DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 32244--------------------------------------------------
ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: harbourlights
Date: August 4, 2024, 8:04 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Hi All,
I've just been writing for well over half any hour, made a typo,
hit "Undo"...and everything I'd written vanished! Not an
auspicious start!
My other half failed to pay the ULEZ charge on two consecutive
days in December 2023, but the situation appears to have
descended into a never-ending farce. The fact that I am writing
about this in August 2024 tells a story! However, here are the
salient points:
- Neither the PCNs nor the Charge Certificates were received.
This is most likely due to a house move. She misplaced her V5C,
and didn't apply for a new one (at the new address) until she'd
turned all the packing boxes at the new house upside down.
Furthermore, a postal redirection wasn't in place until just
over two weeks after the offending dates. However, she was on
good terms with the new occupants of her old address, and they
assured her that nothing turned up (not that that's worth a jot,
legally, I know). However, it wouldn't explain why the Charge
Certificates weren't received - they should have arrived via
redirection by that stage. Not a great set of circumstances,
granted, but we are where we are...and it's not 100% her fault!
- The first we heard of enforcement action was when we received
the Order for Recovery from the TEC (via postal redirection),
quite a long time after the event. PE3 forms were submitted, and
I believe an email was sent (which was listed as an option) as
an emergency alternative to a PE2, as the OfR was received too
late for the PE3 to be submitted in time (presumably due to the
redirection - and although the V5C had been changed by this
point, they presumably don't re-check the registered address).
Forgive me if the email thing sounds implausible and I've got it
wrong - it's months ago - but that is my recollection. Two
printed PE3 forms were supplied with the OfR. These have a green
background, with every field to be completed (un)shaded in
white...except where the solicitor states their role, which is
on the green background. Both my other half and the solicitor
(who is a friend, so comeback isn't an option) missed this final
field, and failed to complete it. The first PE3s were rejected
on the basis that the forms were incomplete.
- The rejection notice included two more PE3s (all-white, this
time), and a PE2. These were duly completed, with both PCN
numbers on the PE2. These were also rejected on the basis that
there should have been one PE2 per PCN/PE3, with a large
question mark being drawn next to the twin PCN numbers on the
PE2 - rather petty, I thought. A great deal of compassion for
innocent mistakes appears to be shown at the TEC...!
- Fresh PE2s and PE3s were printed (not supplied this time),
completed and submitted. Third time lucky!
- Some time later, we received a reply (by Recorded Delivery -
more on that later) from TfL stating that they did not consider
postal issues to be valid grounds for us to go back to the PCN
(or even Charge Certificate) stage, and referring the matter
back to the TEC. I've just noticed that the TfL website mentions
the Interpretation Act 1978 s.7 in this context,
- Finally, yesterday we received a letter from the TEC stating
that the PE2 was rejected (but offering an appeal process, at
cost). They are not obliged to give a reason for the rejection,
and have not done so. The actual implications of this are
somewhat unclear from the contents of the letter (might CC the
Campaign for Clear English...!), but on a 10th reading it sounds
like that means the PE3 will not be considered.
So...a bit of a mess!
A few questions, if I may:
- This has been dragging on for months, and is pretty stressful.
It is affecting my other half in particular. The nature of her
work (in the public sector, ironically) means that she works
away and can do very little admin during the week - although her
role might play well in court, if it ever got that far. The
process once it leaves TfL is unclear, and very slow. Does
anyone know what is likely to happen next, and when we might
know the bottom line? Will they send a demand for payment?
Frankly, she'd just like it to go away at this stage. They
definitely know how to wear you down!
- Ideally, she would like to pay the original £90/contravention,
as she would have done without hesitation if the PCN had been
successfully delivered, but I think has accepted that it is
likely to be at least at the £180/event rate. However, if the
PE3 is not going to be considered because the PE2 has been
rejected, presumably this will be higher, and will at least be
subject to a debt registration fee. I'm struggling to find out
what that fee might be. Does anyone know what the implications
will be here?
- One of the options on the PE3 form is that the keeper of the
vehicle did not receive the PCN - presumably with "lost in post"
being the most obviously scenario. However, this basis for
appeal was rejected because postal issues are not TfLs problem
(or words to that effect). Two thoughts here:
- Given that they later replied via Recorded Delivery, does that
affect the validity of that statement? If normal post is good
enough for a PCN or a Charge Certificate, why use it for later
correspondence?
- Can they actually provide proof of postage without something
being sent via Recorded Delivery? There is always the chance
that, rather than it being a Royal Mail issue (most likely, I
think), they actually didn't send either document in the first
place!
