Here's a puzzle

On 12 February 2004 I sold my car.

On 19th February 2004 I was walking the Aonach Eagach Ridge in
Glencoe. At 13:20pm I was captured on digital camera on the summit of
Am Bodach by a friend.

At precisely the same moment, 13:20:21pm my former car was captured by
a Transport for London digital camera on Tower Bridge Road, entering
the Congestion Charge Zone.

When I sold the car, all documentation was filled in correctly,
however, I gave the wrong portion to the new owner, and returned the
wrong portion to DVLA. I was unaware of the mistake for several
months.

The car was still registered to me, so I was liable for the congestion
charge.

I wrote to TfL giving my representations, which they rejected, but
gave me 28 days to give further representations, and an appeal form
for the Parking and Traffic Appeals' Service (PATS).

I sent off further representations and the appeal form. TfL wrote
back saying that as the case was subject to appeal they would not
listen to my representation. PATS wrote to say that all evidence must
be sent to them by 28 June.

In the meantime, I was writing to DVLA to find out what was going on.
At that time I was unaware that I has sent to them the wrong portion
of the registration document.

I received notice of two further parking infringements, one in
Canterbury and one in Bromley.

DVLA sent me a copy of the registration document, the portion I should
have returned. The date of sale had been tippexed out and the address
of the new owner had been altered to that of Catford Bus Garage.

I wrote again to DVLA explaining that the name and address had been
altered, and they accepted this, and sent me a letter dated 30 June
2004, saying that they had changed their records to show the change of
ownership to 12 February 2004.

Brilliant! I was able to deal with Bromley and Canterbury with little
problem. However, PATS refused the evidence as it was beyond their
time limit.

On 19 January 2005 I heard from PATS. My appeal had been rejected,
and I had no automatic right of appeal against the decision. I could
request a review, or apply for a judicial review.

I knew a judicial review would be out of the question, costing ££££s.
But I applied for a review on the grounds of new evidence, not
available on 28 June 2004. They accepted that I had grounds for a
review.

I also wrote to TfL explaining that they had given me 28 days to make
final representations, and then suspended that while the case went to
appeal, with 10 days remaining. Now that the appeal was over, and
lost, I still had 10 days to make representations to them. This I
did, with the single piece of evidence from DVLA showing that they had
ammended their records to show that I disposed of the vehicle on 12
February 2004.

TfL wrote back promptly and on 28 January 2005 said that they accepted
my representations, and that no further action would be taken against
me.

A sigh of relief.

Imagine my surprise then, when I got home from work yesterday to find
a letter on my doormat from PATS. It said that the review assessor
found the new evidence irrelevant and that I owed TfL £80 and this
would increase to £120 if not paid within 28 days.

What a mess!

TfL no longer want the money. PATS insist it must be paid.

What could happen when I don't pay?

"Tilly" wrote in message
...

This has happened in Norfolk, where various aged persons who never drive
outside of their immediate locality have received notification that they
didn't pay a Londson congestion charge due. Even thought they've been able
to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they could not possibly have been in
London etc., etc., etc., They were hassled & threatened that they were
liable. Cue contacting media... Amazing how stuff got dropped quite quickly.

Methinks you need to be incontact with your local press & TV..

Cheers, helen s

Tilly wrote:

On 12 February 2004 I sold my car.

Excellent. I hope you didn't replace it.

On 19th February 2004 I was walking the Aonach Eagach Ridge in
Glencoe. At 13:20pm I was captured on digital camera on the summit of
Am Bodach by a friend.

At precisely the same moment, 13:20:21pm my former car was captured by
a Transport for London digital camera on Tower Bridge Road, entering
the Congestion Charge Zone.

snip tale of motoring problem

What a mess!

TfL no longer want the money. PATS insist it must be paid.
What could happen when I don't pay?

You could try uk.tosspot ---- ---- ----
(seriously)

They seem to thrive on discussing this kind of problem.

