DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 23496--------------------------------------------------
Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City
Council
DIR By: foybles
Date: May 22, 2024, 5:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hello,
Having read through the forum, I would like some advice on
wether I have a case to appeal 2x Clean Air Zone PCN's received
when on a visit to Bristol.
Me & my partner live in a village in another county & were not
aware Bristol had introduced a clean air zone. We entered the
city without noticing any CAZ signage & remained parked for our
overnight stay in a multi-storey car park near the hotel. We
received the second PCN on our way home the following day. Each
PCN charge is for £60 + £9 CAZ daily charge. We would of course
have happily paid the £9 charge had we been made sufficiently
aware of Bristols CAZ.
I feel it is unfair & punitive. It being our first incident we
are now aware of the CAZ after receiving the PCN's. I believe it
would be fair to be given a chance to pay the daily charge
retrospectively or just simply be given a warning as is done in
London, since London's zone expansion. If one is to contravene
again then one can argue it is right to implement the charge.
I have retrospectively looked at the signage entering the CAZ
using Google maps & included a screenshot. You can see the CAZ
sign is difficult to see & does not stand out clearly amongst
other signage clutter on the far side of a bus lane. All other
vehicles must travel in single file alongside the bus lane. The
"alternative route" to avoid the CAZ can only be entered by
using the break in the bus lane. I feel with the combination of
poorly laid out signage & proximity of the bus lane it's
virtually impossible to see the CAZ sign soon enough to avoid
using the zone if you chose to do so. I have also not found a
notification sign ahead of the zone, that is not to say there
isn't one.
If we have grounds to appeal what is our best approach?
Many thanks
Kevin
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 23497--------------------------------------------------
Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City
Council
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: May 22, 2024, 5:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Please have a read of
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
and post up the remaining sides of one of the PCNs (Bristol have
had 'form' in the past with their 'small print').
I note they are still asking for the CAZ charge in addition to
the penalty charge.
I'm sure Incandescent will be along soon with some pertinent
advice - Bristol has shown a marked reluctance in the past to
test appeals at adjudication,
#Post#: 23499--------------------------------------------------
Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City
Council
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 22, 2024, 5:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
foybles, there are one or two CAZ cases currently running on
this forum, so have a look at them first.
The problem we have on this forum is that the statutory register
of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal is not open to on-line access by
the public unlike that of London Tribunals. The 2018 case was
discovered almost by accident, but it was quite clear that the
regulations for road user charging schemes do not allow the road
user charge to be added to the PCN. The Birmingham CAZ Order is
quite clear that payment of their PCN penalty discharges the
obligation to pay the charge as well. Clearly the Birmingham
lawyers have actually read the regulations !
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1783/contents/made
Regulation 7 defines the content of a road user charge scheme
PCN.
What they are doing is fairly outrageous (nothing strange there
in this benighted UK of ours). No council in the land chases up
unpaid parking charges, the PCN discharges that obligation. The
RUC regs are badly written.
#Post#: 23501--------------------------------------------------
Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City
Council
DIR By: foybles
Date: May 22, 2024, 5:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your response John & Incandescent.
Other side of the PCN uploaded.
It's no doubt easier just to pay the 2 PCN's rather than have go
through all this, take so much time up with the likely hood of
the appeal being turned down but I really do feel sharply the
injustice of Bristol City Council administering this CAZ in this
manner.
A warning letter should be sent out as is done in London. I
received a warning letter in London, I now know the new
regulations & will not contravene.
I did read the points being made that the daily charge shouldn't
be added to the PCN charge but I wasn't clear on how to appeal
on these grounds & wether this discharged the obligation to pay
both charges. Shall I appeal on the charges being wrongly
applied rather than poor signage & potential bus lane
obstruction?
Many thanks
Kevin
Google maps
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/NuAwJ4qSNm1ed19L7
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 23509--------------------------------------------------
Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City
Council
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: May 22, 2024, 6:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The reason 99% of all PCNs are just paid on receipt means
councils now just consider them to be a wonderful source of
money, nothing else. This has been so since decriminalised
parking enforcement was introduced in 1991. The attitude of far
too many people seems to be "pay it to make it go away",
combined with a naive belief that councils operate fairly and in
accordance with the law they are enforcing. Nothing could be
further from the truth !
