Ultra Low Emission Zone PCN (which came as a complete surprise) Options

[gtahhh]

Hello!

I got a PCN for the ULEZ on bank holiday Monday after having the presence of mind to check that the congestion charging wasn't in force! I was aware that there are emission rules but have never really thought they applied to my car. I'm OK in low emission zones but not ultra low (I've checked online). I imagine that this one is a 'fair cop' as I was completely oblivious (a) to any need to pay attention to these rules, and (b) any signs or other warnings as I was driving into the zone. Ignorance being no excuse, of course.

However, is there any hope of avoiding the £80 fine?

Thanks
-g



PS: given there is ANPR everywhere, why not simply allow road users to be able to register for any fees and tolls occurred nationwide to be billed after the event, thereby removing the need to fine those who've signed up? Could it be that they make more money this way? I bet there's a real spike in PCNs in the ULEZ on bank holidays.

This post has been edited by gtahhh: Thu, 6 Jun 2019 - 00:27

[Advertisement]

[cp8759]

Well the decision is pants, as the adjudicator has not identified that LATOR does not apply at all.

[hcandersen]

The adj found as a fact that because DfT gave authorisation then they must have been satisfied that the sign complied with LATOR.

And adjs will continue to do so until this link can be disproved which won't happen until an owner bothers to enquire of DfT what the hell TfL said in their application that the sign was supposed to convey. This adj only assumed that the sign complied because DfT authorised it, he did not arrive at this conclusion independently.

[cp8759]

hcandersen why does it have to be an owner? You could make a FOI request yourself.

[Incandescent]

The adj found as a fact that because DfT gave authorisation then they must have been satisfied that the sign complied with LATOR.

And adjs will continue to do so until this link can be disproved which won't happen until an owner bothers to enquire of DfT what the hell TfL said in their application that the sign was supposed to convey. This adj only assumed that the sign complied because DfT authorised it, he did not arrive at this conclusion independently.

Personally, I think the whole ULEZ signage issue stinks ! How many people outside the South East have any idea what ULEZ means until they get a PCN in the post ? The signs are so useless, it beggars belief. But of course it will carry on until we get politicians who don't just "mind the shop" and sign-off everything put in front of them. I should say also that I have no disagreement on keeping the old smokers out of Central London, but do wonder if this covers buses and taxis. Historically, these have been the worst offenders, such that Oxford Street, which is buses & taxis only, used to be the most polluted street ! Is that still the case ?

[gtahhh]

The LEVC electric taxis are becoming very common but the remaining diesel cabs are often quite smokey.

I will request a review, reason: "in the interests of justice" shortly. I assume I will need to state the issues with the adj's decision? If so, would you mind nominating the key points so I can draft something. I will of course point out that the main point, that the sign was behind a traffic light was ignored.

[gtahhh]

I can see the template letter to appeal the decision here:
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/ruc/your...n-what-can-i-do

Can you please help me to fill in the blanks appropriately? The sections I would appreciate advice on are:

My reasons for applying for a review are as follows:

[insert a full explanation why you are seeking a review].

Here I assume that I say that the primary issue of the sign being covered was not considered in the adjudicators decision?

And

I attach the following additional evidence:

[give details of any new evidence or documents you are attaching].

I assume I would not need to add any new evidence but simply refer to exhibit A.

The decision letter is dated 4th Oct, so I assume I need to get my letter to request an appeal back to them by the 18th Oct.

Thanks
-g

[gtahhh]

Well the decision is pants, as the adjudicator has not identified that LATOR does not apply at all.

Does this point constitute an "explanation why you are seeking a review"?

[PASTMYBEST]

My opinion for what its worth is that a review request would not succeed. The adjudicator might well be wrong. But they have not made a fundamental error in law and they are entitled to find as they did on the facts. Unless you would be happy to try a judicial review at a risk of high cost then let it go

[gtahhh]

I am happy to pay up if it's effectively game over. However, as the signage at the zone boundary is hidden on one side and rotate over 45 degs aware from oncoming traffic on the other, it seems ludicrous that a motorist can be fined in this case.

A corollary of this situation and the adjudicators decision (particularly his points about the motorist needed to check their route before setting off, and perhaps after the journey too, not relying on road signs) seems to be that virtually no degree of defectiveness of the signs is grounds for appeal.

How can I be made to pay £130 when the sign is out of view behind a traffic light?

This post has been edited by gtahhh: Tue, 15 Oct 2019 - 22:30

[Incandescent]

Its a £180 !!

When I look at what is going on, it does seem that the adjudicators have been "got at" in some way. I would request a review because what they are now saying is "b*gger the signs, look where you are about to go on the internet". The decision is ludicrous

[gtahhh]

Can you advise on the basis of my request and what I should put in the form in post #46? I have made a stab at it in that post.

[gtahhh]

My understanding of the review is that it will review the process and not the decision. It will only be if there has been an error in process followed by the adj will that be any intervention by the reviewer. As such, there no point saying that X, Y, Z aspect of the decision is wrong/daft but I think that I can say that the most important bit of evidence wasn't considered, which of course must impact the validity of the decision.

