LEZ County Court, Owner of garage courtesy car |
LEZ County Court, Owner of garage courtesy car |
Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 19:04
Post
#1
|
|
New Member Group: Members Posts: 6 Joined: 14 Jun 2018 From: West Sussex Member No.: 98,434 |
The LEZ offence was on the A40 Westway 00:59 18/11/17
I got a call from the garage owner who is the registered keeper of a courtesy van which had been loaned to me during repair work to my car. It was early morning on May 9th this year, he insisted I pay £1500 to TFL immediately or he 'would have bailiffs coming round to (his) place'. He repeated the PCN number over and over. I appealed the PCN in the hope TFL would revert to the original fine given the circumstances. They've sent me a letter acknowledging the correspondence against the PCN. It states 'a response has been sent to the registered keeper'. Here is the challenge with any identifying parts replaced with asterisks, I thought it was the best way to explain. He's now started ringing again insisting I pay. Is this actually my responsibility, particularly at the higher level of a fine that started off at £100 and fifty for prompt payment? If not, what should I do next? PCN CHALLENGE 9/5/18 THE PCN WAS CORRECTLY ISSUED TO THE CORRECTLY REGISTERED VEHICLE KEEPER/OWNER. THIS IS NOT ME.***** I HAVE NEVER OWNED OR BEEN THE KEEPER OF VEHICLE REGISTRATION ****** I HAVE BEEN INFORMED BY *****THAT I WAS THE DRIVER AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENCE, SO I MUST PAY £1500, DIRECT TO TFL IMMEDIATELY TO SETTLE IT. I HAVE BEEN A CUSTOMER OF THE GARAGE AND THE VEHICLE WAS LOANED TO ME AS A 'COURTESY CAR' WITHOUT CHARGE WHILST MY OWN VEHICLE WAS BEING REPAIRED. I WAS INFORMED ABOUT THE PCN***** BY 'PHONE FOR THE FIRST TIME TODAY, 9/5/2018. I ASKED WHY IT HAD BEEN SO LONG (7 MONTHS EXACTLY) AND HE SAID THAT HIS GARAGE DIDN'T RECEIVE ANY CHARGE NOTICE UNTIL 8/2/18. I ASKED 'WHY NOT INFORM ME THEN'? HE SAID HE WAS ABROAD AND IT WAS NOT OPENED. FURTHER CORRESPONDENCE ABOUT THIS WAS RECEIVED BY THE GARAGE ON 10/4/18. THAT HAD ONLY JUST BEEN OPENED YESTERDAY. I AM TOLD I WAS THE DRIVER, BUT THERE IS NOTHING TO SUPPORT THIS. IF I DID ACCEPT THAT I WAS DRIVING AT THE TIME OF THE OFFENCE I AM WILLING TO PAY THE ORIGINAL PENALTY CHARGE TO THE GARAGE OR DIRECTLY TO TFL AS AT THE ORIGINAL TIME OF ISSUE. SINCE I HAVE HAD ABSOLUTELY NO INDICATION OF THE CHARGE UNTIL NOW I DO NOT ACCEPT THE INFLATED FINE AS RESPONSIBILITY FOR A VASTLY INFLATED PAYMENT HAS BEEN REDIRECTED TO ME. INFORMATION ABOUT IT WAS NOT GIVEN TO ME AT THE CORRECT TIME, BUT 7 MONTHS AFTER IT WAS WILFULLY DELAYED. I HAVE NO DOCUMENTS TO SUPPORT A WILFUL DELAY AS THE REGISTERED KEEPER HAS NONE AND AS THE VEHICLE DOES NOT OR EVER HAS BELONGED TO ME. I AM COMPELLED TO CHALLENGE PCN***** BECAUSE THE REGISTERED OWNER BELIEVES THE INFLATED FINE (DUE TO THE OWNER/KEEPER NOT INFORMING WHO HE BELIEVED TO BE THE DRIVER, FOR 7 MONTHS) TO BE ENTIRELY MY RESPONSIBILITY. I HAVE STATED THAT IF IT CAN BE SHOWN CONCLUSIVELY BY THE KEEPER/OWNER THAT I WAS DRIVING, I AM WILLING TO PAY THE UNDERLYING FINE AS AT THE ORIGINAL TIME OF ISSUE, WITH THE DISCOUNT OFFER FOR PAYMENT WITHIN 14 DAYS. THE BASIS FOR MY (PROXY?) CHALLENGE IS THAT IT WAS THE OWNER/ KEEPERS RESPONSIBILITY TO HAVE SUCH IMPORTANT INFORMATION PASSED POSITIVELY TO ME IMMEDIATELY TO AVOID ESCALATED FINES. IF A VEHICLE OWNER /KEEPER IS KNOWINGLY NOT GOING TO BE IN RECEIPT OF POSTED MAIL FOR 7 MONTHS, PARTICULARLY WITH A MOTOR TRADE BUSINESS REMAINING OPEN (OR OTHERWISE) IT WOULD BE EXPECTED AND IS INCUMBENT UPON THE BUSINESS OWNER IN MANY OTHER CIRCUMSTANCES TOO, THAT A MANAGER WOULD BE INSTRUCTED TO OPEN LETTERS AND IN CIRCUMSTANCES SUCH AS THIS PCN TAKE THE APPROPRIATE AND PROMPT ACTIONS REQUIRED. THIS NOR ANYTHING ELSE TO RESOLVE THE ISSUE TOOK PLACE UNTIL TODAY. I AM WILLING TO MAKE A SWORN OATH OR AFFIDAVIT IN SUPPORT OF THIS. |
|
|
Advertisement |
Thu, 14 Jun 2018 - 19:04
Post
#
|
Advertise here! |
|
|
|
Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 08:43
Post
#21
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 25,726 Joined: 28 Jun 2010 From: Area 51 Member No.: 38,559 |
£500 full penalty. Still, if dealt with correctly it could have likely been settled for £250, for the remaining £1,320 is down to the garage owner. To me that is the main point. Even if the garage owner had contacted immediately the PCN dropped and said pay, any escalation is down to the garage owner. I would treat this as two parts. The bulk of the claim as above. The smaller against any liability for the PCN anyway. Would help if OP told us the type of vehicle. Defense on the PCN front would be different between a smaller vehicle that may not obviously fall foul of LEZ and a 10 tonner that would. |
|
|
Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 10:19
Post
#22
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 29,268 Joined: 16 Jan 2008 Member No.: 16,671 |
The smaller against any liability for the PCN anyway. I think that's viable: But again, details as you say. What vehicle? Loaned to replace another vehicle that would have been liable for a charge? Most importantly -- refer to Rookie's question. OP can't answer straightforward questions? -------------------- |
|
|
Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 10:51
Post
#23
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
duplicate
This post has been edited by hcandersen: Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 11:15 |
|
|
Fri, 17 Aug 2018 - 11:14
Post
#24
|
|
Member Group: Members Posts: 35,063 Joined: 2 Aug 2008 From: Woking Member No.: 21,551 |
+1
OP, this is as much to do with court procedure as anything else. You must engage with the process as per Rookie. No more questions, just tell us whether you’ve acknowledged service. As regards the claim, it is no more difficult than these questions to the claimant: Did you receive a PCN? Did you make representations/did you possess the defendant’s corrct contact details/ did you contact the defendant? You would not be held liable for the claimant’s inaction. To succeed the claimant would need to show that they contacted you at the earliest opportunity |
|
|
Lo-Fi Version | Time is now: Thursday, 28th March 2024 - 23:11 |