TFL Yellow Box Junction Penalty Charge Options

[Enrique_123]

Hi,

I received a PCN from TFL for stopping in a YBJ.

I note that the PCN has noted my vehicle reg and also my address. However rather than addressing the PCN to myself it is addressed to "The company secretary". This is not a company car so should have been addressed to myself. Can the PCN be invalidated on the basis of this error?

Thanks

[Advertisement]

[stamfordman]

What does it say on your V5C reg doc.

[Enrique_123]

It's in my name

I've never owned a company so don't know why it is addressed as such

[stamfordman]

We've seen this company secretary error in one or two other PCNs from TFL. It's an interesting one as without a name and no company, who are they going to pursue for a debt?

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 10:15

[Enrique_123]

So what's the best course of action here? Should I just ignore it?

My worry is if they send another notice it is addressed to me, in which case would I be able to challenge?

This post has been edited by Enrique_123: Fri, 14 Dec 2018 - 11:10

[stamfordman]

No you mustn't ignore.

I would appeal saying that a PCN has been received at your address in the name of 'company secretary' but there is no company registered at your address. And leave it at that and see what comes back.

Wait for others to comment.

Is the contravention stone cold or anything appealable?

[cp8759]

I wouldn't frame it as an appeal. Just send the PCN back with a covering letter (keep a copy), saying a PCN has been incorrectly served, there is no company at this address, and you're returning the PCN as a matter of courtesy so they can double check the address of the company concerned and re-send the PCN to the correct address.

[Enrique_123]

I can't remember the event in all honesty and there is no video supplied by TFL, however there are two pics and the timings indicate a 6 second gap so doesn't look good to be bar fair

[peterguk]

I can't remember the event in all honesty and there is no video supplied by TFL

There will be. You have to ask.

[Enrique_123]

I wouldn't frame it as an appeal. Just send the PCN back with a covering letter (keep a copy), saying a PCN has been incorrectly served, there is no company at this address, and you're returning the PCN as a matter of courtesy so they can double check the address of the company concerned and re-send the PCN to the correct address.

Understood.

Should I add the request for a video within this letter or just send this first and see what they come back with

[cp8759]

You've received a PCN that isn't for you, it's for the Company Secretary. You're not the company secretary, so why would you ask for the video? As far as you're concerned, they've sent this to the wrong address and it's nothing to do with you.

[hcandersen]

+1.

OP, please listen.

The PCN is not addressed to you - we've had this issue before: addressed to means the NAME/STATUS of a person or company ( a legal entity under the applicable regulations), it does not mean Mickey Mouse but at your address.

The addressee is NOT you; therefore YOU have not received a PCN because it is not addressed to YOU.

On this point, please tell us exactly how the addressee is formatted in the PCN.

The Company Secretary
..then what, just an address or is there a name?
Property number/name, street
Town

And the date of issue of the PCN(not of the contravention, but the day it was posted) For all we know, this could have been ages
ago.

This is procedural and you cannot even concern yourself with the contravention until this is resolved.

[Neil B]

I'm +1 as well but Enrique, you might want to tell us exactly what is on your V5C ?

[Enrique_123]

Re PCN
The Company Secretary
XX XXXX Path
London
XXX XXX
(So just the co sec and my address)

Re logbook
My Name
XX XXXX Path
London
XXX XXX
(my name followed by my address)

PCN was issued on 1st Dec 2018 (sorry tomorrow will be 14 days)

[cp8759]

If your name isn't on the PCN at all, I think you're virtually home and dry providing you follow the process. In a perfect world you'd return the envelope unopened, but it's a bit late for that now.

[Enrique_123]

Hi,

So after sending the original notification back indicating there is no business at this address and to send to the correct person, TFL have sent a new notification dated 16/01/2019.

With the date of the supposed contravention being 24/11/2019, this noticed has been served 54 days after the event. I recall from a moneysavingexpert article that camera notices need to be served within 30 days. Would I be able to have the PCN changed on this basis?

Thx

[PASTMYBEST]

You need to post what you sent to them and what they have sent to you. It would appear that they have treated the little note from you saying issue a PCN to the correct person as a representation and cancelled the first PCN. They then have 28 days to serve a fresh PCN

But to do this they must serve a notice of acceptance on the person who recieved the first PCN, in this case you would have recieved this, without it there are two PCN's extant for the same contravention and they cannot do that

[cp8759]

I'm tempted to just go with a PCN out of time representation. If this were a hire car case, they would obviously reply saying a PCN was issued to the RK and in accordance with the legislation liability has been transferred. But I can't see them justifying the fact that the first PCN was sent to the unknown secretary of a non-existent company.

[PASTMYBEST]

I'm tempted to just go with a PCN out of time representation. If this were a hire car case, they would obviously reply saying a PCN was issued to the RK and in accordance with the legislation liability has been transferred. But I can't see them justifying the fact that the first PCN was sent to the unknown secretary of a non-existent company.

I agree but they will use that reasoning anyway and for appeal the will ne debunking

[cp8759]

I'm tempted to just go with a PCN out of time representation. If this were a hire car case, they would obviously reply saying a PCN was issued to the RK and in accordance with the legislation liability has been transferred. But I can't see them justifying the fact that the first PCN was sent to the unknown secretary of a non-existent company.

I agree but they will use that reasoning anyway and for appeal the will ne debunking

Maybe, I think there's a good chance they'll cancel due to "administrative error".