Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: ULEZ PCN
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2
Bashboush
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
Incandescent
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Mon, 10 Jun 2019 - 01:09) *
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

As usual for this forum, post up the PCN, all sides with PCN Number/name/address/car details blanked-out. Leave everything else in.

Under the legislation for decriminalised motoring offences the owner is responsible for paying or appealing. Who was driving is irrelevant. Your spouse can authorise you to appeal on her behalf, but still has payment responsibility if an appeal is lost.

There is another thread running on the ULEZ, and I suggest you read it. The signage is defective as there is no reference to an obligation to pay a toll if the vehicle is non-compliant.
Bashboush
Thank you for your reply

Please find attached the pics

How do I search for the other thread about ULEZ?
stamfordman
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 01:54) *
How do I search for the other thread about ULEZ?



http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=128266
Bashboush
QUOTE (stamfordman @ Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 08:58) *
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 01:54) *
How do I search for the other thread about ULEZ?



http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=128266

Thank you. I had a look. As I don’t live in London shall I request the DVD ? Or just make representation?
PASTMYBEST
You only have until Sunday after that it will be to late.


Make a representation to the effect that although the signage informs you of an ULEZ it does not advise you that there is a charge for entering
cp8759
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 11 Jun 2019 - 21:11) *
You only have until Sunday after that it will be to late.


Make a representation to the effect that although the signage informs you of an ULEZ it does not advise you that there is a charge for entering

Put a draft on here first, but do not miss the deadline.
Bashboush
Hi All
Thank you for your support.
I couldn't reply any earlier due to some family issues.

Any ways I managed to make the representation online before the deadline and got the conformation email.

the points i made:
I am not a resident of London and I am totally unaware of this charge.

I did not see any signs that advise to make a payment based on the emission. I am aware of the congestion charge signage that advice to pay.
The signage that was advising of the low emission zones did not advice of any payment required upon entering the zone.
I request for the PCN to be cancelled.

I hope that this is enough and I will keep you updated as soon as I hear anything from them.

Thanks again
PASTMYBEST
It gets the main point in and gives us something to work with for appeal
RD1
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 23:05) *
Hi All
Thank you for your support.
I couldn't reply any earlier due to some family issues.

Any ways I managed to make the representation online before the deadline and got the conformation email.

the points i made:
I am not a resident of London and I am totally unaware of this charge.

I did not see any signs that advise to make a payment based on the emission. I am aware of the congestion charge signage that advice to pay.
The signage that was advising of the low emission zones did not advice of any payment required upon entering the zone.
I request for the PCN to be cancelled.

I hope that this is enough and I will keep you updated as soon as I hear anything from them.

Thanks again


Hello there

How did you get on with your appeal? Have you had a response from TFL as yet?

Myself and another forum user on another thread are on a similar path, but a couple of weeks behind you in the appeals process. We should pool our resources to fight this together!

Bashboush
QUOTE (RD1 @ Thu, 27 Jun 2019 - 14:24) *
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 23:05) *
Hi All
Thank you for your support.
I couldn't reply any earlier due to some family issues.

Any ways I managed to make the representation online before the deadline and got the conformation email.

the points i made:
I am not a resident of London and I am totally unaware of this charge.

I did not see any signs that advise to make a payment based on the emission. I am aware of the congestion charge signage that advice to pay.
The signage that was advising of the low emission zones did not advice of any payment required upon entering the zone.
I request for the PCN to be cancelled.

I hope that this is enough and I will keep you updated as soon as I hear anything from them.

Thanks again


Hello there

How did you get on with your appeal? Have you had a response from TFL as yet?

Myself and another forum user on another thread are on a similar path, but a couple of weeks behind you in the appeals process. We should pool our resources to fight this together!



Hi all.

I’m afraid I had notice of rejection. They claim many things but they claim that the signs not only to alert drivers who travel first time , but to warn regular ULEZ users to pay. I certainly can’t remember seeing any sign advising the need for payment.
I’m not sure how to phrase my appeal. Appreciate your input.
Bashboush
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Wed, 3 Jul 2019 - 05:02) *
QUOTE (RD1 @ Thu, 27 Jun 2019 - 14:24) *
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Sun, 16 Jun 2019 - 23:05) *
Hi All
Thank you for your support.
I couldn't reply any earlier due to some family issues.

Any ways I managed to make the representation online before the deadline and got the conformation email.

the points i made:
I am not a resident of London and I am totally unaware of this charge.

I did not see any signs that advise to make a payment based on the emission. I am aware of the congestion charge signage that advice to pay.
The signage that was advising of the low emission zones did not advice of any payment required upon entering the zone.
I request for the PCN to be cancelled.

I hope that this is enough and I will keep you updated as soon as I hear anything from them.

