Congestion Charge - Thinking out of the box

[awf]

Hi,

 

I got a Congestion Charge last month so I wrote a standard BOR defence to them half hoping I would achieve something.

 

I got a notice of rejection this week, basically them stating that I question the legality of the charge (which I do) and their parroted reference to Greater London Authority Act 1999 and Road User Charging Regulations 2001.

 

I don't want to appeal directly through the adjudicator as the whole point is I'm questioning their legality and from what I've researched the adjudicator doesn't think a "penalty" is a "fine".

 

I could report TFL to the police for extortion- which I doubt will go anywhere and TFL would still press ahead with action against me.

 

So I've done some thinking, and I'm considering following a new line of reasoning.

 

The American Embassy has refused for a long time to pay the Congestion Charge arguing that it is a tax, of which they are exempt. Ken Livingstone has repeatedly insisted that the CC is not a tax but a "charge for the service of removing congestion from the capital".

 

Based on his own argument that the CC is a service, what if I was to respond/appeal based on the Unfair Contract Terms acts... 1997 & 1999 (still keeping my original reference to legality under BOR).

 

There are many great minds on these forums, I'm just a novice with a have-a-go-hero mentality but here's some points that I could raise:

 

1) First off, conveniently my car is registered at my mums house in the midlands (I forgot to change it when I moved). She has no internet access or telephone (uses a mobile) therefore my only knowledge of CC came from signage around London. By crossing into the zone I 'entered a contract' with TFL but I was not made aware of T&Cs or penalties for a breach.

 

2) I still had to wait and sit in traffic queues in the zone (which means that the 'contract' was not upheld by them -ie. in freeing congestion).

 

3) The 'penalty' for not paying the charge is excessive and does not reflect the true costs borne to them from my non-payment.

 

I'm assuming this could work on a similar basis to bank charges. Of course would that mean pay up now and then take them to court for the charge (£50 - £8 + court fee)?

 

I'm going to do this since I believe anything to delay the system and cause more admin is worthwhile even if I lose .

 

Just wondering what are your thoughts on this approach, any other ideas?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

If you want an honest opinion . . . this approach is doomed to failure.

 

If you drove or had your car in the CC zone during its hours of operation you have to pay the charge or the owner gets a penalty.

 

In these circumstances what you have to do is to look at things dispassionately. Your best bet is to examine the legislation surrounding the CC and ensure that the documentation you receive is in conformity with it.

 

I rather think you may be allowing your hatred of the CC cloud your views here.

 

Principles are great but they can get expensive!

[borisbeaver]

Head and Brick wall comes to mind.

 

They have more lawyers than you.

[green_and_mean]

BTW The convenience of forgetting to register your car at your new address may be less convenient once you get a £1000 fine and if you have not told your insurance company your insurance will be invalidated if you have an accident or the car is stolen.

 

The Penalty is just that a penalty nothing to do with bank 'charges' which are not allowed to be a penalty. The Law entitles Tfl to issue you with a penalty it can be as much as they like as long as its approved it does not have to bear any relevance to the failure to pay or the cost of collection.

[awf]

Thanks for the advice received so far.

 

@Bernie_the_Bolt

 

I think you're right, I may instead write a "Without Prejudice" letter and enclose £8.

 

@BorisBeaver

 

So do the banks but that hasn't stopped everyone here. I was kinda looking for people to come up with ideas rather than kill the conversation, maybe these aren't the right forums but I assumed most here were into challenging authorities that abuse their power.

 

@green_and_mean

 

Err.. my insurance and everything else is at my current address, spare me the lecture. I simply forgot to get my driving licence changed (realised when I received PCN).

 

The BOR is actually still a valid law which is why they find other reasons to drop the charge or dispute the wording eg "penalty" is not a "fine" - I heard a guy challenged them on the BOR last year but they dropped it for 'other reasons'.

 

The Law entitles Tfl to issue you with a penalty it can be as much as they like

 

and that doesn't bother you?

[green_and_mean]

 

@green_and_mean

 

Err.. my insurance and everything else is at my current address, spare me the lecture. I simply forgot to get my driving licence changed (realised when I received PCN).

 

 

It was you that said the CAR was registered at your former address I was going by what YOU said. And no it doesn't bother me about getting a penalty because I don't drive into London I get the train and if I did I'd pay the charge.

[awf]

I get the fact you're anti-car so thanks for the advice, but no thanks.

[patdavies]

I get the fact you're anti-car so thanks for the advice, but no thanks.

 

green_and_mean is not anti-car, he just doesn't let passion or anger get in the way of facts. He does sometimes take the viewpoint of the authorities, rather than the aggrieved, but that doesn't alter the accuracy of his posts.

