PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Ultra Low Emission Zone PCN (which came as a complete surprise)
gtahhh
post Thu, 6 Jun 2019 - 00:26
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 195
Joined: 5 Feb 2007
Member No.: 10,452



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
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >  
Start new topic
Replies (40 - 59)
Advertisement
post Thu, 6 Jun 2019 - 00:26
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
HarbourLights
post Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 12:55
Post #41


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 17 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,338



Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 16:42
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,417
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



QUOTE (spaceman @ Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 13:51) *
QUOTE (HarbourLights @ Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 00:09) *
IInterestingly they are offering further discouragement by mentioning that costs might be awarded against me. They appear to have attempted to imply that my statement was contradictory (which it certainly wasn't!), which has irked me.


Paragraph 6(1)(b) of 'The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007' requires them to point this out to you in the NoR.

Except this is not a parking PCN.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spaceman
post Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 16:57
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 637
Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,319



QUOTE (Incandescent @ Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 17:42) *
QUOTE (spaceman @ Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 13:51) *
QUOTE (HarbourLights @ Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 00:09) *
IInterestingly they are offering further discouragement by mentioning that costs might be awarded against me. They appear to have attempted to imply that my statement was contradictory (which it certainly wasn't!), which has irked me.


Paragraph 6(1)(b) of 'The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007' requires them to point this out to you in the NoR.

Except this is not a parking PCN.


Oops, apologies!

In which case, make that paragraph 15(1)(b) of The Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication)(London) Regulations 2001, as amended.

This post has been edited by spaceman: Fri, 12 Jul 2019 - 17:07
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HarbourLights
post Sun, 21 Jul 2019 - 08:40
Post #44


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 17 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,338



Hi Team,

I'm just making a start on my appeal to the adjudicator. The procedure notes mention (as the original appeal did) that you can appeal on a fixed set of grounds. However, unlike the original appeal, there is no mention of being allowed to state your own grounds for appeal, although it does go on to say that if you're in doubt, appeal anyway.

I take it that I'm OK to more or less repeat my original grounds for appeal...?

Thanks!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 21 Jul 2019 - 10:17
Post #45


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,285
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (HarbourLights @ Sun, 21 Jul 2019 - 09:40) *
Hi Team,

I'm just making a start on my appeal to the adjudicator. The procedure notes mention (as the original appeal did) that you can appeal on a fixed set of grounds. However, unlike the original appeal, there is no mention of being allowed to state your own grounds for appeal, although it does go on to say that if you're in doubt, appeal anyway.

I take it that I'm OK to more or less repeat my original grounds for appeal...?

Thanks!


I would think

©
that in the circumstances of the case no penalty charge is payable; would cover it. Because your appeal is that the signage does not convey that the ULEZ is a charging zone so is inadequate in not conforming to LATOR s18


--------------------
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
Incandescent
post Sun, 21 Jul 2019 - 10:59
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,417
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



A statutory ground for appeal will normally be accompanied by a wodge of explanatory text. One can select more than one ground as well
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HarbourLights
post Wed, 24 Jul 2019 - 16:25
Post #47


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 17 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,338



Many thanks team - much appreciated!

I'll keep you posted on progress. Good luck to the OP, too.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HarbourLights
post Mon, 5 Aug 2019 - 17:29
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 17 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,338



Little update - I now have my "day in court". Planning to turn up, smartly dressed and with argument prepared, to present myself as a 'reasonable person' on the receiving end of some rather unreasonable treatment...and to hope for the best!

Key argument points for me are:
  • Inadequate publicity for those who aren't locals
  • Relationship between LEZ and ULEZ is confusing
  • Signage issues (re: LATOR 1996)
  • In view of the above, that missed innocent payments are highly likely, yet no 'warning' is issued to first-time offenders (for a very much non-standard scheme in its infancy)
  • Finally, whilst it may be within the allowances made in the appropriate Act, an £80 minimum penalty seems excessive against a £12.50 missed payment, when an early payment of a parking fine is typically £25-30.


I will appraise you of the outcome in due course...!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 5 Aug 2019 - 17:33
Post #49


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,285
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (HarbourLights @ Mon, 5 Aug 2019 - 18:29) *
Little update - I now have my "day in court". Planning to turn up, smartly dressed and with argument prepared, to present myself as a 'reasonable person' on the receiving end of some rather unreasonable treatment...and to hope for the best!