Thanks again


Hello there

How did you get on with your appeal? Have you had a response from TFL as yet?

Myself and another forum user on another thread are on a similar path, but a couple of weeks behind you in the appeals process. We should pool our resources to fight this together!



Hi all.

I’m afraid I had notice of rejection. They claim many things but they claim that the signs not only to alert drivers who travel first time , but to warn regular ULEZ users to pay. I certainly can’t remember seeing any sign advising the need for payment.
I’m not sure how to phrase my appeal. Appreciate your input.








cp8759
The response from TFL was predictable. I'm sure between us we can help draft your appeal wording. When the time comes, if you can I think you should ask for a personal hearing.
Incandescent
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.
Bashboush
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 4 Jul 2019 - 18:17) *
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.
cp8759
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 04:25) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 4 Jul 2019 - 18:17) *
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.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:31) *
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 04:25) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 4 Jul 2019 - 18:17) *
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.



did you pay the congestion charge
numb15
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:41) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:31) *
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 04:25) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 4 Jul 2019 - 18:17) *
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.



did you pay the congestion charge


Seems like the user passed through it on a weekend, so they are not liable for the congestion charge as it only operates monday to friday. The ULEZ is 24/7, 365 days a year.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (numb15 @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:55) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:41) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:31) *
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 04:25) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 4 Jul 2019 - 18:17) *
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.



did you pay the congestion charge


Seems like the user passed through it on a weekend, so they are not liable for the congestion charge as it only operates monday to friday. The ULEZ is 24/7, 365 days a year.


OK it makes a difference to how the appeal is developed
Bashboush
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 12:08) *
QUOTE (numb15 @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:55) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:41) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:31) *
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 04:25) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 4 Jul 2019 - 18:17) *
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.



did you pay the congestion charge




Seems like the user passed through it on a weekend, so they are not liable for the congestion charge as it only operates monday to friday. The ULEZ is 24/7, 365 days a year.


OK it makes a difference to how the appeal is developed





So. We were away for few weeks and when we came back found this through the post:

A letter saying that my appeal has been scheduled to be considered by an adjudicator on 31st Aug 2019

And then another heavy pack( about 40 pages) have the case summary, evidence list the law and the ULEZ campaign with the signage details and guidelines. Which none of them indicate the need to pay. anyway one thing about this pack is sent via the mail with signed for on the envelope!! As I said we were abroad when it was delivered and no one would’ve signed for it!, yet it was put through my mail box as signed for. Is that a problem? Or it is not concerning the appeal but the Royal Mail.
The other thing the last page of the case summary looks like it is misprinted and a lot of info are missing in there and to me it looks like it is the info that inform what is the action. I have no idea what it is suppose to say, as only the first few words of each paragraph is printed and the rest is blank. Then there is the signature.
Do you want me to post everything as I said it is a lot of pages and I not sure if the website will allow me.

Thank you.
Bashboush
Click to view attachment
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Wed, 21 Aug 2019 - 23:52) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 12:08) *
QUOTE (numb15 @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:55) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:41) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:31) *
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 04:25) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 4 Jul 2019 - 18:17) *
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.



did you pay the congestion charge




Seems like the user passed through it on a weekend, so they are not liable for the congestion charge as it only operates monday to friday. The ULEZ is 24/7, 365 days a year.


OK it makes a difference to how the appeal is developed





So. We were away for few weeks and when we came back found this through the post:

A letter saying that my appeal has been scheduled to be considered by an adjudicator on 31st Aug 2019

And then another heavy pack( about 40 pages) have the case summary, evidence list the law and the ULEZ campaign with the signage details and guidelines. Which none of them indicate the need to pay. anyway one thing about this pack is sent via the mail with signed for on the envelope!! As I said we were abroad when it was delivered and no one would’ve signed for it!, yet it was put through my mail box as signed for. Is that a problem? Or it is not concerning the appeal but the Royal Mail.
The other thing the last page of the case summary looks like it is misprinted and a lot of info are missing in there and to me it looks like it is the info that inform what is the action. I have no idea what it is suppose to say, as only the first few words of each paragraph is printed and the rest is blank. Then there is the signature.
Do you want me to post everything as I said it is a lot of pages and I not sure if the website will allow me.

Thank you.
Bashboush
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 00:39) *
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Wed, 21 Aug 2019 - 23:52) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 12:08) *
QUOTE (numb15 @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:55) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:41) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 11:31) *
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Tue, 9 Jul 2019 - 04:25) *
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 4 Jul 2019 - 18:17) *
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.



did you pay the congestion charge




Seems like the user passed through it on a weekend, so they are not liable for the congestion charge as it only operates monday to friday. The ULEZ is 24/7, 365 days a year.


