DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 32460--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: Neil B
Date: August 6, 2024, 11:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I can only conclude that paying it, as you've suggested, is the
best course before bailiffs are engaged.
You might see this as unfair but it would otherwise depend on
what you finally submitted to TEC.
You haven't shown us that but it's what they have made a
decision on.
#Post#: 32468--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: harbourlights
Date: August 6, 2024, 12:01 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your replies. All greatly appreciated.
Perhaps it's obvious if you read these things all the time and
know the processes and terminology, but (frankly) I'm not
stupid, so if I'm having trouble deciphering it all for the
first time, heaven help the majority of the population!
Here are the extracts from the final PE3 and PE2 forms (with old
address detail redacted):
HTML https://i.ibb.co/T2WGrjH/PE3.jpg
HTML https://i.ibb.co/FbDnwzc/PE2.jpg
As you can see, space is extremely limited, and full sentences
were not really possible. It is not clear if you could attach a
fuller explanation on a separate sheet, but I assume not (given
the harsh/petty two-PCN-numbers-on-one-PE2 rejection). Of course
TfL afforded themselves the luxury of a side and a half of A4 in
their comments in response to this for the attention of the
court officer. Anyway, these were her best efforts, for right or
wrong. She also happens to be dyslexic, which doesn't help.
cheers
James
#Post#: 32486--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: Neil B
Date: August 6, 2024, 1:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: harbourlights link ---
>
>
Perhaps it's obvious if you read these things all the time and
know the processes and terminology, but (frankly) I'm not
stupid, so if I'm having trouble deciphering it all for the
first time, heaven help the majority of the population!
> As you can see, space is extremely limited, and full sentences
were not really possible. It is not clear if you could attach a
fuller explanation on a separate sheet, but I assume not
>
--- End Quote ---
Of course you could. You should never try to write in the box
and I always use 'see attached, typed statement'.
But, as you correctly say, how are you, or Joe Public, to know.
#Post#: 32505--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: harbourlights
Date: August 6, 2024, 7:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks - that's good to know for the future. Although hopefully
there isn't a "future" event!
Sadly, we used our initiative when they supplied two PE3s and
one PE2, wrote both PCN numbers on the single PE2 (and what was
to say that that wasn't the correct procedure?), and the TEC
rejected it as incorrectly completed (and had the cheek to put a
large question mark in highlighter pen next to the twin PCN
numbers, as if we'd written something utterly
incomprehensible!). My assumption from that point was that they
work in the straightest of straight lines, even if it's
blindingly obvious to anyone reading that form what was
intended.
Anyway, I definitely am rambling now. I think we know what we
need to do. Thanks all for your assistance - much appreciated!
cheers
James
#Post#: 33395--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: harbourlights
Date: August 14, 2024, 4:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
An update...as if it couldn't get any more ridiculous!
I'm not sure if I mentioned this previously, but this thread was
started in response to receiving notification of rejection of
one of two PE2 (for one of two PE3s, and in turn of one two
PCNs). That rejection was dated the 1st of August (see above).
Given that both PCNs, PE3s and PE2s were essentially identical,
I assumed that a further letter rejecting the second one would
shortly be received. We paid both penalties (2x £279).
Yesterday, I believe it would be 9 days later, a new letter from
the TEC has arrived, also dated 1st August, upholding the second
PE2 (and hence PE3), and ordering the that the order for
recovery be revoked and the Charge Certificate be cancelled. It
is my assumption that TfL should now re-issue the PCN, and she
could just pay the £90...except she's already paid £279 in
relation to that offence.
I have four questions for your kind consideration:
1) Presumably she can get a £189 refund. Is that something to
refer to TfL?
2) Why on earth would two identical PE2 & PE3 forms result in
different judgements?
3) Does this inconsistency open the door for the first PE2/PE3
to be reconsidered, and is there a process for doing that? Would
that be one of the two (at-cost) appeal routes outlined in the
rejection letter? If the appeal is upheld, is the appeal cost
refunded (by TfL?)?
4) (Slightly flippantly) What on earth are Royal Mail playing
at? That is the third time in relation to this matter that there
has been a 9-day delay in the post...not to mention serious
question marks about the original PCN and Charge Certificate. We
don't generally have postal issues, so forgive my cynicism...but
is it possible that the problems here do not, in fact, relate to
Royal Mail at all, and that TfL potentially failed to post the
PCN and CC, and that the TEC are not processing their post in a
timely manner (in either direction)? Is there any grounds for
taking that up with an appropriate body? Significant delays on
the part of the TEC might seem like pedantry, but not when they
have rejected a PE2 which was required, at least in part, by
"postal issues".
cheers
James
#Post#: 33414--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: mdann52
Date: August 15, 2024, 1:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: harbourlights link ---
>
>
1) Presumably she can get a £189 refund. Is that something to
refer to TfL?
>
--- End Quote ---
Arguably, she should get a full refund and be given the
opportunity to pay at the reduced rate or make representations.
The balls in TfLs court to reissue the PCN, but they should
refund you if you contact them (this may also be done
automatically, but I'm not sure how reliable TfL's systems are
nowadays!)
--- Quote from: harbourlights link ---
>
>
2) Why on earth would two identical PE2 & PE3 forms result in
different judgements?
