DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 80110--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leased vehicle ULEZ PCN
DIR By: roythebus
Date: July 8, 2025, 10:29 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is there a legal definition of a "motorist"? There's a driver, a
registered keeper, the owner, a passenger. Not disputing what
you're saying, but I asked his question a while ago and there
was no reply forthcoming.
#Post#: 80123--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leased vehicle ULEZ PCN
DIR By: Grant Urismo
Date: July 8, 2025, 12:22 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that this is purely
dispute between you and the lease company, the TFL angle was
closed off when TFL were paid.
I would be sorely tempted to write back to the lease company
saying that if they chose to pay a ULEZ fine for an ULEZ
compliant car, that's their problem not yours. If they want to
take you to the small claims court and argue that you're
responsible for their mistakes, they are welcome to try. A lot
will depend on the exact wording of the contract you have with
then though, so answering John UK's question above would be the
first thing I'd recommend you do.
Encedalus does have a reasonable plan, and HCA has a good
approach, but to my mind it's the lease company that needs to go
down that route, not you.
#Post#: 80143--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leased vehicle ULEZ PCN
DIR By: mickR
Date: July 8, 2025, 1:47 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I knew it was amprivate plate issue. I have a case ongoing atm
for the same thing.
any representation to TFL will be met with a standard reply that
they require a copy of all 4 pages of the original V5 and the
new V5.
I've currently asked to raise a complaint re their the
inadequate data checking system which requires me to provide
evidence that I feel I shouldn't have to. they should re check
DVLA data when an issue is raised. meanwhile they have taken 2
payments despite being aware the vehicle is compliant. oh and
btw
they still haven't forwarded their complaint process since 30th
June. Great!
#Post#: 80159--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leased vehicle ULEZ PCN
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: July 8, 2025, 2:38 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This isn't to do with routes being closed off or small claims
proceedings, IMO it's simple:
Get TfL to confirm that VRM **** is on **** car whose details
make it exempt from ULEZ. And then you go to TfL with the fact
that they demanded a penalty in error which must be refunded
etc...
One step at a time.
#Post#: 84842--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leased vehicle ULEZ PCN
DIR By: bumper31
Date: August 8, 2025, 3:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Just to keep you all in the loop,
I have had a response to my appeal.
Basically they say I had 28 days to appeal, and unless I can
prove there is a valid reason, such as medical or out of the
country, as to why I didn't appeal in the 28days, the fine is
paid and the matter is closed - an unsurprising technicality!
This is the hell I was expecting, I am hoping that I can get to
speak to someone with a bit of common sense on Monday.
I went down the email appeals route, because I had to forward
the letter of approval from my lease company.
Why someone doesn't look at this and the fact that the car has
"always" been compliant should negate any fine, paid or
otherwise?
Once again thanks for your comments
Edited after reading Mr Andersen's comments a little more
closely
#Post#: 84843--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leased vehicle ULEZ PCN
DIR By: bumper31
Date: August 8, 2025, 3:57 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: H C Andersen link ---
>
> IMO, you don't complain, challenge or demand, you simply
enquire.
>
> I am a motorist; an issue has arisen regarding your VRM(*****,
as can be seen it's a personalised plate albeit a leased car)
and you would appreciate confirmation as to whether this is
recognised as ULEZ compliant and when this classification became
effective on the ULEZ database.
>
> This is simply stage 1 in a several stage extra-procedural(as
regards Road User procedures) process.
>
> One step at a time.
>
--- End Quote ---
Sorry I missed this, looks like I will following this advice and
need to be patient.
In my defense after speaking to someone at TFL, they mentioned
that as long as I got the lease companies permission it should
be straight forward.
Thanks again
#Post#: 84847--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leased vehicle ULEZ PCN
DIR By: Enceladus
Date: August 8, 2025, 4:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Please post up the Notice of Rejection. Just redact/obscure your
name & address. Leave everything else visible.
And please post up the text of the challenge you sent to TFL.
#Post#: 84860--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leased vehicle ULEZ PCN
DIR By: bumper31
Date: August 9, 2025, 1:43 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just for clarity, when we say write to TFL, doews this have to
be snail mail?
Thanks
B
#Post#: 84862--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leased vehicle ULEZ PCN
DIR By: bumper31
Date: August 9, 2025, 1:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://imgur.com/gallery/tfl-appeal-u3vDrH7
HTML https://i.imgur.com/iGkahGH.jpg
#Post#: 84865--------------------------------------------------
Re: Leased vehicle ULEZ PCN
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: August 9, 2025, 2:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You posted: Why someone doesn't look at this and the fact that
the car has "always" been compliant should negate any fine, paid
or otherwise?
Because you are going about this the wrong way IMO.
Simply ask TfL whether VRM ***** is compliant and when this took
effect. Time lags in updating systems are NOT the motorist's
concern, they're TfL's.
If TfL had no lawful authority to demand a penalty in the first
place, then whether payment was made or not is irrelevant. But
you would need to face them with their own evidence - their
response to you(and you might need to coax this out of them) -
to do this IMO.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 3
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page