PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Ultra Low Emission Zone PCN, Didn't even realise it existed.
JaspaC
post Tue, 14 Jan 2020 - 13:38
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 114
Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Member No.: 32,888



Hi,

On Boxing Day I had to travel to London for work (Lucky Me). I live in Birmingham and followed the sat nav to get to south London and returned on the 29th Dec. I’m not familiar with London’s roads and the place I was working was a new site I’d not been to before. I am however, aware of the congestion charge and made sure to check the cost of this in advance, which I was pleased to find out is suspended between Christmas and new year, so no problems there I thought.

I’ve just received a PCN for the Ultra Low Emissions Zone for £80 (£240) which will almost wipe out any wages I will have earned for volunteering to work on boxing day! Until this arrived I’d never even heard of the ULEZ and didn’t have a clue that there was an additional charging scheme to the congestion charge.

I’ve looked at the location on google maps and I can see the signs at the entrance are all bundled together with the congestion charge signs, so presumably I saw those and continued thinking it didn’t matter as it was suspended during that time. The ULEZ signs aren’t particularly obvious in pointing out that you are entering a charging zone (well, a 2nd charging zone!).

I have since checked and my car (a Peugeot 206 hatchback) does not comply with the ULEZ regulations.
I’ve only received a PCN for my return journey, which I think is because the sat nav took me a slightly different route on the way there, presumably avoiding the ULEZ zone.
As you can see in the google maps photos (attached), there are 8 road signs to read as you drive past, which is quite overwhelming, especially if you need to navigate other cars and pedestrians at the same time. To make it worse, the writing on these signs is quite small, which is difficult to read because you will either be a)moving past them or b) stopped 20m away as there is a box junction in front of the signs. Once you are close enough to read all 8 signs you are already committed to travelling straight ahead. I can’t remember if I had to stop at the traffic lights or not on the day.

There is one sign on the approach to the junction on the far R/H/S (I would have been in the lane on the L/H/S) which has a faint coloured ULEZ logo but no mention of what that means.

After the junction there is a camera sign with the congestion charge symbol, but no ULEZ symbol. Should the ULEZ scheme display these signs too? Presumably it uses the same cameras?

Google Maps Link:
https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5011986,-0....6384!8i8192

I was heading from East to West on Druid Street and entered the ULEZ after crossing straight over the junction with Tower Bridge Road.

Any help much appreciated,


Jasper





PCN:
Page 4 Page 5 Page 6
Google Maps Screenshots:


This post has been edited by JaspaC: Tue, 14 Jan 2020 - 13:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
4 Pages V  « < 2 3 4  
Start new topic
Replies (60 - 74)
Advertisement
post Tue, 14 Jan 2020 - 13:38
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
JaspaC
post Tue, 12 May 2020 - 10:25
Post #61


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 114
Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Member No.: 32,888



Is the error in the dates significant?

Thanks
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 12 May 2020 - 13:21
Post #62


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,055
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Printed on the Tribunal Decision:
Decision Date: 19/03/2020


Printed on the Charge Certificate:
Charge Certificate Issue Date: 30/04/2020


19 March - 30 April > 28 days, therefore the authority did not issue a premature CC, so strike this issue off the list.

You've applied for a review. You say you 'have received a reply from London Tribunals to say that it has been accepted and a hearing has been scheduled in August.'

So wait until your hear further.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
peodude
post Tue, 12 May 2020 - 14:29
Post #63


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 898
Joined: 8 Aug 2006
Member No.: 7,035



It should also be noted that the Leeds signage is going to be different, stating charges are payable.

https://airqualitynews.com/2018/07/13/clean...gnage-outlined/

As does the signage that is already in place in Birmingham.

https://www.birminghammail.co.uk/news/midla...launch-17744681

Whilst not totally relevant to London, it does show that there seems to be a need for charging warnings in other parts of the country, which shows London's to be flawed.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JaspaC
post Tue, 12 May 2020 - 15:06
Post #64


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 114
Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Member No.: 32,888



Thanks Peodude,

I looked for this kind of thing before the original hearing but couldn't find any. I wish I had but I think it might be too late to include it at at a review.