Key argument points for me are:
  • Inadequate publicity for those who aren't locals
  • Relationship between LEZ and ULEZ is confusing
  • Signage issues (re: LATOR 1996)
  • In view of the above, that missed innocent payments are highly likely, yet no 'warning' is issued to first-time offenders (for a very much non-standard scheme in its infancy)
  • Finally, whilst it may be within the allowances made in the appropriate Act, an £80 minimum penalty seems excessive against a £12.50 missed payment, when an early payment of a parking fine is typically £25-30.


I will appraise you of the outcome in due course...!


post your draft here for review The last two points are mitigation only and the adjudicator has no jurisdiction over that


--------------------
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
cp8759
post Mon, 5 Aug 2019 - 19:26
Post #50


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,794
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Mon, 5 Aug 2019 - 18:33) *
post your draft here for review The last two points are mitigation only and the adjudicator has no jurisdiction over that

+1


--------------------
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
HarbourLights
post Tue, 6 Aug 2019 - 18:52
Post #51


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 17 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,338



Thanks for your comments - points taken about mitigation. My only additional comment (not that it changes anything, I'm sure) would be that I mention warning letters because I am sure that the Dart Charge scheme issued warnings at first. I have highlighted various differences between the implementation of the ULEZ and Dart Charge, not least the stark contrast between the clarity of signage relative to the general visual clutter of the environment.

Just so I'm clear, I have now submitted two sets of appeal documentation (initial representations and now the tribunal request) - would you like me to post those here? My only concern is if there is any history of the board being skimmed by the authorities in a manner such that it might prejudice my appeal. A valid concern, or not really? Forgive me if that's a daft question - I'm a newbie round here!

Thank you!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 7 Aug 2019 - 09:41
Post #52


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 12,794
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Normally we want to see things before you send them off, so that we can advise on any changes. As a general rule nothing the authorities will find on here will help their case, as they already have all the evidence they're going to use against you.


--------------------
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
HarbourLights
post Wed, 14 Aug 2019 - 17:02
Post #53


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 17 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,338



Apologies for the delay - a manic week! OK, all understood. My logic was that I felt reasonably confident in what I was doing based on the previous content of the thread, and, given that, I didn't want to waste anyone's time. If that was the wrong course of action, more fool me!

I will nail my colours to the mast. Of course all of this has already been sent, so be reasonably kind if I've pitched this completely incorrectly...!

Initial representations:

QUOTE
Dear Sir/Madam,

I am an exceptionally occasional motoring visitor to London. I believe I have entered the congestion charge zone once in my 17 year driving career, and I paid the levy within the required time-frame with complete understanding and acceptance of its reason for existing. I visit London reasonably regularly, but would under normal circumstances use public transport.

I had reason to drive through the congestion charge zone on the evening of the 6th June 2019, but was aware that the charging period ended at 6pm. I returned home on the evening of the 16th June to discover a Penalty Charge Notice on my doormat. On reading this notice, I became aware for the first time of the existence of the ULEZ.
As a regular and experienced motorist (with an annual mileage north of 40,000 miles per annum), I have been aware of the existence of the LEZ (in so much as it applies to HGVs, etc) for some years. Only when looking into this matter did I become aware of the difference between the ULEZ and LEZ.

I am well familiar with plans to establish a zone for emissions-related daily charging for cars accessing the area bounded by the north and south circular roads, starting in October 2021 - this has been the subject of several media articles and much online discussion in recent times. I was aware that my vehicle's emissions status would require me to pay an additional charge if I were to venture within that zone. However, only on receiving my PCN did I become aware that this is to be an expansion of a scheme already operating within the existing congestion charge zone.

I should add that I support the principles of Mayor Khan's clean air initiative. Urban air pollution is a major health risk, and I think that my exceptionally occasional usage of the congestion charging zone (as mentioned above, two visits in 17 years, as far as I'm aware) is a reflection of my desire not to add to London's congestion and air quality problems. To that end, on the very rare occasions that I might need to drive in the affected zone, I would be only too happy to pay the levy. I intend to sign up for Auto Pay for the ULEZ, as I have for the Dart Charge.

