Challenging a penalty charge that I already paid.

Drangueos

Drangueos

Drangueos

Soldato
Joined
27 Apr 2012
Posts
3,705
Location
London
I received a PCN from Ealing Council, I've challenged it to the Council and they refused, so I paid at the discounted rate £65 instead of the £130.
BUT I decided to challenge is again via the London Tribunals and I got this letter:

OmMNNFV.jpg.png

So what I'm not 100% sure is:
Whilst the Enforcement Authority has a discretion to accept the reduced payment at any time after the initial 14-day period, Adjudicators have no power to direct it to do so.
As such, if your appeal is refused by the Adjudicator, the full penalty charge of £130 is payable.
Click to expand...

I already paid the fine without agreeing with it, because I knew I could contest it again on the tribunal.

If my appeal is refused, Will I have to pay the extra £65?
 
Yaayuh! said:
Just show them proof that you paid it within the time specified?
Click to expand...
They already know he paid the reduced penalty charge within the 14 days. It was accepted on the basis it was full settlement of the matter. If the OP appeals he's undoing the settlement agreement and may be liable to the full penalty charge if he loses.
 
Surveyor said:
They already know he paid the reduced penalty charge within the 14 days. It was accepted on the basis it was full settlement of the matter. If the OP appeals he's undoing the settlement agreement and may be liable to the full penalty charge if he loses.
Click to expand...

I see, I haven't had my coffee yet. That makes sense, albeit a bit ****.

Add a few quid on top of that, OP. Get a tub of Vaseline at the ready.
 
Yes - if you appeal and fail - you will pay £130, ie another £65.

Your initial appeal has been rejected already so unless you have other evidence to present that wasn't provided initially, then it will fail again. Even then, it may be rejected on the basis that you failed to present the full evidence at the first appeal.

I suggest you enjoy the sunshine and move on with your life. Why risk paying another £65 on top unless you have indisputable evidence to prove your case.
 
My first appeal was to the council, now I'm appealing to the London Tribunals.
My evidence was that the no left turn sign was behind a tree branch, it was completely ignored and I just received a general refusal letter without any explanation.

I'm hopping that the tribunal actually accept the evidence.

E9Mkj6x.jpg.png


Once I got the fine, I went back there to check the sign, in 5 minutes there I saw 8 cars making that left turn.
 
Surveyor said:
They already know he paid the reduced penalty charge within the 14 days. It was accepted on the basis it was full settlement of the matter. If the OP appeals he's undoing the settlement agreement and may be liable to the full penalty charge if he loses.
Click to expand...

So, basically they are forcing people to pay the discounted rate instead of risking the appeal to be rejected and having to pay the full amount.
 
booyaka said:
Yes - if you appeal and fail - you will pay £130, ie another £65.

Your initial appeal has been rejected already so unless you have other evidence to present that wasn't provided initially, then it will fail again. Even then, it may be rejected on the basis that you failed to present the full evidence at the first appeal.

I suggest you enjoy the sunshine and move on with your life. Why risk paying another £65 on top unless you have indisputable evidence to prove your case.
Click to expand...

I've sent all the evidence, the council refused with a general refusal letter.

I'm hopping that the tribunal actually look at the evidence.

It was me and my friend on bikes, we both got the fines and neither of us saw the sign, since it was behind a tree branch.
 
Drangueos said:
I've sent all the evidence, the council refused with a general refusal letter.

I'm hopping that the tribunal actually look at the evidence.

It was me and my friend on bikes, we both got the fines and neither of us saw the sign, since it was behind a tree branch.
Click to expand...

The sign is there, it's "slightly" covered by a tree branch.

Neither of you seeing the sign isn't an argument for a reversal of the fine.

The sign to the left of that - hard to tell from the picture - but it looks like "no motor vehicles" sign or alike.
 
booyaka said:
The sign is there, it's "slightly" covered by a tree branch.

Neither of you seeing the sign isn't an argument for a reversal of the fine.

The sign to the left of that - hard to tell from the picture - but it looks like "no motor vehicles" sign or alike.
Click to expand...

And to be fair once you get a few metres closer you will be past the branch and will be able to see the no left sign clearly.
 
Yeah I agree, I mean its clear there is a sign there, just that the branch is obscuring what the sign is saying you should not do, its clearly a red circle after all

IMO you were practically negligent in not checking what that sign was at the earliest opportunity
 
Yeah I can see the sign.
A meter or 2 later and it's completely visible

I'd drop the appeal and pay the 65
 
While I agree that it is clear that there is a sign there, it is not clear which sign it is.

And as far as I know, regulations say that road signs should be clearly visible.
 
Drangueos said:
While I agree that it is clear that there is a sign there, it is not clear which sign it is.

And as far as I know, regulations say that road signs should be clearly visible.
Click to expand...
the sign is clearly visible, you've said so yourself. you just didn't take time to properly identify what the sign said. as mentioned above, a metre further ahead and you'd be able to see the whole of the sign.
 
Thekwango said:
the sign is clearly visible, you've said so yourself. you just didn't take time to properly identify what the sign said. as mentioned above, a metre further ahead and you'd be able to see the whole of the sign.
Click to expand...

I never said the sign is clearly visible... just because you can see part of the sign, doesn't mean you can actually identify it.

If I hide behind a tree, with my arms showing, you will see that a person is hidden behind a tree, but will you know who is the person? NO.. so not clearly visible.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom