PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Dart charge
seanamans
post Sun, 10 Sep 2017 - 21:52
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 87
Joined: 13 Sep 2012
Member No.: 57,124



Hi, had a dart charge fine came through first time, I tried to represent it to say that I was confused with the sign 'C' as congestion charge but got NOR :-(

Wondering if you can help on this?

Thanks in advance




--------------------------------------------------------------------- REPRESENTATION------------------------------------------------------------

From: <xxxxxxxx@hotmail.com>
Sent: 20 August 2017 23:xx:xx
To: xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Dartford penalty

Dart Charge
PO Box 842
Leeds

Dear Sir/Madam

Penalty Charge Notice numbers : IA76xxxxx9x, IA76xxxx6
Date of issue: 01-08-17
Vehicle registration: DF10xxx

I am writing to formally appeal against the above Penalty Charge Notices.

On 01-08-17 my vehicle was issued with a Penalty Charge Notices for the reason of Dartford Crossing Thurrock southbound and northbound same day.

My appeal is on the basis that the Drivers are obviously confused by the toll, which is compounded by a system that doesn’t help.
Almost three out of every five drivers who encounter the large ‘C’ sign on the M25 take it to refer to the London congestion charge zone when it actually is supposed to indicate the DartCharge toll for crossing the Thames on the north-eastern side of the M25.
I recently signed up with London congestion charge Account no. 20002xxxx which automatically debit my bank account whenever I am in congestion zone. While crossing Dartford I realised the charge will be taken automatically from my account linked to Tfl but it did not happen and I received penalties.
Drivers unaware of the scheme are suddenly confronted with the sign at this very busy location. They can become confused and hesitant but may quickly forget once they have passed the vital charging point.
To add to the confusion, the ‘C’ sign is not officially recognised as a sign for a ‘tolled’ roads in the Department for Transport’s ‘Know your Traffic Signs – Official Edition.
It is bad enough trying to use an existing sign with a specific purpose to mask what is in effect a revenue-raising scheme. However, presenting drivers who are unfamiliar with the Dartford stretch of the M25 with a puzzle, while they are supposed to be concentrating on a busy road, is very poor.

I would like to assure this has happened unintentionally otherwise charge would have been paid on time. For this reason I look forward to receiving notification that the Penalty Charge Notices has been cancelled.

Regards
XXXXX


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

I posted the representation, but they didnt receive, I then emailed, text above. Thanks

NoR2
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
 
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 6)
Advertisement
post Sun, 10 Sep 2017 - 21:52
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Mon, 11 Sep 2017 - 09:11
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,199
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (seanamans @ Sun, 10 Sep 2017 - 22:52) *
Hi, had a dart charge fine came through first time, I tried to represent it to say that I was confused with the sign 'C' as congestion charge but got NOR :-(

Wondering if you can help on this?

Thanks in advance




--------------------------------------------------------------------- REPRESENTATION------------------------------------------------------------

From: <xxxxxxxx@hotmail.com>
Sent: 20 August 2017 23:xx:xx
To: xxxxxxxxxxx
Subject: Dartford penalty

Dart Charge
PO Box 842
Leeds

Dear Sir/Madam

Penalty Charge Notice numbers : IA76xxxxx9x, IA76xxxx6
Date of issue: 01-08-17
Vehicle registration: DF10xxx

I am writing to formally appeal against the above Penalty Charge Notices.

On 01-08-17 my vehicle was issued with a Penalty Charge Notices for the reason of Dartford Crossing Thurrock southbound and northbound same day.

My appeal is on the basis that the Drivers are obviously confused by the toll, which is compounded by a system that doesn’t help.
Almost three out of every five drivers who encounter the large ‘C’ sign on the M25 take it to refer to the London congestion charge zone when it actually is supposed to indicate the DartCharge toll for crossing the Thames on the north-eastern side of the M25.
I recently signed up with London congestion charge Account no. 20002xxxx which automatically debit my bank account whenever I am in congestion zone. While crossing Dartford I realised the charge will be taken automatically from my account linked to Tfl but it did not happen and I received penalties.
Drivers unaware of the scheme are suddenly confronted with the sign at this very busy location. They can become confused and hesitant but may quickly forget once they have passed the vital charging point.
To add to the confusion, the ‘C’ sign is not officially recognised as a sign for a ‘tolled’ roads in the Department for Transport’s ‘Know your Traffic Signs – Official Edition.
It is bad enough trying to use an existing sign with a specific purpose to mask what is in effect a revenue-raising scheme. However, presenting drivers who are unfamiliar with the Dartford stretch of the M25 with a puzzle, while they are supposed to be concentrating on a busy road, is very poor.