Ignorance of the law is not, in itself, a defence, but I was left wondering how a regular motorist and perfectly intelligent individual could have ended up in this calamity - absolutely unaware that there was a requirement to pay anything until a PCN is served. I have considered the contributory factors - my unfamiliarity with the area, the lack of national media coverage of the subject, the often frantic nature of driving in central London and the associated perceived need to pay attention to unfamiliar risks (including a greater concentration of two-wheels vehicles, powered and unpowered, than one might be used to), not to mention the often very busy visual landscape which serves to mask signage (in comparison to, for example, signage standing out against a hedgerow). However, I consider these to be ineffective as a defence, however understandable they might be on a human level.

However, on reviewing the nature of the signage for the ULEZ, I believe that the reason for my lack of appreciation of the need to pay a charge became clear. I have attached a JPEG image, taken from the TFL website, showing an example of a ULEZ sign. Note that it makes no reference to a fee potentially being payable (depending on your vehicle's emissions class), nor any reference to how one might go about paying such a fee.

I would draw your attention to Part 3, Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. This states:

"(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—
(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;"

I do not consider that the ULEZ signage conveys "adequate information as to the effect of the order", in the eyes of a reasonable person.

I have also attached an example of signage for the Dart Charge, taken from the government website. This clearly conveys:
a) That a payment ("charge") must be made
b) That this payment must be made by midnight on the following day
c) How one might make that payment ("find us online").

In contrast to the ULEZ signage, I consider that the Dart Charge signage to convey "adequate information as to the effect of the order", in the eyes of a reasonable person.
In summary, I would politely request that you cancel the PCN, on the grounds that the existing signage is inadequate, as detailed above. I would be very pleased to pay the original £12.50, and would have done so in a timely manner had I been aware of the requirement.

Yours faithfully,


And the covering letter to the tribunal...

QUOTE
Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to appeal against the rejection of my representations made against the issuing of a PCN in relation to my failure to pay a ULEZ charge for entry to the zone on the 6th June 2019.

It is beyond debate that I entered the zone in a non-exempt vehicle, and hence that a fee of £12.50 was payable. My assertion is that insufficient information is provided to inform a driver unfamiliar with the scheme regarding what the scheme is and what they need to do. On that basis (as elaborated on in my previous representation), I would assert that a warning/reminder letter and demand for payment of the outstanding £12.50 would be a proportionate response to a 'first offence'.

Essentially, my grounds for appeal are as previously presented (copy enclosed). However, I wish to clarify and emphasise one point. Although I appreciate that the text of a lengthy appeal was summarised into a single (substantial) paragraph in the rejection notice, it could be taken from the summary of my points paraphrased in the rejection notice that my statement was contradictory regarding my awareness of the scheme. I was making the point that I have recently seen significant media coverage and internet discussion regarding the establishment of a low-emissions charging zone to include the area essentially encircled by the north and south circular roads. However, prior to the issuing of the PCN, I was unaware that the current ULEZ was already active, and the forthcoming plans represented an expansion of the existing scheme.

In summary, I wish to appeal against the issuing of the PCN and subsequent rejection of my representation on the basis that no charge should be payable, on the following grounds, as previously stated in my original representations:
a) That the signage does not adequately inform a driver of the nature of the scheme. I would entirely agree that it is fit for purpose as a boundary marker for the scheme, but it assumes prior knowledge of the scheme (re: Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, Part 3, Regulation 18).
b) That the LEZ and ULEZ are so similarly named as to be easily confused by someone not experienced in motoring in Central London.
c) That I would be entirely happy to pay the £12.50 originally owed (and undisputed), but that an £80 (and potentially rising) penalty seems disproportionate for an innocent and understandable error.

The contrast with the fairness of the administration of the Dartford scheme is notable, in my opinion, both in terms of the phasing-in of the scheme (the issuing of warning notices and demands for payment of the originally-owed sum), and the quality of signage displayed to the motorist.

I would be pleased to make further representations in person, as appropriate.