However, all we can do is point things out and give advice if a
PCN recipient wants to know how to submit representations and
what the law requires the council to do. The basic principle of
PCNs was set out many years ago by a High Court judge. This
basically is that councils are given penal powers to demand
payment if a set of statutory conditions for that request, (the
PCN), are complied with. If they are not, (even just one of
them), then no liability for the penalty exists.
My advice is to submit representations on the two PCNs based on
what you consider is the very poor signing, and also point out
you are total strangers to Bristol, and consider that the
council should issue warnings to people living remotely from
Bristol, instead of just issuing a PCN, for a first time
contravention.
In addition, you should point out you showed the PCN to somebody
knowledgeable on CAZs, who advised you to read the regulations
controlling enforcement of their CAZ. On reading these
regulations, it seems there are no powers within the regulation
for PCN content that allows them to require payment of the CAZ
charge in addition to the PCN penalty.
Post-up their response when you get it. If you want, post up a
draft of your reps here for review.
PS: The relevant regulations are printed at the top of the PCNs.
#Post#: 23510--------------------------------------------------
Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City
Council
DIR By: mdann52
Date: May 22, 2024, 6:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Out of interest, where has this "the council cannot recover the
Clean Air charge" come from?
From my reading, Reg 4(4)
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1783/regulation/4/made<br
/>allows the Charging Order to decide if the cost for the road
user charge is added to the PCN.
The Bristol Charging Order
HTML https://www.cleanairforbristol.org/wp-content/uploads/2022/09/2022-08-25-FINAL-CAZ-Charging-Order.pdf<br
/>11(1) allows them to charge the Road User Charge when a
penalty
is issued.
I may have missed the argument elsewhere, but on the surface it
does appear the legislation allows this. Yes the legislation is
badly written, but I can't see where it doesn't allow this to
happen
#Post#: 23551--------------------------------------------------
Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City
Council
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: May 22, 2024, 10:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Have a thorough read of this thread
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/bradford-caz-pcn-any-grounds-for-appeal/msg19504/#msg19504
where the arguments about the lawfulness of demanding the unpaid
fee within a penalty charge notice are well-rehearsed. In a
nutshell, the order permits the Council to demand the fee, but
the contents of a PCN are tightly regulated by
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1783/regulation/7/made<br
/>and it does not allow an unpaid fee to be included.
See
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=1642.0;attach=6982
In addition on that thread Slapdash poiints out
--- Quote ---
> It is perhaps somewhat odd that the regulations allow for the
charge to be payable (*) in addition to the penalty yet the
mechanism of issuing a penalty does not allow it to be demanded
as part of the penalty.
>
> Birmingham and TFL may have produced their charging orders -
which do not include the toll - having undertaken a more
thorough review of what they were implementing with respect to
the overarching regulations.
>
> (*) There is a potential issue with that. The bristol order
only allows the toll to be paid x days before or y days after.
-Bristol Order, Article 9(4)
--- End Quote ---
We are not aware of cases with Bristol reaching the Tribunal as
Bristol DNCed (did not contest) at the last minute, though they
have now changed the payment 'phone numberon their PCNs.
-------------------------
--- Quote ---
>
> Other side of the PCN uploaded.
--- End Quote ---
I cannot see the remaining sides of the PCN???
#Post#: 23554--------------------------------------------------
Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City
Council
DIR By: foybles
Date: May 22, 2024, 10:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
APPEAL - FIRST DRAFT
Appeal Against PCN Charges - Reference [PCN Number]
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally appeal against the two Penalty Charge
Notices (PCNs) issued to me, reference numbers [PCN Number 1]
and [PCN Number 2], for allegedly failing to comply with
Bristol's Clean Air Zone (CAZ) requirements. I believe these
charges are unfair and request that they be cancelled for the
following reasons:
1. Unclear Signage and Lack of Awareness:
As residents of a village in another county, my partner and I
were completely unaware of Bristol's recently introduced CAZ and
its requirements. The CAZ signage upon entry to the zone was not
sufficiently clear or prominent. Specifically, the CAZ sign was
difficult to see, being placed on the far side of a bus lane and
amidst other road signs, making it virtually impossible to
notice in time to avoid entering the zone. Furthermore, there
was no preceding notification sign to alert us of the upcoming
CAZ. Due to our lack of familiarity with the area and
insufficient visibility of the Clean Air Zone signage, we
unintentionally entered the zone and remained parked until our
departure the following day without paying the daily charge. We
were only made aware of the charges upon receiving the PCNs,
which we believe is not in line with fair and transparent
enforcement practices.