 

You originally stated quite clearly that your car was still registered at an old address; later you state it is only your licence.

 

Two points.

 

1) TfL will track you by the address on your V5, not the address on your licence - which is totally irrelevant to them; they work from the VRM of the vehicle.

 

2) Not keeping the address on your licence up to date aslo risks a fine of up to £ 1,000.

 

I f you want to come here and ask for advice: fine. If you don't want to follow it: fine. But don't start abusing the more experienced posters simply because they are telling you something that you don't want to hear.

[Oh Boy!]

I think AWF has a point the whole idea of being clamped and paying to be de-clamped is that signs are post correctly with the terms and conditions

for instance :-

 

Warning

Clamping in Operation

If you park here you will be clamped

You will then be charged £80

Or

 

You will be towed £120

Release fee xxxxx

 

Tell xxxxxx

 

if after seeing that sign you park, it is deemed that you have accepted the terms and cond's of that parking area, by parking and getting clamped you pay.

 

If there are no signs, or the signs are incomplete then there is no contract .. now where is that bolt cutter.

 

I say go for it you have nothing to loose.

[patdavies]

I think AWF has a point the whole idea of being clamped and paying to be de-clamped is that signs are post correctly with the terms and conditions

for instance :-

 

Warning

Clamping in Operation

If you park here you will be clamped

You will then be charged £80

Or

 

You will be towed £120

Release fee xxxxx

 

Tell xxxxxx

 

if after seeing that sign you park, it is deemed that you have accepted the terms and cond's of that parking area, by parking and getting clamped you pay.

 

If there are no signs, or the signs are incomplete then there is no contract .. now where is that bolt cutter.

 

I say go for it you have nothing to loose.

 

Who mentioned clamping?

 

This thread is about a congestion charge penalty:confused:

[awf]

@patdavies

 

I don't think simply defending myself is abusing others. All green_and_mean has done is offer criticism and no empathy. I'm a new poster but being new on these boards does not equate with being new at life. Why did GAM assume that I hadn't told my insurance company about my new address?

 

I do not want to get into a flame war particularly since this is my 8th post so look, I'm sorry GAM if you feel I've abused you in some way.

 

Back on topic, I was really wondering if anyone had any creative, gutsy ideas about this, rather than simply point out TFL have the right to extract my blood if they want and there's nothing I can do about it.

[awf]

Oh Boy,

 

Thanks. I get that point. The question is if the CC is a service or if it is a law.

 

If it's a service then perhaps contract laws apply.

 

If it's a law, then why are drivers sent to an adjudicator, not a judge? (Then later registered as a debt, not a conviction)!

[Oh Boy!]

Here we go........

 

I said clamping as an example to show similarity,

 

No sign saying if you enter the Zone you will be screwed.

 

What if i'm from the orkney islands,

 

Where does it say on a board " if you enter zone blah blah".

[awf]

Also patdavies,

 

I think I've been misrepresented as being 'angry' for some reason. Sure, getting a PCN is annoying but it's nothing new for me, I've challenged every parking ticket I've ever received and found myself having to pay about 1 in 4 times so I'm happy about that. I got my bank charges back this year and I'm in the process of getting charges back from a loan company.

 

I enjoy doing this- it sometimes causes stress if the timing is off, but I enjoy this kind of thing and I'm prepared to pay, I just want to buck the system if I can or even not pay.

 

Also that doesn't mean I simply entered the c-zone in order to do this- I'm not demented, I had valid reasons and it was unavoidable, I don't go out of my way for these things, but when they happen (as they eventually do) I always challenge.

 

;)

[awf]

Good points OH BOY.

 

Coming from a small town in the Midlands, I can verify there is no easily accessible material or advertising for the C-zone. There is not even any shops where I could go and pay if I missed it whilst in London.

 

What I have told everyone here is 100% the truth btw- my mum does not have internet access or phone at home (I mentioned this because TFLs rejection letter patronisingly pointed out that I could have checked the internets or called their number).

 

If the authorities hold us to account for even the slightest contravention, we also must hold them to account for the slightest misapplication of the law.

[Oh Boy!]

Quite

 

and under what section of what law does it say i am obliged to go searching for specific law, before i carry out certain functions in life.

[patdavies]

Quite

 

and under what section of what law does it say i am obliged to go searching for specific law, before i carry out certain functions in life.

 

The well-established principle that ignorance of the law is no defence, perhaps..