OK it makes a difference to how the appeal is developed





So. We were away for few weeks and when we came back found this through the post:

A letter saying that my appeal has been scheduled to be considered by an adjudicator on 31st Aug 2019

And then another heavy pack( about 40 pages) have the case summary, evidence list the law and the ULEZ campaign with the signage details and guidelines. Which none of them indicate the need to pay. anyway one thing about this pack is sent via the mail with signed for on the envelope!! As I said we were abroad when it was delivered and no one would’ve signed for it!, yet it was put through my mail box as signed for. Is that a problem? Or it is not concerning the appeal but the Royal Mail.
The other thing the last page of the case summary looks like it is misprinted and a lot of info are missing in there and to me it looks like it is the info that inform what is the action. I have no idea what it is suppose to say, as only the first few words of each paragraph is printed and the rest is blank. Then there is the signature.
Do you want me to post everything as I said it is a lot of pages and I not sure if the website will allow me.

Thank you.

hcandersen
IMO you are overcomplicating matters and risk obscuring your main points which as I understand it are:

You did not see the ULEZ sign;
Even if you had you would not have known whether this was for information or regulatory purposes and what action you as a motorist were required to take when you drove past.

IMO, the rest is froth.

Point 1 is much stronger than point 2 because point 1 refers to the duties falling to you and the authority whereas point 2 really only bears on your knowledge.

You did not see the sign because it was not correctly displayed as your photo(s) show. After the fact you established that the required signs were in situ on your route but either incorrectly orientated or overwhelmed in the clutter of other signs and distractions e,g. junctions, traffic lights, crossing traffic, pedestrians etc. such that even the most attentive motorist could miss them.

Is this your case?

Bashboush
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 09:07) *
IMO you are overcomplicating matters and risk obscuring your main points which as I understand it are:

You did not see the ULEZ sign;
Even if you had you would not have known whether this was for information or regulatory purposes and what action you as a motorist were required to take when you drove past.

IMO, the rest is froth.

Point 1 is much stronger than point 2 because point 1 refers to the duties falling to you and the authority whereas point 2 really only bears on your knowledge.

You did not see the sign because it was not correctly displayed as your photo(s) show. After the fact you established that the required signs were in situ on your route but either incorrectly orientated or overwhelmed in the clutter of other signs and distractions e,g. junctions, traffic lights, crossing traffic, pedestrians etc. such that even the most attentive motorist could miss them.

Is this your case?



Hi.

Point 1 is true.
Point 2: I said that I can’t remember seeing any sign that is of regulatory purpose( i.e. to instruct to pay or make me want to find out if I have to pay, as the congestion CHARGE signs,..

I agree the rest is froth.


Is there anyway not to attend in person for the tribunal? Can I represent my spouse instead?
John U.K.
QUOTE
Can I represent my spouse instead?


Yes. If appellant is not present there must be written signed authorisation for the named representative.

There used to be space on the paper form for this... don't know about online .
hcandersen
I said that I can’t remember seeing any sign that is of regulatory purpose( i.e. to instruct to pay or make me want to find out if I have to pay, as the congestion CHARGE signs,..


If you didn't see the sign, then you could not act upon it, even presuming action was required.

As regards point 2, why would the adj find that the use of specified or authorised sign was incorrect simply because you did not know its meaning? That it's of a different format from the congestion charge is not a compelling argument if it's an approved sign. Frankly, I would be wary of trying to use this argument.
Bashboush
QUOTE (John U.K. @ Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 11:04) *
QUOTE
Can I represent my spouse instead?


Yes. If appellant is not present there must be written signed authorisation for the named representative.

There used to be space on the paper form for this... don't know about online .


Can the hearing be over the phone ?

QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 11:49) *
I said that I can’t remember seeing any sign that is of regulatory purpose( i.e. to instruct to pay or make me want to find out if I have to pay, as the congestion CHARGE signs,..


If you didn't see the sign, then you could not act upon it, even presuming action was required.

As regards point 2, why would the adj find that the use of specified or authorised sign was incorrect simply because you did not know its meaning? That it's of a different format from the congestion charge is not a compelling argument if it's an approved sign. Frankly, I would be wary of trying to use this argument.

So what do you suggest? Just stick to I didn’t see any sign?
cp8759
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 11:49) *
As regards point 2, why would the adj find that the use of specified or authorised sign was incorrect simply because you did not know its meaning? That it's of a different format from the congestion charge is not a compelling argument if it's an approved sign. Frankly, I would be wary of trying to use this argument.