Thanks hcandersen but I wasn't suggesting the CC was issued prematurely. I was asking if it is invalid because the PCN issue date is incorrect.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Longtime Lurker
post Tue, 12 May 2020 - 15:30
Post #65


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 719
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,615



As we've got until August, maybe this is the time for Pepipoo to finally use FOIA to dig into the Secretary of State's authorisation?
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 17 May 2020 - 17:00
Post #66


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (Longtime Lurker @ Tue, 12 May 2020 - 16:30) *
As we've got until August, maybe this is the time for Pepipoo to finally use FOIA to dig into the Secretary of State's authorisation?

And what would we be looking for exactly?


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Longtime Lurker
post Sun, 17 May 2020 - 18:20
Post #67


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 719
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,615



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Sun, 17 May 2020 - 18:00) *
And what would we be looking for exactly?


An explanation of how the Secretary of State ended up authorising as sign to "indicate to all traffic in advance of or entering the London Ultra Low Emission Zone the nature of the provisions of a Scheme*" when that sign obviously totally fails to indicate anything at all about the nature of the scheme

TFL's internal discussions that led to the wording of the sign might also be interesting, the remarkable lack of any reference to a charge must have left some sort of paper trail.

* from http://assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-4875.pdf
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sun, 17 May 2020 - 18:28
Post #68


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



The problem I see is that even if we found something interesting, what then? If the SoS has authorised the sign, it's going to be very difficult to challenge the authorisation. We'd be looking at the very least at a judicial review, and I'm not aware of a successful challenge to a traffic sign authorisation ever being made.

Think of it another way: A special authorisation has no "lesser" status than a general authorisation (i.e. one included in the TSRGD), the TSRGD explicitly say so at regulation 4:

Authorisations
4.
Nothing in these Regulations limits a power of the Secretary of State, the Scottish Ministers or the Welsh Ministers to authorise a sign under section 28(4) or 64 of the 1984 Act.


If the ULEZ sign were in the TSRGD, we'd just say the motorist is presumed to know what the sign means and that's that. So how is this any different?


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Longtime Lurker
post Sun, 17 May 2020 - 19:57
Post #69


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 719
Joined: 19 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,615



I'd be looking for an angle to challenge the adjudicator's tendency to fall back on 'the SoS authorised it so it's de facto sufficient to indicate a charge even though no rational person would consider it sufficient to indicate a charge'.

If the SoS was not made aware that it was intended to indicate a charge, or if there was a 'smoking gun' along the lines of a TfL internal memo saying 'we'll make a fortune by missing the word 'charge' off, the SoS will rubber stamp whatever anything we want' then an adjudicator would find it harder to take that line (and we might get some journalistic traction, or even be able to crowd fund a judicial review, especially if we found no attempt by the SoS to exercise due dilligence).

This post has been edited by Longtime Lurker: Sun, 17 May 2020 - 19:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JaspaC
post Mon, 18 May 2020 - 13:13
Post #70


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 114
Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Member No.: 32,888



A FOIA is free and fairly easy to submit isn't it? With nothing to lose I'd be willing to give it a go and see what turns up. Would anybody be willing to draft a request for me please?


Thanks,


Jaspa
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JaspaC
post Mon, 6 Jul 2020 - 10:51
Post #71


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 114
Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Member No.: 32,888



I had my review hearing today (rescheduled and changed to a telephone hearing).

The adjudicator asked me to persuade him that the case should be reviewed in the interest of justice.

I explained the case including the outcome which was based on the signage being adequate solely on TFL's say so. I explained that the previous adjudicator had not seen any evidence from TFL to prove the adequacy of the signage at this particular junction (or any junction actually) and that he hadn't explained any reasoning for agreeing with TFL.

The adjudicator then said he was satisfied that the threshold for a review in the interest of justice had not been met. He said a review is not simply to have another bite of the cherry. He said having reviewed the case notes sent by TFL and having seen several similar cases he agrees with the original adjudicators decision. He believes that the case has been carefully considered and a review is not appropriate (he then misspelled my VRM as he summarised it).