I would be very grateful for any thoughts and guidance on wording for my review request as I need to post it tomorrow (I think) as the decision letter was dated 4th Oct and I have 14 days to request a review.

[gtahhh]

I'm just about to send this off. I could drop or tone down point 3. I've focused on omissions and errors rather than disagreeing with the decision as I believe that's all that can be considered. Point 3 perhaps stray from that.

-g


I am seeking review on the following ground(s):

The interests of justice require a review.

My reasons for applying for a review are as follows:

1. The adjudicator’s decision neglected to take into account the first and most important evidence that was cited in my representations with regards to defective signage, namely:

The sign on the right side of the boundary, along with the Congestion Zone sign, is hidden behind the lamp unit and pole of a traffic light and both signs are almost completely out of view to the oncoming motorist. The position of this sign is not appropriate.

This is fundamental in this case and when combined with the left hand sign that is rotated to be more visible to traffic driving north to south on Edgware Road, who do not enter the zone, and therefore less visible to those driving west to east, who do enter the zone, results in the signage at this boundary being extremely defective.

2. The adjudicator mistakenly assumes that the TfL’s reference to advanced notices to mean that there are approach signs for the motorist approaching the Seymour Street ULEZ boundary. There are no advance notices.

3. The adjudicators argument that the motorist should check his or her journey before setting off, and potentially after travelling, strongly implies that signs are not necessary and regardless of how defective signs are motorists should still be fined. This position seems preposterous and undermines the purpose of road signs and disregards how humans behave in practice.

I attach the following additional evidence:

I refer the reviewer to Exhibit A of my representations that shows hidden right hand ULEZ sign that was omitted from the adjudicator’s decision.

I would like my application to be considered by the adjudicator at a personal hearing.

[Longtime Lurker]

I'd add a couple more - probably not winning points, but they should force the Adjudicators to comment on them and take an official stance that we might find useful for other appeals:

4. The adjudicator has erred in law by assuming the Secretary of State is infallible. The adjudicator is not entitled to conclude from the existence of an approval from the Secretary of state that "the signage is adequate" to indicate the existence of a charge when it obviously (by the omission of any reference to a charge) is not.

5. It is 'Wednesbury Unreasonable' to conclude that a sign adequately conveys the existence of a charge, when that sign does not mention the existence of a charge. The interests of justice cannot allow such a decision to stand.

This post has been edited by Longtime Lurker: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 - 15:25

[gtahhh]

Thank you.


I think that I needed to catch the post this evening to get my request in in time so have sent my letter. I did add the following which covers one of your points:

3. The adjudicator found as a fact that because DfT gave authorisation then they must have been satisfied that the sign complied with the relevant legislation. He did not arrive at this conclusion independently.

Additionally, the adjudicators argument that the motorist should check his or her journey before setting off, and potentially again after travelling, implies that signs are not necessary and regardless of how defective signs are motorists can still be fined and seems to be made to excuse the defective signage in this case. This position seems preposterous and undermines the purpose of road signs and is at odds with how people behave, and are expected to behave, in respect to road signs.

This post has been edited by gtahhh: Thu, 17 Oct 2019 - 17:04

[gtahhh]

I posted my letter, dated 16th Oct, requesting a review on 17th Oct, first class signed-for and have my receipt etc. and caught the post for that day. I see that it was signed for yesterday morning, 21st Oct, so 4 days after posting!

As the adjudicators decision letter was dated 4th Oct, and the example letter on the tribunal's site says ".. making this application within 14 days of the date of the adjudicator’s decision...", does that mean I've blown it, or, will the date of their letter be 4th plus 2 working days, so the 8th?

[PASTMYBEST]

I posted my letter, dated 16th Oct, requesting a review on 17th Oct, first class signed-for and have my receipt etc. and caught the post for that day. I see that it was signed for yesterday morning, 21st Oct, so 4 days after posting!

As the adjudicators decision letter was dated 4th Oct, and the example letter on the tribunal's site says ".. making this application within 14 days of the date of the adjudicator’s decision...", does that mean I've blown it, or, will the date of their letter be 4th plus 2 working days, so the 8th?

Allow the two working day so should be OK for the request to be considered

[hcandersen]

The adjudicator found as a fact that because DfT gave authorisation then they must have been satisfied that the sign complied with the relevant legislation. He did not arrive at this conclusion independently.


As he is perfectly entitled to do. This is a two-part test:

Were the signs prescribed or authorised? Yes, authorised by the DfT. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the adj is entitled to find that this department of state has discharged its duty to consider applications for authorisation and were not misled. So no mileage there.

Were the signs mounted, located etc. such that the authority discharged their duty? He found yes after considering the evidence, yours and theirs. So no mileage there either.

But let's see what your request brings forth.

[gtahhh]

His decision makes no mention that he considered the most important evidence regarding the placement of the signs. It only refers to the rotated sign, not the obscured sign.

[hcandersen]

With respect, this is semantics.

The findings of fact are clear; they will not be overturned.