[patdavies]

I don't think simply defending myself is abusing others. All green_and_mean has done is offer criticism and no empathy. I'm a new poster but being new on these boards does not equate with being new at life. Why did GAM assume that I hadn't told my insurance company about my new address?

 

Possibly because your story changed from car registered at old address to only your licence still registered at that address

 

I do not want to get into a flame war particularly since this is my 8th post so look, I'm sorry GAM if you feel I've abused you in some way.

Neither do I, but your post at #7 was totally uncalled for - that is what I was pointing out.

[awf]

The well-established principle that ignorance of the law is no defence, perhaps..

 

But is the CC a law or is it a service?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

Good points OH BOY.

 

Coming from a small town in the Midlands, I can verify there is no easily accessible material or advertising for the C-zone. There is not even any shops where I could go and pay if I missed it whilst in London.

 

What I have told everyone here is 100% the truth btw- my mum does not have internet access or phone at home (I mentioned this because TFLs rejection letter patronisingly pointed out that I could have checked the internets or called their number).

 

I do have some sympathy for this. Londoners may well get used to it and paying when they use it regularly but for non-Londoners I'm not convinced that it is that easy. What I would like to see is on the Blue CC signs a text number that you can use to get sent a text telling you where the nearest Pay Point is (determined by what cell you are in). No idea if the technology is there though.

 

If the authorities hold us to account for even the slightest contravention, we also must hold them to account for the slightest misapplication of the law.

 

Couldn't agree more which is why the date issue on PCN's was such a triumph.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

But is the CC a law or is it a service?

Law

[awf]

Hi BTB,

 

Not arguing but how is it a law? It's enforced by regulations made into law of course but so is everything else.

 

If there was a law that said don't drive in this zone or you will be penalised then that makes sense, but the C-zone implies you can choose to drive in here at your discretion (there are no enforcers or barriers) and you can pay our charge (for providing the C-zone).

 

Referring to the tax vs service argument that Livingstone has with the embassies, if it was a tax and I chose not to pay I could end up in jail, if I don't pay the CC then I will end up having a debt registered.

 

I don't intend to go this far but: Can a registered debt like a CCJ cause you to eventually end up in jail if you don't pay?

 

The CC does not seem to be interested in justice (ie jail the offender) it seems to be interested in payment (ie the offender owes money to my business).

 

Although there has been some convincing discouragement about going this route, I don't see I have anything to lose appealing to the adjudicator and using the argument that I was not aware of the contract before entering it.

 

The worst that could happen is adjudicator says no, and I have to pay the amount anyway- in that case I can chuck more money and sue claiming the penalty is excessive and does not reflect their true costs.

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

It's law because it's enforced under The Greater London (Central Zone) Congestion Charging Order 2001 and stuff that came later.

Under the law the panalties are civil rather than criminal. I don't know if you could end up going to prision as a direct result of the chain of events that follows failure to pay (as for example not paying council tax). It would be more likely that you would have your car or some other asset seized and sold at auction. By this stage the costs and fees would have escallated out of control and what could have been settled for a few tens of pounds would be many hundreds of pounds and probably at least a thousand.

If jail is going to be involved it is more likely to result from assaulting the bailiffs.

In my view the US Embassy have it wrong and it should be seen as ananlagous to a toll charge not a tax.

You are certainly within your rights to appeal to the adjudicator. You have more chance on lucking out with TFL and some procedural error on their part than with the arguments you are suggesting (which are not one of the lawful grounds for appeal).

As far as I can see your lawful grounds for appeal may be that the penalty charge exceeds the amount payable in the circumstances of the case. You may be able to establish this if, for example, you can find a defect in the drafting of the PCN and to do this I suggest you scrutinise the PCN against the legislation which you can find on this web site.

As far as suing if you fail in your appeal. That won't work it would get struck out. Your only remedy is to seek a review of the decision if you can establish that the interests of justice require a review or a judicial review because you think that the adjudicator has erred in law (but not fact).

It is your absolute and unfettered right to appeal to the adjudicator. Beyond that you have to establish stuff which I don't think you will be able to.

I wish you luck but I think you are barking up the wrong tree here.

[awf]

BTB,

 

Thanks for the link and advice. I'll look over it at the weekend before I write my appeal.

 

It's proven that there are failures in speeding and parking enforcement and evidence of abuses and bad application of the law.

 

I just can't believe that congestion charging enforcement is so watertight that they haven't screwed up somewhere (other than not repealing the BOR)?

[Bernie_the_Bolt]

I just can't believe that congestion charging enforcement is so watertight that they haven't screwed up somewhere (other than not repealing the BOR)?

 

They may have. It's finding it and the applicability to an individual case that is the challenge.