>
--- End Quote ---
Just out of interest - do you know if TfL opposed them both? If
they didn't oppose one, either through an admin issue or
incompetence, then that might explain it
--- Quote from: harbourlights link ---
>
>
3) Does this inconsistency open the door for the first PE2/PE3
to be reconsidered, and is there a process for doing that? Would
that be one of the two (at-cost) appeal routes outlined in the
rejection letter? If the appeal is upheld, is the appeal cost
refunded (by TfL?)?
>
--- End Quote ---
No, as each PE2/3 is considered independently and doesn't set a
precedent. If you want it reviewed you need to apply on an N244,
which comes with a £109/£307 fee from memory, depending if the
hearing is on papers or in person.
As long as the judge has acted lawfully in rejecting the PE2,
the decision will be upheld.
--- Quote from: harbourlights link ---
>
>
4) (Slightly flippantly) What on earth are Royal Mail playing
at? That is the third time in relation to this matter that there
has been a 9-day delay in the post...not to mention serious
question marks about the original PCN and Charge Certificate. We
don't generally have postal issues, so forgive my cynicism...but
is it possible that the problems here do not, in fact, relate to
Royal Mail at all, and that TfL potentially failed to post the
PCN and CC, and that the TEC are not processing their post in a
timely manner (in either direction)? Is there any grounds for
taking that up with an appropriate body? Significant delays on
the part of the TEC might seem like pedantry, but not when they
have rejected a PE2 which was required, at least in part, by
"postal issues".
>
cheers
>
James
>
--- End Quote ---
There will be a delay between an order being made and it being
sent it. If different sorting offices are involved, 9 days isn't
unreasonable for redirected first class post, given how the
system works.
#Post#: 33418--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 15, 2024, 3:13 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If only for my interest, can you pl, pl get back to the issue I
raised.
All that's needed is dates:
For
PCN 1 issued *****;
PCN 2 issued *****;
CC 1 issued ******;
CC2 issued ******;
OfR 1 ******;
OfR2 issued *****
Redirection commenced 14 Jan for ****** weeks/months (the key
point you've not mentioned).
Trying to square the above with:
The first we heard of enforcement action was when we received
the Order for Recovery [for which OfR] from the TEC (via postal
redirection), quite a long time after the event.
#Post#: 33528--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: harbourlights
Date: August 15, 2024, 6:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your replies, both.
Reply to HC Anderson first:
Both PCNs issued: 5th January 2024*
Both CCs issued: 28th February 2024*
Both OfRs issued: 9th April 2024
*Only gleaned via PCN look-up, as she never received them.
Redirection commenced 14 Jan for 3 months, later extended
(because this was dragging on), without a break, to a total of 9
(hence still active, although both TfL and TEC are now
corresponding with her at our new address, so it will probably
not be extended further).
TfL made reference in their representations to the court (re:
PE2) to the PCN not having been challenged within 21 days as
claimed, but that is not what was claimed - the form says that
the OfR was responded to within 21 days (albeit rejected because
of an admin issue), as required. Perhaps not pivotal, but feels
like they've scored an unfair point there. Hopefully the officer
of the court can read!
cheers
James
#Post#: 33530--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: harbourlights
Date: August 15, 2024, 7:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Many thanks mdann52 - some very useful comments there.
You're absolutely right. I hadn't noticed, but TfL only made
representations to the court in relation to one of the two PCNs
- the one for which the PE2 was rejected. I hadn't noticed that
the response only had one PCN number on it. That almost
certainly explains the situation.
A helpful comment about one PE2 judgement not setting a
precedent for the other - thank you. It seems frustrating that
TfL's opinion is enough to swing the verdict. You would think
that, like with the Small Claims Court (at least as I understand
it), the "little guy" is given the reasonable benefit of the
doubt when dealing with a larger entity which does this day-in,
day-out (and can afford legal professionals without batting an
eyelid). The facts on both PE2s are still the same, and are
presumably either valid grounds for appeal or not, so I'm not
sure why TfL saying "not our problem if you misunderstand / make
an innocent mistake on the form and don't get a replacement
submitted in time because of two 9-day postal delays" has any
influence on that. Whoever made the second judgement clearly
accepted that we had done our best, however flawed that was.
However, it is as it is, we're trying to be pragmatic, and I
don't think we have much appetite to fight this as a matter of
principle unless there's a high chance of success, so your
feedback on that point is appreciated.
For the avoidance of doubt, the three 9+ day delays have all
come since supplying our new address, so the redirection isn't
in play there. I suspect that the TEC have sat on them like a
chicken on an egg - both when sending and receiving them. Our
post is normally very reliable, so I'm highly suspicious that
the common denominator here is the efficiency of the TEC.
Annoying, when TfL used "postal issues" being the defendant's
problem as one of the reasons they feel the unsuccessful PE2
should be rejected (which it was, of course). Ironically, the
only pieces of correspondence to arrive via redirection (the two
OfRs) both arrived quite quickly, from memory!
It sounds like it would be pragmatic to be proactive with TfL,
and contact them about next steps with the PCN with the upheld
SD. Thank you again for all of your advice here.
cheers
James
#Post#: 33537--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 16, 2024, 3:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you.
As regards the second OfR, was this submitted in time?
I get the feeling there's a simple chain of events here which is
desperately trying to make its voice heard.
Your first SD failed not because of RM or TEC or TfL, it failed
because you did not complete it correctly. Everything else
flowed from this trigger*.
*- The 21-day clock doesn't stop when you submit an invalid SD,
c'est la vie. Just as TEC are obliged to revoke an OfR merely on
an owner's claim, so they are able to judge between opposing
claims if the 21-day limit is breached. I'm afraid you gave them
this opportunity.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page