DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
  HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       *****************************************************
   DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
       *****************************************************
       #Post#: 9450--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN - Bristol CAZ - 25 seconds before midnight
   DIR By: Kiwimeerkat
       Date: November 7, 2023, 3:26 am
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       --- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
       >
       > The OP says he paid in advance and specified a particular day,
       but entered the zone 25 seconds too early, so they walloped him
       for not paying for the previous day, not the one he had paid
       for.  That is my understanding, anyway.
       >
       --- End Quote ---
       That is correct, so my understanding now is that I should submit
       a reps on the basis of de minimis whilst also pointing out that
       the following day was paid for.
       Could anyone point me in the right direction of the right
       wording for this?
       Thank you for your help.
       #Post#: 9968--------------------------------------------------
       Re: PCN - Bristol CAZ - 25 seconds before midnight
   DIR By: ivanleo
       Date: November 12, 2023, 3:58 pm
       ---------------------------------------------------------
       Here you go:
       [indent]
       Dear Bristol City Council,
       In the first instance I would point out that I paid the daily
       charge for 21 September 2023 and I happened to enter the zone
       some 25 seconds too early, I suggest that this is de-minimis and
       not a contravention at all, or in the alternative you should
       exercise discretion not to enforce.
       I further challenge liability for PCN BS56246641 on the basis
       that the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the
       circumstances of the case.
       The PCN carries an 0870 premium rate telephone number, and I
       contend that as in Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council
       (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022) this amounts to an excessive
       demand. While I appreciate other payment methods are available,
       binding authority from the High Court in the case of London
       Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC
       295 (Admin) determined that where one payment method carries a
       surcharge, the availability of other payment methods is
       irrelevant and the penalty demanded is excessive.
       Further to this, the penalty charge notice is only permitted to
       demand payment of the penalty charge, there is no legal
       mechanism that allows the council to demand the toll charge in
       addition to the penalty charge on the PCN.
       This is akin to a PCN for not paying in a pay and display bay:
       you can issue a PCN for £70 but the penalty charge notice cannot
       demand the unpaid pay and display fee on top of that.
       In this case the PCN may only demand £120, discounted to £60 for
       the first 14 days. The regulations do not allow the PCN to
       demand the additional £9 you are seeking, the amount demanded
       therefore exceeds the amount due by law.
       It follows that the penalty charge must be cancelled.
       Yours faithfully,
       [/indent]
       *****************************************************
       Page 2 of 2
   DIR Previous Page