DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 33575--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: harbourlights
Date: August 16, 2024, 11:15 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for your reply.
You're right in that had a mistake not been made, the first
attempt at the SDs may well have been successful, but we're all
human and all make mistakes. If fair allowance is not given for
a simple, honest mistake on an unfamiliar form, that seems
deeply unfortunate. However, two identical PE2s had a different
outcome, and (as mdann52 pointed out) the difference is that TfL
failed to contest one of them. It also strikes me as unfair that
TfL submitted two sides of A4 in response to our tiny boxes of
writing on the PE2 and PE3 - had we known we could attach a
separate sheet, we would have done so (and no doubt constructed
a more compelling argument in the process!), but when there's no
indication that you're allowed to do that, and you've just had
two forms rejected for minor admin issues, I think we can be
forgiven for thinking we had to stick to the rules!
The SD for the second OfR was submitted together with the first
(and stamped as received by the TEC well within 21 days, despite
a 9-day postal delay). Of course both initial SDs contained the
same error (role of "verifier" not specified - both my other
half and the solicitor missed that this was necessary). The
second attempt was corrected, but she then ran into the issue
she needed a PE2 for each PCN, but only submitted one to cover
both.
However, I would argue that both errors could at least in part
(to the point where the benefit of the doubt could be given) be
explained by the process:
1) That the forms originally supplied (with a green-printed
background) did not highlight in (unprinted) white, unlike
everywhere else on the form, that the respondent had to complete
the section regarding the role of the "verifier". Ironically,
the plain black/white copy one can download is clearer in this
regard.
2) That (for the second attempt) the TEC supplied two PE3s and
one PE2, implying that one PE2 would do the job for both, when
it would not.
...of course this argument might not get me far, and point 1
seems particularly difficult to argue in the cold light of day,
but if two intelligent graduate professionals (my other half and
the solicitor) could get it wrong, one might argue that the
process is unclear and not fit for purpose!
Would a full breakdown of the timeline in list form be useful? I
appreciate that it's all dotted around this thread in response
to specific questions.
cheers
James
#Post#: 33587--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 16, 2024, 2:14 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
You're trying to rationalise a legal process governed by strict
time periods and procedures and, sorry to focus on this, a
mistake made by you(and the solicitor) in not completing the
form correctly.
Anyway, as explained by others the ship of the refused SD has
sailed, if not in terms of time then certainly in terms of
financial outcomes.
Wait for TfL to refund the penalty, issue a new PCN and then
move ahead with this.
#Post#: 33761--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: harbourlights
Date: August 18, 2024, 7:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Apologies for the slow reply - a busy few days. Thanks again for
your reply.
It seems deeply unfortunate that an innocent mistake can be so
costly, but I accept that we're not going to change that, so it
is as it is. It's a bonus that (hopefully) one of the two PCNs
will ultimately be less costly than we expected. Is paying just
£90 for that a likely outcome (assuming we get on with it once
the new PCN arrives)?
Would it be sensible to be proactive in contacting TfL, or can
we trust that they will issue a refund? I have no doubt that
they will comply with the order of the court and cancel the OfR
and CC and reissue the PCN, but us having jumped the gun and
paid in full for both PCNs does complicate things a little.
cheers
James
#Post#: 33765--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 19, 2024, 1:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Normally the enforcement authority has a limited time in which
to issue a new PCN following TEC's decision. IMO, if they were
to issue a new PCN before making a refund then they would be
attempting double recovery and could be challenged on the
following grounds:
(e) that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in
the circumstances of the case;
I'm not certain of the time limit for issuing a new PCN, perhaps
another poster could assist. If this period is relatively short
e.g. 28 day etc, then I would not chase TfL, instead I'd hope
that their left and fight hands aren't on speaking terms and
they'll either attempt double recovery or miss the PCN time
limit.
Wait for others.
#Post#: 33784--------------------------------------------------
Re: ULEZ - Missing PCNs and Charge Certificates
DIR By: harbourlights
Date: August 19, 2024, 5:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Perfect, thank you!
cheers
James
*****************************************************
Page 3 of 3
DIR Previous Page