Yours faithfully,


Feedback welcomed! smile.gif Thank you all again for your help thus far. I wonder how the OP is getting on?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
gtahhh
post Thu, 15 Aug 2019 - 23:04
Post #54


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 195
Joined: 5 Feb 2007
Member No.: 10,452



Hello again

I have now had my Notice of Rejection (NoR). It is copied in below. The punctuation, odd spacing and capitalisation and occasional 'å' characters are all verbatim. It correctly summarises the points I raised, then completely fails to take any of them into account. The NoR makes many references to signs at the boundary but fails to acknowledge that at this particular boundary, the signs are either turned or hidden and out of view. I am not sure if there are any ULEZ signs on the approach I took but I don't think so.

Do you think the adjudicator will consider the actual signage at this junction of follow TfL and simply insist that generally the signs are OK?

I was interested to see how much was made of ULEZ sharing a boundary with the Congestion Charging zone. At this boundary there is no left hand side CC sign and the right hand side sign is hidden. This makes it more likely that a motorist will miss that there's a boundary ahead.

Based on the circumstances of the alleged contravention, the evidence I have of the signs being hidden and inadequately designed, and the NoR text, what are the important points to highlight in my letter to the adjudicator?

-g

Notice of Rejection text - Date of notice: 01 August 2019

Notice of Rejection

Thank you for your recent representation against the above-mentioned Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) Penalty Charge Notice(s) (PCN) for vehicle registration mark AA11AAA.

In your representation you have stated that you have entered the ULEZ on seymour street. You have stated that the boundary is not complaint with the Road Traffic Regulations. You have stated that in paragraph 4 it stated that signs shall be placed in sufficient number to indicate traffic entering the ULEZ. You have stated that the sign along with the Congestion Charge (CC) is hidden behind the lamp and out of view of traffic. You have stated that the ULEZ is rotated and therefore motorists are unable to see this and therefore the road traffic regulation are not met. You have also attached evidence for this and have stated that these signs are not appropriate and confusing. You have stated that the signs say ULEZ ultra Low Emission Zone which is not compliant with the regulations as it does not indicate that a charge needs to be paid for. This is the opposite of CC or dartford charge where it clearly states that a fee needs to be paid for. You have stated that you have been living in australia and may have misunderstood some information and publicity due to being away. Finally, You have requested the PCN to be cancelled.

Your vehicle registration has been clearly captured travelling within the zone during charging hours. We have confirmed that the Evidential Record is accurate and the registration has been correctly interpreted by our camera systems. Our records show that the contravention location is within the boundary of the ULEZ.Motorists are made aware when they are about to enter the ULEZ as every entry road into the ULEZ has regulatory ULEZ signage in place. There are also signs to provide warning on the main approaches to the zone, which are placed to allow motorists time to take alternative routes to avoid entering the ULEZ. The signs are there not just to alert drivers on their first time within the zone, but also to remind anyone who travels regularly through the zone of the need to pay a ULEZ charge.

As the registered keeper of the vehicle it is your duty to make yourself aware of any charges, tolls or other restrictions that may be in existence along your route. We have made full information regarding the ULEZ including its boundary, operating hours and payment options, available through our Contact Centre and online at tfl.gov.uk/ulez, as well as running a public information campaign. As you therefore had an opportunity to make yourself aware the ULEZ charge was payable, we believe the PCN has been correctly issued.

The ULEZ was launched on the 8th April 2019 is operational for 24 hours a day every day of the year, including public holidays, and each charging day runs from midnight to midnight. It covers the central London area. It is a separate scheme to both the Congestion Charge and the Low Emission Zone (LEZ), the latter covering most of Greater London. An extensive advertising and publicity campaign has promoted the ULEZ scheme, its area of

operation, operating hours and emission standards all of which is also detailed on the ULEZ website, tfl.gov.uk/ulez.We enforce the ULEZ through the issue of PCN(s) in order to support the aims and objectives of the ULEZ scheme to improve air quality and reduce pollution. We promote compliance of the scheme and we consider we enforce the scheme in a fair and consistent manner.

The existence of the ULEZ has been well publicised in the media and through a range of advertising. We have made every effort to ensure that drivers of the most polluting vehicles are deterred from driving in the ULEZ area. The public consultation into the ULEZ commenced on 30 November 2017 and closed on 28 February 2018. Since that time and until the launch of the ULEZ on 8th April 2019, we ran an extensive ULEZ public information campaign, which sought to target those drivers who may be affected by the introduction of the scheme. This covered posters, the TfL transport system, petrol stations, on line, radio and newspapers both locally and nationally.As the registered keeper of the vehicle it is your legal duty to make yourself aware of any charges, tolls or other restrictions that may be in existence along your route, and ensure that you were not in contravention of them. We have made full information regarding the ULEZ and paying the charge available through our Contact Centre and website, tfl.gov.uk/ulez.

