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 (40 - 49)
Advertisement
post Mon, 10 Jun 2019 - 00:09
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Bashboush
post Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 09:03
Post #41


Member


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



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 10:01) *
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


I didn’t receive a letter yet. I’ve just finished personal hearing. I’ll do when receive it.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 11:01
Post #42


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 24,892
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



If the adjudicator found as a fact that the signs were not displayed as required, then no contravention could occur. This would give rise to grounds under either 'penalty exceeded...' or 'in the circumstances of the case....'.

Once we see the adjudicator's reasoning we can see whether a review is worthwhile.

In any event, IMO we must take on board that the signs as prescribed/authorised are accepted by adjudicators whether we like it or not.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 11:24
Post #43


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 17,716
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 12:01) *
If the adjudicator found as a fact that the signs were not displayed as required, then no contravention could occur. This would give rise to grounds under either 'penalty exceeded...' or 'in the circumstances of the case....'.

Once we see the adjudicator's reasoning we can see whether a review is worthwhile.

In any event, IMO we must take on board that the signs as prescribed/authorised are accepted by adjudicators whether we like it or not.


Perhaps, perhaps not. The adjudicator in the case posted yesterday seemed to accept that the sign was authorised so it must be compliant, but the authorisation as usual refers to TSRGD directions that the sign must give effect to the order. If it does not then the order cannot be in effect. It is likely to need a few trail blazers before we get there, but I think we can. BUT IT IS VITAL we warn any OP of the risk


--------------------
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
Bashboush
post Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 12:31
Post #44


Member


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



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 12:24) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 12:01) *
If the adjudicator found as a fact that the signs were not displayed as required, then no contravention could occur. This would give rise to grounds under either 'penalty exceeded...' or 'in the circumstances of the case....'.

Once we see the adjudicator's reasoning we can see whether a review is worthwhile.

In any event, IMO we must take on board that the signs as prescribed/authorised are accepted by adjudicators whether we like it or not.


Perhaps, perhaps not. The adjudicator in the case posted yesterday seemed to accept that the sign was authorised so it must be compliant, but the authorisation as usual refers to TSRGD directions that the sign must give effect to the order. If it does not then the order cannot be in effect. It is likely to need a few trail blazers before we get there, but I think we can. BUT IT IS VITAL we warn any OP of the risk

What he said that based on the grounds of appeal outlined on the appeal form( the six grounds). The controversies occurred as the car traveled through an ULEZ Zone and no payment done and the vehicle is not exempted. He acknowledged that I did not see the sign( his words: I believe everything you have said that you were not familiar of the scheme as you are not a resident of london, but this doesn’t mean that the PCN didn’t happen). I tried to explain that in my case I didn’t see what I ought to act in. He just re explained what he said earlier. And he made it clear that he will put in his letter that 160 each.
He said it’s up to me to contact the council (to negotiate payments ). As they will not write to me.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bashboush
post Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 04:51
Post #45


Member


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



Hello

Please see the tribunal letter

Is there anything I can do?

https://ibb.co/KX1qJK5
https://ibb.co/34BjNyB
https://ibb.co/ftzV8vb
https://ibb.co/VQQ38yx
https://ibb.co/nnf97xB
https://ibb.co/ZT3p0f7

Please advice
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Irksome
post Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 09:34
Post #46


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 382
Joined: 16 Jun 2010
From: sw11
Member No.: 38,303



Case number 9190302846
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bashboush
post Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 10:41
Post #47


Member


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



QUOTE (Irksome @ Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 10:34) *
Case number 9190302846

Why is the case number need to be known? What difference would it make?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Longtime Lurker
post Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 11:08
Post #48


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 150
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,615



It makes it a lot easier for us to read and quote from the adjudicator's decision and reasoning.

This post has been edited by Longtime Lurker: Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 11:10
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bashboush
post Sun, 15 Sep 2019 - 15:12
Post #49


Member


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



QUOTE (Longtime Lurker @ Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 12:08) *
It makes it a lot easier for us to read and quote from the adjudicator's decision and reasoning.

Anyway.
Any advice ?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Bashboush
post Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 08:23
Post #50


Member


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



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 12:01) *
If the adjudicator found as a fact that the signs were not displayed as required, then no contravention could occur. This would give rise to grounds under either 'penalty exceeded...' or 'in the circumstances of the case....'.

Once we see the adjudicator's reasoning we can see whether a review is worthwhile.

In any event, IMO we must take on board that the signs as prescribed/authorised are accepted by adjudicators whether we like it or not.

Any advice please ?!
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: Monday, 23rd September 2019 - 12:07
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.