in the right time frame? Apologies if this is a simple question - I had a look online and couldn’t find this information. Many thanks

[PASTMYBEST]

And the situation is that in law the GVW of the vehicle is all the evidence that's needed for a successful prosecution, therefore it more than meets the legal threshold at adjudication. Bang to rights.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made

Item 13, Part 2 table.

Nothing to do with what a vehicle + load actually weighs at the time. In fact, load isn't even part of the definition.

But the adjudicators are questioning when that evidence is in the domain of the council for if they do not have it before the issue of the PCN they have no reason to believe. for smaller vans . that it exceeds the weight .

you might not agree but it is a finding made on more than one occation

[Tk83]

And the situation is that in law the GVW of the vehicle is all the evidence that's needed for a successful prosecution, therefore it more than meets the legal threshold at adjudication. Bang to rights.

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/3/made

Item 13, Part 2 table.

Nothing to do with what a vehicle + load actually weighs at the time. In fact, load isn't even part of the definition.

Thanks for link - makes it easier to explain to my housemate

[stamfordman]

I have an additional question if that is ok? The contraventions occurred on 05/08/2020 and 07/08/2020 and the date of the notice is 18/09/2020. Was this issued in the right time frame? Apologies if this is a simple question - I had a look online and couldn’t find this information. Many thanks

Depends on what act the PCN comes under. Let's see the PCNs - is it the Rotherhithe Tunnel?

[Tk83]

I have an additional question if that is ok? The contraventions occurred on 05/08/2020 and 07/08/2020 and the date of the notice is 18/09/2020. Was this issued in the right time frame? Apologies if this is a simple question - I had a look online and couldn’t find this information. Many thanks

Depends on what act the PCN comes under. Let's see the PCNs - is it the Rotherhithe Tunnel?

Yes it is the Rotherhithe tunnel approach / Brunel Road. Contravention code 52G on 05/08/2020 and 07/08/2020. The date of notice is 19/09/2030 for both. Many thanks

[stamfordman]

The 28 day limit does apply as the PCNs are issued under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

However, is the vehicle leased and have the PCNs been reissued to hirer's name and address.

[Tk83]

The 28 day limit does apply as the PCNs are issued under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

However, is the vehicle leased and have the PCNs been reissued to hirer's name and address.

No he owns the vehicle, it was purchased recently. I’ve just had a look at his V5c certificate and the acquired vehicle date is 31/07/2020 (04/09/20 is printed at various points on the certificate but I can’t see any reference?).

[stamfordman]

The 28 day limit does apply as the PCNs are issued under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

However, is the vehicle leased and have the PCNs been reissued to hirer's name and address.

No he owns the vehicle, it was purchased recently. I’ve just had a look at his V5c certificate and the acquired vehicle date is 31/07/2020 (04/09/20 is printed at various points on the certificate but I can’t see any reference?).

04/09/20 is what we call the doc ref date no doubt and is when DVLA registered the change from the previous owner so no doubt the PCNs first went to that person and they made reps that they were not the owner.

It should take shorter than this though if the paperwork was sent on day of sale.

[Tk83]

The 28 day limit does apply as the PCNs are issued under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.

However, is the vehicle leased and have the PCNs been reissued to hirer's name and address.

No he owns the vehicle, it was purchased recently. I’ve just had a look at his V5c certificate and the acquired vehicle date is 31/07/2020 (04/09/20 is printed at various points on the certificate but I can’t see any reference?).

04/09/20 is what we call the doc ref date no doubt and is when DVLA registered the change from the previous owner so no doubt the PCNs first went to that person and they made reps that they were not the owner.

It should take shorter than this though if the paperwork was sent on day of sale.

I thought that might be the case with the 04/09/20 date. Is there a way he could find out that the notice originally went to the dealer causing the delay in him receiving it? If the notice didn’t go to the dealer first perhaps that is an avenue he can look at.
Many thanks for your advice, it’s much appreciated.

[cp8759]

Although it would appear you are bang to rights. Te authority must have reason to believe that the vehicle is over the max weight. If you make a representation to the effect, that the kerb weight is listed at xxxx and they ask you to prove the weight then they did not have this reason to believe so should not have served a PCN. But if you do that, whilst they are likely to reoffer the discount they do not have to so there is a risk

If you were able to find that the listed weight is 2900 KGs, why can't TFL claim to have done the same?

[hcandersen]

I think PMB misunderstands the law.

All that an authority have to have in order to be justified in issuing a PCN is a belief that a contravention has occurred (whether or not on the basis of information provided by a camera or other device).

This does not mean that they must decide whether a contravention has occurred solely on the basis of the camera record. This would be an absurd burden because they would need other data input to reach such a conclusion in cases such as these.

Where there has clearly been a prospective contravention then IMO they are permitted to consult other competent authorities or sources of info in order to confirm their suspicions.

However, if the camera record was the only record consulted in order to decide (in effect relegating DVLA's role and data input to simply providing the reg keeper's details), then IMO this would be no more than guesswork on their part for commercial vehicles whose GVW fall with a narrow band either side the the strict limit i.e. not an articulated vehicle.

[PASTMYBEST]

I think that i do not misunderstand the law. What i said was that the authority must have a reason to believe before the issue of a PCN and they must not reach that beleif afterwards

It it was a tank then this reason to believe could well be from sight if a small van not. You will note my suggestion that the OP makes reps based on the kerb weight. If the council come back and say please tell us what the GVW is then the argument below has legs If they come back and say no the GVW is 2900+ then it doesn't

I also said adjudicators are finding this to be so

2200159224

The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle failed to comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (goods vehicles exceeding a mass gross weight of 2 tonnes) when in Branch Road on 30 August and 5 September 2019.

The Appellant denies the contraventions.

However, I have considered the evidence in these eight appeals and I find that they cannot be upheld for the following reasons:

First, I find that at the time the Authority issued these two PCNs they did not have a reason to believe that the Appellant's vehicle had a maximum gross weight of 2 tonnes or over.

Second, the reason I find that the Authority did not have such knowledge is because it was only subsequently that they obtained such evidence from the manufacturer.

Third, therefore at the time the PCNs were issued they only had photographic evidence, which cannot establish the maximum gross weight of the Appellant's vehicle on its own.

Fourth, I find an Authority can only issue a PCN for this contravention if they have such a belief; it is a precondition.

Fifth, the Authority is required not merely to believe that the vehicle was over the weight limit but must have reason to believe it; I find that no such reason existed in these cases.

Sixth, I find that it is not possible in a case such as this, where the vehicle is relatively small, to believe that it exceeded the maximum gross weight limit just by its appearance.

Seventh, an essential element of the contravention is that the vehicle has a maximum gross weight of 2 tonnes or more. As a matter of law an Enforcing Authority that seeks to prove a contravention bears the burden of proving all its elements; the motorist does not have to prove that any of the elements are not present.

Eighth, the Authority is not entitled to issue a PCN on the basis of speculation and then require a motorist to disprove the contravention.

Ninth, in the absence of a reasonable belief before the issuing of a PCN it had no such power to issue a PCN and they are therefore invalid.

Accordingly, these appeals are allowed


A reason to believe must be based on knowledge not supposition

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Fri, 25 Sep 2020 - 13:02