We have erected traffic signs at the points where vehicles enter the ULEZ. The entry signs are regulatory signs authorised by the Department for Transport (DfT) under sections 64 and 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 in DfT Authorisation GT50/139/0171. The DfT authorisation directs us to install entry signs on or near roads entering the ULEZ. Other signing placed at our discretion includes Advance Informatory signs around half a mile from the boundary and addition of the ULEZ symbol to Directional signing near the boundary. The signs placed around the ULEZ boundary support the Scheme Order.

We were involved in lengthy discussions with the DfT and other interested parties very early in the planning and implementation stages of the ULEZ. The design principles of the ULEZ sign followed that of the Low emission Zone. The type, size, layout and information content of the ULEZ signs was agreed with the DfT at the time. The signs for the ULEZ are designed to be consistent with the design principles and regulations attributed to the Congestion Charging signage and are placed alongside the existing Congestion Charging zone signs, to emphasise the difference in operational times between the two schemes. The ULEZ signs are supported by a lower panel to confirm the scheme applies 'At all times'.

Motorists will be aware when they are about to enter the ULEZ and cross its boundary as there are regulatory å Ultra Low Emission Zoneå entry signs at the side of every road that enters the ULEZ. They are placed in accordance with the DfT authorisation on or near the boundary. At least one entry sign has been placed on these roads unless they are private roads. Larger multi-lane roads generally have two signs. The number and location of the signs were considered carefully to ensure that a sign will be visible on all approaches to the entry.

We also gave consideration to the location of each boundary point and road layout and sought to rationalise the number of entry signs and attempt to limit the level of street clutter and visual intrusion. In all instances the signs have been placed to offer the most reasonable location identifiable at that site to offer as much visibility as possible and in some instances they have been co-located on the same poles as the Congestion Charging signs, given they share the same boundary.

There are also signs to provide warning on the main approaches to the zone, which are placed to allow motorists time to take alternative routes to avoid entering the ULEZ. The advance ULEZ signs are non-regulatory and have been provided to inform drivers that they are approaching the ULEZ.

We did not use road markings on the approaches, or at the entry, to the ULEZ. The entry signs, advance signs and directional signing were considered to provide sufficient warning to drivers. Unlike Congestion Charging, the DfT authorisation does not permit regulatory zone exit signs for the ULEZ because the ULEZ is a 24 hour scheme and does not have å controlled hourså in the same way as the Congestion Charging scheme or a controlled parking zone does. In such schemes an exit sign is required to outline when specifically the scheme applies during each day as drivers need to know, for example, if they have used and/or exited the zone outside of those controlled hours.

In addition, we continue to advertise and provide information regarding the ULEZ scheme to encourage awareness and compliance,. However, it remains the responsibility of the motorist to familiarise themselves with the regulatory road traffic signs, including ULEZ signs that they encounter while driving on the public highway.

We acknowledge that not all drivers will be familiar with the requirements of the ULEZ scheme however we considered there is sufficient information available to make drivers aware of how the scheme operates and the requirement to pay the charge. This is through reference to our website at tfl.gov.uk/ulez, our Contact Centre (Tel 0343 222 2222), the regulatory signs in place around the boundary, varying publicity which provides information relating to the scheme, emissions standards and how the charge can be purchased. The ULEZ charge can be purchased up to 64 days prior to the date of travel. Payment can also be made online at tfl.gov.uk/ulez, via our Contact Centre (Tel 0343 222 2222), by Auto Pay for registered customers, through our mobile app or by post. Postal payments must be received a minimum of 10 days before the date of travel. The charge can be paid by midnight of the next working day, but only online or via the Contact Centre.

When considering representations, we fully consider all the circumstances presented including any mitigating factors and whether it would be appropriate to apply discretion around the enforcement of the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN). In this instance we have made the decision not to exercise that discretion. We do not consider that the mitigating factors present give reason to cancel the PCN. This is because no charge has been purchased for the VRM for the date of contravention. It is clear the PCN has been issued correctly.