He did re-offer the discount for early payment.

The call only lasted 10 mins, and honestly I only feel amused now at how blatantly biased the tribunal is. Maybe TFL can put my penalty charge towards a new sign biggrin.gif


Thanks for the help many of you have posted thought the year.



Jaspa
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spaceman
post Mon, 6 Jul 2020 - 11:06
Post #72


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 934
Joined: 25 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,319



QUOTE (JaspaC @ Mon, 6 Jul 2020 - 11:51) *
He did re-offer the discount for early payment.


Are you sure they re-offered this or did they recommend that TfL did so? AFAIK the adjudicator has no power to direct this.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Mon, 6 Jul 2020 - 11:12
Post #73


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 20,915
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



Basically, it's a stitch-up. I get more and more worried about LT's neutrality as time goes on. This is a case where the appeal was based on inadequate signage. Surely no adjudicator should just accept one party just saying "the signage is correct" without it being demonstrated. A bad business, IMHO.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JaspaC
post Mon, 6 Jul 2020 - 11:23
Post #74


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 114
Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Member No.: 32,888



QUOTE
Are you sure they re-offered this or did they recommend that TfL did so? AFAIK the adjudicator has no power to direct this.


He just said the discount offered in the original outcome will apply for 14 days from today.

QUOTE
Basically, it's a stitch-up. I get more and more worried about LT's neutrality as time goes on. This is a case where the appeal was based on inadequate signage. Surely no adjudicator should just accept one party just saying "the signage is correct" without it being demonstrated. A bad business, IMHO.


My thoughts exactly, it's ridiculous.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JaspaC
post Tue, 7 Jul 2020 - 12:33
Post #75


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 114
Joined: 16 Oct 2009
Member No.: 32,888



For anybody that's interested:




Adjudicator’s Decision
This case comes before the adjudicator under Paragraph 12 of the Schedule to The Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001 (as amended) by way of an application for review of the original decision on the appeal. The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has determined that the appeal against liability for the charge should be refused. The reasons for the adjudicator’s decision are enclosed. The full penalty charge must be paid within 28 days to: Transport for London PO BOX 340, Darlington, DL1 9PZ
Adjudicator's Reasons
This is an application by xxxx, in accordance with paragraph 12 of the schedule to the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001, to review an Adjudicator's decision of March 2020, in refusing his appeal against the issue of a penalty charge notice, number xxxxxx. It was set down as a personal hearing for a review by way of telephone communication. The hearing started at 11.am. and finished at 11.20. I have considered the legal criteria for applications for review, which are as follows: (a) the decision was wrongly made as a result of an error on the part of the adjudicators administrative staff; (b) a party who had failed to appear or to be represented at a hearing had good and sufficient reason for his failure to appear; © where the decision has been made after a hearing, new evidence has become available since the conclusion of the hearing the existence of which could not reasonably have been known or foreseen; or (d) such a review is required in the interests of justice. xxxx submitted an email dated March 2020 in support of his application that asserted that the interests of justice required a review. In order to decide the question of whether to allow a review in this case, in addition to the matters referred to above, I have read the decision letter dated March 2020 and the representations on which it was based. The point in issue in the appeal turned on the question of the positioning of the authorised ULEZ sign placed at the entry to Druid Street on December 2019. xxxxxx, in effect submits that on the appeal the adjudicature placed too much weight on the very general assertion by TFL that it positions signs appropriately without seeking evidence that dealt specifically with Druid Street. Having read the Adjudicators decision in xxxxx’s appeal it is clear there is nothing to suggest that he failed to take account of evidence that bore on the grounds of appeal, as set out in regulation 13 (3) of the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001 and excluded that which did not. I am satisfied that, based on the evidence considered by the Adjudicator in this appeal, the decision he reached was a perfectly reasonable one even if another Adjudicator may have made a different assessment of the same facts. For the above reasons I conclude that xxxx does not come within any of the grounds for granting a review and therefore the decision of March 2020 remains in force. Timothy Smith
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

4 Pages V  « < 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: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 13:43
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here