Any thoughts on those points, or anything else, would be very
much appreciated. Thanks for your time!
cheers
James
#Post#: 32255--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: August 5, 2024, 3:32 am
---------------------------------------------------------
My, my, you are in a mess, and unfortunately, it is of your own
making in not updating the V5 for the vehicle in a timely
manner. Failure to update the V5 is the most common thing we see
on here when bailiffs are at the door, but fortunately at the
moment you aren't yet at that stage. However, with a final
refusal letter of your PE2 from TEC, the problem is that things
now get expensive. The reason is that once a Statutory
Declaration has been refused by TEC, the review process costs a
fair amount of money with no guarantee of success, and the fee
is non-recoverable. TfL have sent all the enforcement documents
to the address recorded by DVLA for your vehicle, so have acted
legally. The address is only obtained once and then used for all
the documents unless the owner responds to one of them and
provides an updated address.
However, you haven't posted-up any documents so please read this
and then update your thread.
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/
How much is owing to TfL ? If you are not going to request a
review of the TEC decision, it is now basically game-over, and
time to pay.
#Post#: 32326--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: harbourlights
Date: August 5, 2024, 12:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your reply, which I think confirms my thinking - that
there aren't any viable grounds for appeal, that leniency isn't
going to be shown, and that the only option now is to pay up. On
that basis, I didn't think it worth posting full details and
asking for actual help - just asking a few specific questions
about the procedure - I don't want to waste anyone's time. Yes,
undoubtedly all of her own making (and she is philosophical
about having to pay, albeit begrudgingly, naturally), and I am a
little frustrated that so many balls were dropped...but we are
where we are.
The trouble is that I'm not particularly clear on exactly where
we actually are! As far as I can see, we haven't ever been
presented with an actual "bill" of what is owed (although it's
possible that a number was presented in the first piece of
correspondence which included the OfR), or told how to pay it.
Could I ask the following questions, please?
1) Given that the Charge Certificate should have been delivered
(by that time a postal redirection was definitely in place), is
there any mileage in pursuing that, or is it a dead end, and a
Royal Mail failure is our problem, not TfL's? They have also
misspelled our address, but it got to us nonetheless. I
appreciate that we may well wish to just pay up to avoid risk of
escalating costs, even if there were, say, a 75% chance of
success.
2) The latest letter (dated 1st August) is not written in
particularly plain English for the layperson, IMO, but appears
to be suggesting that the PE2 has been refused (I'm guessing
this is a "final refusal" letter you reference - happy to post a
copy of that if it helps). This relates to one PCN, so
presumably a second is on the way. Would we expect to receive
further correspondence detailing what is now owed and what to
pay?
3) Would it be sensible to contact the TEC to confirm the
procedure from here?
Thanks again for your help.
cheers
James
#Post#: 32340--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 5, 2024, 2:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
They have also misspelled our address
Who misspelled your address, Royal Mail or TfL? The address
being the 'wrong' V5C address or what?
Post TEC's rejection pl. This would tell you exactly what
options are available and the time frame involved.
#Post#: 32350--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: August 5, 2024, 3:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The basic problem is you not updating your V5 on or shortly
after your house move. The Charge Certificate, like all the
other statutory enforcement documents, was sent by TfL to the V5
address obtained from DVLA. So they are not at fault. Basically,
if you are unwilling to pay the review fee, it is pay-up time.
#Post#: 32368--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: harbourlights
Date: August 5, 2024, 7:40 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your replies, both.
I agree with the rather brutal reality of your statement,
Incandescent. I don't like it...but, pragmatically, if she
accepts that the undelivered PCN was her fault (which it
probably was), and if the £279 per-PCN from the OfR still
applies, everything afterwards (which arguable was not her
fault) hasn't actually increased the size of the penalties
appreciably, so there's very little point in railing against it
any further.
When she responded to the OfR with a Statutory Declaration, our
new address was provided, and that has been used by both TfL and
the TEC ever since. Both entities have used the new address
correctly previously, but it was incorrectly rendered by the TEC
(in two ways, I've just noticed) in their most recent
correspondence (i.e. our address on the latest TEC letter is
wrong in two places). I think that's probably an irrelevance,
though.
Latest letter (with name, address and PCN number redacted) as
follows:
HTML https://i.ibb.co/wRLLctz/TEC1.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/0yxbnzp/TEC2.jpg
My reading of that is that the PE2 has been rejected, which in
turn means the PE3 has been rejected, and we're back to square
one (i.e. the terms of the OfR). What's not clear is what
happens next, and if we need to do anything at this stage, or
wait for further correspondence.