We have to advise you, therefore, that grounds for representation have not been established and this letter is issued as a formal Notice of Rejection under the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) Regulations 2001 (as amended)

You should now make payment for the outstanding Penalty Charge Notices. The amounts owed are listed at the foot of this Notice. Please note those Notices at the discounted amount should be paid within 14 days to qualify for this discounted sum. These Notices will increase if not paid and then the full amount per Notice should be paid within 28 days. Those Penalty Charge Notices at the full amount should be paid within 28 days of service of this Notice.

You may appeal to a Road User Charging Adjudicator at London Tribunals, an independent adjudication service, against this decision on specified grounds within 28 days of the date of service of this letter. The adjudicator will consider your appeal and make an independent decision, which Transport for London will comply with.

If you wish to appeal to a Road User Charging Adjudicator at London Tribunals, please read, complete, sign and send the attached form within 28 days of the date of service of this letter to London Tribunals, PO Box 10598 Nottingham NG6 6DR.

You should be aware that in prescribed circumstances, the Adjudicator may award costs against you if the appeal is considered frivolous or vexatious or that making, pursuing or resisting of the appeal was wholly unreasonable. Equally costs may be awarded against Transport for London if the adjudicator considers that the disputed decision was wholly unreasonable.

If you do not follow any of the prescribed actions within 28 days of the date of service of this letter, a Charge Certificate may be issued. This increases the charge by 50% of the original amount. If the increased Penalty Charge Notice is not then paid, then Transport for London will apply to the County Court to recover the charges which will incur a further charge of £8 per Penalty Charge Notice.

PCN Number: XXXXXXXX Outstanding Balance: £80.00

HOW TO PAY
a). Credit/Debit card payments may be made ONLINE at: tfl.gov.uk/ulez
b). Credit/Debit card payments may be made BY TELEPHONE on 0343 222 3333
c). Payment can be made BY POST to: Ultra Low Emission Zone, PO Box 553, Darlington, DL1 9TZ

PLEASE DO NOT SEND CASH IN THE POST. All cheques/postal orders must be made payable to Transport for London and crossed "a/c payee". Please ensure your vehicle registration and Penalty Charge Number are written clearly on the back. Post-dated cheques will not be accepted.

Please note that receipts will not normally be issued for payments unless requested. If you have any questions please visit our website at tfl.gov.uk/ulez or contact us on 0343 222 3333.

Yours sincerely,
D. Milton
Contract and Operations Manager
Transport for London
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HarbourLights
post Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 17:55
Post #55


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 17 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,338



I had pretty much the same experience - summarising my case, then ignoring / rejecting it all out of hand.

I was also not impressed with the quality of correspondence - my eye was more drawn to various stretched logos and it generally looking (unusually) amateurishly put together...but I bet there were more issues if I went looking for them!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Fri, 16 Aug 2019 - 18:38
Post #56


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,285
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Post the document not a transcript, and also a copy of exactly what you sent by way of representation


--------------------
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
gtahhh
post Sun, 18 Aug 2019 - 08:35
Post #57


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 195
Joined: 5 Feb 2007
Member No.: 10,452



Can anyone recommend a good service to post images. It seems Photobucket have started to blur my images.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sun, 18 Aug 2019 - 09:00
Post #58


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,285
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (gtahhh @ Sun, 18 Aug 2019 - 09:35) *
Can anyone recommend a good service to post images. It seems Photobucket have started to blur my images.



I use onedrive but imgur is often recommended


--------------------
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
SPARKY26
post Sun, 18 Aug 2019 - 10:02
Post #59


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 124
Joined: 25 Jan 2016
Member No.: 81,991



I don't know about other's but this Tread is so confusing. What happened to the house rule no2 Do not hijack another person's thread in order to post your own problem. Start your own.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
HarbourLights
post Mon, 19 Aug 2019 - 20:46
Post #60


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13
Joined: 17 Jun 2019
Member No.: 104,338



Apologies - that would be my fault. I come from a couple of decades of using forums where the minimising of topic creation is encouraged, but I appreciate that it just muddies the water here.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  < 1 2 3 4 >
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: Friday, 23rd August 2019 - 18:57
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.