ULEZ PCN, I got 2 PCN for driving in ULEZ |
ULEZ PCN, I got 2 PCN for driving in ULEZ |
Mon, 10 Jun 2019 - 00:09
Post
#1
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 110 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 |
|
|
Advertisement |
Mon, 10 Jun 2019 - 00:09
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 09:03
Post
#41
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Member No.: 58,862 |
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 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. |
|
|
Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 11:01
Post
#42
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 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. |
|
|
Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 11:24
Post
#43
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 26,655 Joined: 6 Nov 2014 Member No.: 74,048 |
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
|
|
|
Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 12:31
Post
#44
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Member No.: 58,862 |
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. |
|
|
Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 04:51
Post
#45
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 110 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 |
|
|
Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 09:34
Post
#46
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 761 Joined: 16 Jun 2010 From: sw11 Member No.: 38,303 |
Case number 9190302846
-------------------- PePiPoo will likely close in October due to issues beyond the control of any contributor to this forum.
You are encouraged to seek advice at https://www.ftla.uk/speeding-and-other-criminal-offences/ where the vast majority of the experts here have moved over to already. |
|
|
Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 10:41
Post
#47
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Member No.: 58,862 |
|
|
|
Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 11:08
Post
#48
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 719 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 |
|
|
Sun, 15 Sep 2019 - 15:12
Post
#49
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Member No.: 58,862 |
|
|
|
Mon, 16 Sep 2019 - 08:23
Post
#50
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 110 Joined: 13 Dec 2012 Member No.: 58,862 |
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 ?! |
|
|
Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 15:14
Post
#51
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18 Joined: 18 Nov 2016 Member No.: 88,536 |
A reply that long indicates they are feeling guilty about the whole thing. It is a complete shambles sign-wise, and clearly intended to make shedloads of money from penalties apart from the actual charge itself. I agree. I’m not sure what to write. If anyone have a template to start me off. I really appreciate it. The gist of it is that the signs didn't tell you you have to pay anything, you'd not heard of the ULEZ before so you had no reason to suspect a payment was required. We've not seen any challenges against the ULEZ go to the tribunal before so we don't have anything to reference, but if you have a bash at it and put a draft on here, we'll add the legal bits for you. I am in this exact position also, and in the midst of attempting to appeal to the Tribunal. I have had a stab at it, and the adjudicator adjourned it, on the basis that the photographic evidence wasn't clear enough, and he wanted to put the evidence to TFL to respond. The main argument I am making, other than being completely unaware of it and having no idea that payment could possibly be due, and that the signage is almost identical to "Low Emission Zone" signage circling the Greater London (near the M25 borders) that requires no payment to pass, is that where I entered the zone (at 1855 on a weekday, outside of Congestion Charging hours), is that the single ULEZ sign at Constitution Hill is almost completely obstructed by other road furniture as you turn left into that road. The adjudicator made it clear to me several times, and it was clear that he didn't like me at all and was extremely frustrated with me, that his "only consideration was whether a compliant sign was there or not". He went on to comment that "he was sure that if you stand at the right angle you could obstruct any sign". I feel that this adjudicator is simply against me. I struggled to get him to actually read my submission document at all! I would be most obliged for any assistance, as I need to reformat the pictures and resubmit to them. I am also being informed that because I didn't appeal within 14 days (even though I had 28 to do so), the fine, if I'm found to pay it, has gone up from the £80 to the full whack of £160! |
|
|
Tue, 24 Sep 2019 - 15:36
Post
#52
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 18 Joined: 18 Nov 2016 Member No.: 88,536 |
So, what happened?
|
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 01:39 |