Can I come back to the earlier questions? I'm going to assume
that the failure of RM to deliver (at least) the CC is not going
to get us anywhere (even though it's not actually our fault
either!)...but what about the procedure from here, if we
conclude that we just want to cough up and draw a line under it?
It's far from clear what we do next.
1) Will a further demand be made, or (without them specifying
such) should we refer back to the original OfR (which states a
figure and how to pay)? It has taken the TEC almost two months
to respond, and I'm reluctant to just sit and wait, especially
given the record in the case of post going missing. I don't want
my first ever visit from a bailiff (or to pay their fees!).
2) Should we contact the TEC (or TfL) for clarification to
expedite a resolution?
Even leaving aside the bitter taste in the mouth left by the
appeals process (which feels unfair and unjust, to say the
least), the clarity over the procedure is exceptionally poor,
and I'm left extremely nervous about what might happen next.
cheers
James
#Post#: 32369--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: Neil B
Date: August 5, 2024, 11:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You waffle sooooo much.
What are the PCN numbers and the vrm?
#Post#: 32370--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 6, 2024, 1:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
OP, what happens next is that TfL would apply to TEC to issue a
warrant of control which ultimately would enable their
enforcement agents(AKA bailiffs) to add a fee of £75 to the
penalties and send the keeper Notices of Enforcement.
The keeper has until 19th August to submit form N244 in order to
challenge the court officer's decision and stay this process.
But can we get back to facts pl.
To return to the law. You posted:
Neither the PCNs nor the Charge Certificates were received. This
is most likely due to a house move. She misplaced her V5C, and
didn't apply for a new one (at the new address) until she'd
turned all the packing boxes at the new house upside down.
Furthermore, a postal redirection wasn't in place until just
over two weeks after the offending dates.
What were the dates of issue of the CCs and OfRs?
What was the redirection put in place (these are person
specific) and what proof do you have?
The out of date V5C is something of a red herring because even
if it wasn't changed all mail addressed to a party covered by
the redirection would have been received at the new address.
It's not out of date V5Cs which is a recurring problem, it's
that occupiers don't redirect their mail. But she did,
eventually.
#Post#: 32386--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: harbourlights
Date: August 6, 2024, 4:46 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your replies.
Sorry Neil - perhaps I am waffling in your eyes, but I am just
trying to explain the situation as best I can. This is all
entirely alien to me, and there's quite a lot to it.
The first PCN is XJ14734752, and the VRM is SC58BEE. That should
take you to the second one, also.
They have listed a huge gap between the registration of the debt
(9th April, the first correspondence we received being on the
12th) and the receipt of the Statutory Declaration (OoT) - 28th
May - but this included two rounds of pedantic rejections from
the TEC. The first PE3 was sent to the TEC on the 16th April,
and everything was returned as quickly as we could.
To answer your questions, H C Andersen:
- TfL claim that the PCN was issued on the 5th of January, and
the CC on the 28th February.
- A postal redirection was in place from the 14th January and we
have a receipt from RM to confirm this.
- Sadly the redirection was applied too late to catch the PCN,
and that was the expensive part. The CC not being redirected
appears to have only cost her 2x £9.
- The new owners of her old house were asked to be on look-out
for a PCN once she realised she'd forgotten to pay the two
£12.50 charges, but they say nothing arrived. Of course that's
pretty sketchy, and wouldn't get us far, I suspect.
In terms of calling it quits and just paying up, I called the
TEC earlier, who referred me to TFL. They confirmed that if the
charges against the PCNs are still on their website, it hasn't
gone to debt recovery yet, and they can just be paid, and that's
the end of it. I suspect that (unless someone can see a rabbit
which can be pulled from a hat) that's what we'll do, wish for a
plague on all their houses, and draw a line under it!
Thanks again for all your help, all.
cheers
James
#Post#: 32457--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: Neil B
Date: August 6, 2024, 11:26 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: harbourlights link ---
>
> Thanks for your replies.
>
Sorry Neil - perhaps I am waffling in your eyes, but I am just
trying to explain the situation as best I can. This is all
entirely alien to me, and there's quite a lot to it.
>
The first PCN is XJ14734752, and the VRM is SC58BEE. That should
take you to the second one, also.
>
--- End Quote ---
I said so because you asked lots of questions that are actually
answered by the forms you completed, i.e. they explain what they
are.
I need to check back on the thread now to understand your
position.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 3
DIR Next Page