I would like to assure this has happened unintentionally otherwise charge would have been paid on time. For this reason I look forward to receiving notification that the Penalty Charge Notices has been cancelled.

Regards
XXXXX


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

I posted the representation, but they didnt receive, I then emailed, text above. Thanks

NoR2


Your in for the full amount so might as well appeal. there are errors on the NoR and maybe on the PCN (post all pages so we can check
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
seanamans
post Mon, 11 Sep 2017 - 14:19
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 87
Joined: 13 Sep 2012
Member No.: 57,124



2nd PCN attached as well
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
seanamans
post Wed, 13 Sep 2017 - 18:43
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 87
Joined: 13 Sep 2012
Member No.: 57,124



Any help please?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Wed, 13 Sep 2017 - 19:19
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,199
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (seanamans @ Wed, 13 Sep 2017 - 19:43) *
Any help please?



yes I will run through the PCN and outline all errors. If not done by Monday bump or PM me
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Sat, 16 Sep 2017 - 20:40
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,199
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



here you go, the regs are a right mess so lets see what happens. two past cases Dart agreed to drop if the crossing fee was paid, that would be a good result

Appeal against the issue and subsequent enforcement of two PCN's both issued on the 1st of august of 2017. Numbers xxxxxxxxx and xxxxxxxx VRM AB 99 CDE

I make this appeal against both PCN's as representations were made against both on the same basis, the notice of rejection listing the payment due for both and being the same in content.

I ask that they be dealt with at the same time for this reason.

The relivant regulations being The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013

I appeal in the same manner as my representations making a collateral challenge under the ground at 8(3)(f) of the regulations

I use as rationale for a collateral challenge
Neutral Citation Number: [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) Case No: CO/13317/2009




The findings of THE HON. MR. JUSTICE BURNETT paragraphs 38 to 52


I further appeal on the ground at 8(3)(g) The authority make a number of procedural improprieties in failing to give the statutory information that both a PCN and NOR are required to give.

The regulations at 7(3)(f) gives the time in which payment must be made and says, the amount of penalty charge that is payable if the penalty charge is paid in full—

(I) within 14 days of the day on which the penalty charge notice is served; By legal convention the term within calculates (Service being two working days after date of posting/issue, for a PCN issued on the 01/08/2017, by legal convention when the term within is used, then the start date for calculating the period would be the day after issue this would be the 17/08/2017
(ii) after the expiry of such 14 day period but within 28 days of the day on which the penalty charge notice is served; Using the same formula this period would end on the 31/08/2017.

the PCN uses the term “beginning with the date of service” This would be the 16th and 30th respectively. Denying the appellant 1 day for each payment period.

Page 2 of the PCN under the heading APPEAL the time period is described as WITHIN 28 days from the date you receive this notice or a longer period but only if the adjudicator agrees.

The correct period is at 10(1)(a) and is beginning with the date of service. This is a legally defined term (two working days from date of posting) the date you receive this notice is completely ambiguous. Firstly the postal service not being universally reliable delivery could be 3,4,5 or even more days after posting. But more concerning still is that the date you receive could be construed as any time after posting, a person could be away from home, or even move and not receive the PCN for many weeks or months. A serious ambiguity is created here that should prevent enforcement.
The Notice of rejection similarly confuses the payment periods both adding and removing days when compared to the requirements of 10(10(a) state that a charge certificate may be served under regulation 17(1) unless within the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection

the last paragraph of page 1 the term 14 days from date of issue is used. This removes 2 days from the statutory period.

The term 14 days from date of service is then used, This by legal convention adds one day

I respectfully refer the adjudicator to the finding of Mr Justice Jackson in the high court neutral citation number [2006] EWHC 2357(admin) The queen on the application of London borough of Barnet council v the parking adjudicator

paragraph 39 (last sentence) “there must always be certainty of the date when the notice was issued and the dates when the various periods for payment expire.”

I submit that the multitudinousness of errors within both the PCN and NOR render them unenforceable by way of procedural improprieties

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Sat, 16 Sep 2017 - 20:41
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
seanamans
post Tue, 19 Sep 2017 - 08:21
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 87
Joined: 13 Sep 2012
Member No.: 57,124



Thank you Sir
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

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: Tuesday, 20th February 2018 - 15:30
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.