The fact that a sign is authorised has no bearing on LATOR 1996 regulation 18, which IMO is the stronger point. The sign doesn't say anything about having to pay anything. It doesn't even say something like "go online for more information", it conveys no real information to someone who's never heard of the scheme.
hcandersen
Where does LATOR come into this given that these are regulations made under the RTRA not the GLA Act?



cp8759
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 14:11) *
Where does LATOR come into this given that these are regulations made under the RTRA not the GLA Act?

This is a fair, and somewhat concerning point. The order is here http://content.tfl.gov.uk/lez-scheme-order.pdf and it makes no reference to traffic signs at all.

Paragraph 4(3)(1) of Schedule 23 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999 http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1999/2.../23/paragraph/4 simply says that the GLA may "require the authority by whom any such order is made to place and maintain, or cause to be placed and maintained, such traffic signs in connection with that order as the Authority may determine."

The result is that if the GLA has not imposed any requirements as to signage on TFL (as seems to be the case), then no statutory requirements as to the adequacy of the signage exist at all.
Incandescent
Surely the common law duty to act fairly comes into it.

Incidentally, today I read on Mr Mustards blog that he has won at London Tribunals for a client who got a ULEZ PCN. TfL DNC'd having submitted about 70-odd pages of tosh when the adjudicator adjourned the proceedings for TfL to confirm the signage adequacy as this had been one of the appeal issues.

With 130,000 PCNs already issued, generating £11.7 million for Tfl, plus, of course the charge itself for those who pay the charge, it is a "nice little earner" for them. I gather a rather large head of steam is building in London. The PCN total means a quarter of all cars entering the zone have now been fined. I suspect Mr Khan will find it difficult getting votes next time round
hcandersen
The OP's committed to an appeal, so they could include all their arguments.

I'm not convinced by 'adequacy of signage' unless this is based on their siting as opposed to format - the post was silent on this point,

And every case turns on its own facts.

And it is dangerous to draw the general from the specific.

cp8759
QUOTE (Incandescent @ Thu, 22 Aug 2019 - 18:04) *
Surely the common law duty to act fairly comes into it.

Well yes, I'm not saying there isn't an argument to be made, but in the absence of a clear-cut regulation, the outcome is a lot more uncertain.
Bashboush
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. ( like when I first come to see a congestion charge signage I knows that I might need to pay a charge. ) but with this ULEZ signage it is just informing that it is a ULEZ.

I think this argument should stand.
I have no experience what sorbet in attending tribunal season. Do I need someone who is experienced in this to represent us.

Can I ask for a phone hearing.
Can I delay the hearing.

I’ll appreciate your comments on this.
cp8759
London Tribunals doesn't do telephone hearings, but no experience is required and the process is fairly informal. The adjudicator will not expect you to turn up and start quoting laws or legal procedures. You can ask for a delay if you have a reason to do so, a first adjournment is normally granted without any problems, but why do you want a delay?
PASTMYBEST
Is article 4 complied with? I think not

assets.dft.gov.uk/trafficauths/case-4557.pdf
hcandersen
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 wink.gif

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 ...,
Bashboush
A quick advice please.

At the tribunal I am going to stick that I didn’t see any sign in regards to ULEZ.
My wording will be something like; I can’t remember seeing signs for ULEZ.
Then something in the lines of (as suggested by; hcandersen: 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 it will not make me thinks that I have to pay as it just says ULEZ.

Is there anything else I should mention? Are they going to ask me anything else?

I mentioned in a previous post that the last page of the case summary in the evidence pack is not printed properly. And I can’t work out what does it is supposed to say or what it is asking me to do?
Can I bring this up in the hearing? Does it have any weight?

The link for that page is;

https://ibb.co/GCZ23V2


Many thanks in advance. And appreciate any advice for the hearing
Bashboush
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 23 Aug 2019 - 07:48) *
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 wink.gif

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?
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 09:55) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 23 Aug 2019 - 07:48) *
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 wink.gif

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
Bashboush
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 10:01) *
QUOTE (Bashboush @ Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 09:55) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 23 Aug 2019 - 07:48) *
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 wink.gif

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.
hcandersen
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.
PASTMYBEST
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 12:01) *
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
Bashboush
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 12:24) *
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 12:01) *
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.
Bashboush
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
Irksome
Case number 9190302846
Bashboush
QUOTE (Irksome @ Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 10:34) *
Case number 9190302846

Why is the case number need to be known? What difference would it make?
Longtime Lurker
It makes it a lot easier for us to read and quote from the adjudicator's decision and reasoning.
Bashboush
QUOTE (Longtime Lurker @ Sat, 14 Sep 2019 - 12:08) *
It makes it a lot easier for us to read and quote from the adjudicator's decision and reasoning.

Anyway.
Any advice ?
Bashboush
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Sat, 31 Aug 2019 - 12:01) *
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 ?!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2024 Invision Power Services, Inc.