DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 32203--------------------------------------------------
Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City
Council
DIR By: slapdash
Date: August 4, 2024, 12:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
With the tribunal opt for a personal (phone) hearing. This
ensures you can add any needed clarity for the adjudicator.
Keep an eye on the portal once submitted And the date is known
so you can change date if needed and also see if the council
submits any evidence. If not you win.
If they do you can arm yourself to know how to challenge their
case.
#Post#: 32204--------------------------------------------------
Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City
Council
DIR By: foybles
Date: August 4, 2024, 12:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Perfect. Thank you. I'll be sure to keep you all updated.
K
#Post#: 32428--------------------------------------------------
Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City
Council
DIR By: foybles
Date: August 6, 2024, 8:53 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I’ve had a response from Bristol City Council through the
tribunal. Pasted below.
Authority Summary:
After reviewing the PCN’s, Bristol City Council has concluded Mr
Kevin Foy’s non-compliant vehicle was observed within the
Bristol Clean Air Zone without payment of the required tariff
for the dates of travel, therefore their PCN was issued
correctly.
The appellant argues that the inclusion of the Clean Air Zone
(CAZ) charge in the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) is unlawful
based on the interpretation of The Road User Charging Schemes
(Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England)
Regulations 2013. However, the regulations do not explicitly
preclude the council from referencing the CAZ charge in the PCN.
Regulation 7 of The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges,
Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013
specifies the content requirements for a PCN, but it does not
limit the council from providing additional information
pertinent to the road user. Including information about the CAZ
charge aids transparency and helps ensure the recipient is fully
aware of all liabilities resulting from their contravention.
The appellant's contention that the CAZ charge and the penalty
are separate debts is acknowledged; however, the inclusion of
information about both charges in the same document does not
amount to a procedural impropriety. In evidence number 20, The
council have attached Part 2 section 4 of The Road User Charging
Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement)
(England) Regulations 2013 which explicitly states that “the
charging scheme is to specify whether a penalty charge… is
payable in addition to the Road user charge or instead of such
charge”. In Evidence number 12 the council have provided a
screenshot of the Bristol Clean Air Zone Charging Order 2022
Penalty charge for non-payment of charge, section 11 (1) which
states “A penalty charge will be payable, in addition to the
charge imposed under article 7”. The separation of debt simply
serves as a comprehensive notification to the road user. The PCN
still distinguishes between the penalty charge and the CAZ
charge, clearly indicating what amount is due under what
category.
The appellant cites a previous decision by the Traffic Penalty
Tribunal (Case Number IA01249-1803) as a precedent. However,
tribunal decisions are case-specific and may not be directly
applicable to the current circumstances. The factual matrix,
local regulations, and specific wording of the PCN in the
current case may significantly differ, and thus, the previous
decision should not be considered determinative.
Bristol City Council has acted in good faith by providing
comprehensive information regarding all charges associated with
the contravention. This approach is consistent with ensuring
that road users are well-informed, thus fostering compliance and
understanding of the regulatory framework.
The appellant's claim of procedural impropriety is
unsubstantiated. Bristol City Council's inclusion of the CAZ
charge information in the PCN does not violate The Road User
Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement)
(England) Regulations 2013. Instead, it serves the purpose of
transparency and clarity for road users. Therefore, I urge the
tribunal to uphold the validity of PCN BS59751797 and PCN
BS59761746 and dismiss the appellant's claim.
#Post#: 32446--------------------------------------------------
Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City
Council
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 6, 2024, 10:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As I have suggested in other threads, this council is seeking to
differentiate the penalty from the CAZ charge and absent any
context the statement in their Case Summary is IMO a correct
statement of the law.
But this is NOT what they have been demanding through the
enforcement process!
Dear Sir,
PCN ***********
I refer to the above, my representations, the council's Notice
of Rejection and Case Summary.
In my representations I stated the following:
******** (your claim that the PCN was demanding payment of the
CAZ as if it were a penalty, contrary to the ***Regs and
Bristol** Charging Order). However, this point was not addressed
in the NOR, despite it running to more than 5 pages. If I may, I
refer you to their Case Summary which over more than a page of
A4 gives the authority's detailed reasons for disputing my claim
that inclusion of the CAZ in the PCN in the chosen manner was a
procedural impropriety. Given that the authority now appears to
have detailed and lengthy reasoning I ask the adjudicator to
find that failure to make any, let alone detailed, reference to
this in the NOR is a procedural impropriety in itself. Were I to
understand and agree with this argument, then I would more than
likely have not registered an appeal thus reducing the burden
upon the Tribunal.
But I do not agree with the council's argument for the following
reasons.
If I may summarise their position, it is that neither the
prevailing Regulations nor the Charging Order prevent them from
including within their notices and correspondence information to
the effect that the CAZ is owing in addition to the penalty. In
this respect, I would ask the adjudicator to compare and
contrast this with the following, each of which is a referenced
extract from either a notice or letter:
1. Notice of Rejection, page 2, 'What are my options
now'..'Alternatively you can'
'Pay the penalty charge of £120 as well as the daily charge of
£9..within 28 days after the date of service...
..If you do not make any of the above payment options we may
serve a charge certificate on you which would increase the
penalty charge ..to £180.
Which I submit can only mean that if I did not wish to pay the
CAZ charge within 28 days (which I submit is an arbitrary
deadline as regards the CAZ) as well as the penalty then on this
point alone the authority believes that it has the lawful
authority to issue a Charge Certificate. I would suggest that
this is hardly just informing the owner that the CAZ is owing.
..and there are others, just look through their notices and
correspondence.
Just my views.
#Post#: 32461--------------------------------------------------
Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City
Council
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: August 6, 2024, 11:41 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For me, the Caroline Sheppard adjudication of 2018 is
compelling; there are no powers in the road user charging
regulations to demand payment of the road user charge in the
PCN. This is akin to a council putting in a car park charge into
a parking PCN. Parking PCNs have been around since 1991, but no
council anywhere has yet had the temerity to add the parking
charge to the PCN. If a PCN recipient just pays the penalty
charge, what are Bristol going to do ? Send out a charge
certificate ? Then register the debt at TEC. They have no powers
to do this. The road user charge is just a debt and outwith the
PCN enforcement process. Of course their Order may say that the
charge is payable even if a PC penalty is paid, but they only
have normal debt recovery procedures outside the PCN process to
recover it.
Birmingham have obviously read the regulations more carefully,
and their Order specifically states that payment of a PCN
discharges liability for the road user charge.
#Post#: 32469--------------------------------------------------
Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City
Council
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 6, 2024, 12:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They aren't claiming that the CAZ is being demanded in the PCN
and within their enforcement process, they are saying that its
inclusion is merely bringing to the owner's attention that it is
owing, and it is.
My suggestion is that this can be rebutted by reference to the
actual wording of notices which IMO are more than simply
information for the owner. I gave one example but there are
others, quite glaring.
#Post#: 32519--------------------------------------------------
Re: Clean Air Zone PCN's, Code 17J, A4 Bath Road, Bristol City
Council
DIR By: foybles
Date: August 7, 2024, 4:12 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi all,
Thanks for taking the time on this matter. I thought I would
wait a moment to hear a few opinions. Everyone has interesting &
I believe valid points. I’m just a little confused on how to
proceed. Whether to just leave it to the process & continue
without comment or if I make further argument, which stance to
take. What I am clear about though is that it doesn’t seem like
anyone feels Bristol Council have a compelling enough case in
order for me to withdraw.
Thanks for any advice.
K
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 4
DIR Previous Page