I have reviewed the signage layout using Google Maps (link
provided for reference: [Google Maps
Link](
HTML https://maps.app.goo.gl/NuAwJ4qSNm1ed19L7)),
and it
supports my claim that the sign does not stand out and is not
easily visible to drivers unfamiliar with the area. This lack of
clear signage contravenes the requirements for adequate warning
and notification under the Transport Act 2000 and the Bristol
Clean Air Zone Charging Order 2022.
2. First-Time Offence and Comparison to London:
This was our first visit to Bristol and our first incident
involving the CAZ. Had we been aware of the CAZ, we would have
willingly paid the daily charge of £9. In London, first-time
offenders who are unfamiliar with the CAZ are typically given a
warning rather than an immediate penalty. I believe Bristol
should adopt a similar approach, especially considering that
non-residents may not be aware of the newly implemented CAZ.
3. Incorrect Penalty Charges:
Each PCN issued to us includes a £60 penalty charge plus the
additional £9 daily CAZ charge. According to The Road User
Charging Scheme (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement)
(England) Regulations 2013, the road user charge should not be
combined with the penalty charge. This discrepancy suggests that
the PCNs may be invalid, as it is not lawful to impose both the
penalty and the daily charge in this manner.
In light of these points, I respectfully request the
cancellation of the PCNs issued. I trust that the council will
consider the fairness and legality of the situation, taking into
account the unclear signage, our lack of prior knowledge as
non-residents, and the improper combination of charges.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to
your positive response.
Yours faithfully,
--------
Thank you all your help on this matter so far. Any feedback of
the appeal letter would be greatly appreciated.
I've tried uploading the other sides of the PCN again. Hopefully
you can see them now. The premium rate phone number has been
changed.
Thanks
Kevin
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 23558--------------------------------------------------
Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City
Council
DIR By: mdann52
Date: May 22, 2024, 10:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm aware of the DART case, but my reading of that adjudication
decision, and the differentiating factor here, is that because
the charge was paid, trying to charge him twice was unlawful.
Also, DART used to include the amount as one charge, rather than
the PCN and road charge amounts.
I'm not convinced the case assists here as much, but I'm happy
to be an outlier on this point though!
From memory Bristol changed their documents a while back to show
the PCN amount and outstanding payment separately, rather than
as a combined total, which might satisfy 7(3)(f), as it does now
list the penalty charge due. I can't see anything in those regs
that also stops them listing the CAZ charge that is due
separately. I can see why they are unwilling to go in front of
of the TPT though!
#Post#: 23563--------------------------------------------------
Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City
Council
DIR By: mdann52
Date: May 22, 2024, 10:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: foybles link ---
>
> Furthermore, there was no preceding notification sign to alert
us of the upcoming CAZ.
>
--- End Quote ---
Be careful with this point - expect the council to point out the
advanced warning signs here
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4413963,-2.5765715,3a,75y,309.28h,77.93t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1svvmbx_UaiucxE0GO2VoWXg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu<br
/>or here
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4397661,-2.5734034,3a,26.2y,302.13h,89.74t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1sq9VYk7U8VVQPoIbLpKQNTQ!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu<br
/>if you approached from the A37, or here
HTML https://www.google.com/maps/@51.4409615,-2.5803272,3a,60y,48.79h,81.68t/data=!3m6!1e1!3m4!1siTl3lyfskZFg3sgpC4rfJg!2e0!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu<br
/>if you approached from St Johns Lane.
--- Quote from: foybles link ---
>
> In London, first-time offenders who are unfamiliar with the
CAZ are typically given a warning rather than an immediate
penalty.
>
--- End Quote ---
TfL stopped doing this a long while back. The CAZ has been in
place for over 18 months now and, from memory, they did issue
warnings for the first few months
Other than that (putting my disagreements about the "amount
exceeded point aside, which others will tell me I'm wrong
about!), I think this looks ok
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 4
DIR Next Page