John B

Tilly wrote:
On 12 February 2004 I sold my car.
tale of Kafkaesquian bureaucracy

You might want to post this to uk.legal.moderated instead of uk.legal.
The signal to noise ratio on the former is much better.

R.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:32:22 -0000, "wafflycat"
wafflesATv21netDOTcoDOTuk wrote:


"Tilly" wrote in message
.. .

This has happened in Norfolk, where various aged persons who never drive
outside of their immediate locality have received notification that they
didn't pay a Londson congestion charge due. Even thought they've been able
to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they could not possibly have been in
London etc., etc., etc., They were hassled & threatened that they were
liable. Cue contacting media... Amazing how stuff got dropped quite quickly.

Methinks you need to be incontact with your local press & TV..

It seems more complicated than that.

TfL states: "No further action will be taken against you in respect of
the above-mentioned Penalty Charge Notice(s)."

The Law states: "The full penalty charge must be paid within 28 days."

So, TfL accept that I should not pay the penalty, the Law says I
should.

It would seem that the Law is unjust.

A theme of recent laws seems to be a move away from a presumption of
innocence and a fundamental test of reasonableness. I don't believe
that the adjudicator and review adjudicator have interpreted the law
incorrectly.

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:32:22 -0000, "wafflycat"
wafflesATv21netDOTcoDOTuk wrote in message
:

This has happened in Norfolk, where various aged persons who never drive
outside of their immediate locality have received notification that they
didn't pay a Londson congestion charge due.

Must be cyclists. No motorist would ever dream of breaking the law...


Guy
--
http://www.chapmancentral.co.uk

"To every complex problem there is a solution which is
simple, neat and wrong" - HL Mencken

On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:48:56 +0000, JohnB wrote:

Tilly wrote:

On 12 February 2004 I sold my car.

Excellent. I hope you didn't replace it.

It would have been even more excellent if I'd scrapped it.

I now rely almost entirely on my bike, train/bike combo, friends, hire
cars and taxis.

Tilly wrote:

TfL wrote back promptly and on 28 January 2005 said that they accepted
my representations, and that no further action would be taken against
me.

A sigh of relief.

Imagine my surprise then, when I got home from work yesterday to find
a letter on my doormat from PATS. It said that the review assessor
found the new evidence irrelevant and that I owed TfL £80 and this
would increase to £120 if not paid within 28 days.

What a mess!

TfL no longer want the money. PATS insist it must be paid.

What could happen when I don't pay?

I would get your MP involved - that's what they are there for. Also
since PATS are saying you owe the money to TfL, send the TfL letter to
PATS saying that TfL have agreed that you owe them nothing and please
cancel the demand for payment. You might also try sending TfL a copy of
the their 28 Jan letter and the PATS letter and ask them to sort it out.

This is apparently not an uncommon experience.

Tony

Tilly wrote:

At precisely the same moment, 13:20:21pm my former car was
captured by a Transport for London digital camera on Tower Bridge
Road, entering the Congestion Charge Zone.

Imagine my surprise then, when I got home from work yesterday to
find a letter on my doormat from PATS. It said that the review
assessor found the new evidence irrelevant and that I owed TfL
£80 and this would increase to £120 if not paid within 28 days.

Contact the Conservative party - they're looking for examples of unfairness
to batter the govt with, and this arbitrary process might catch their eye.

Tilly wrote:
On Sat, 19 Mar 2005 11:32:22 -0000, "wafflycat"
wafflesATv21netDOTcoDOTuk wrote:


"Tilly" wrote in message
. ..

This has happened in Norfolk, where various aged persons who never drive
outside of their immediate locality have received notification that they
didn't pay a Londson congestion charge due. Even thought they've been able
to prove beyond reasonable doubt that they could not possibly have been in
London etc., etc., etc., They were hassled & threatened that they were
liable. Cue contacting media... Amazing how stuff got dropped quite quickly.

Methinks you need to be incontact with your local press & TV..


It seems more complicated than that.

TfL states: "No further action will be taken against you in respect of
the above-mentioned Penalty Charge Notice(s)."

The Law states: "The full penalty charge must be paid within 28 days."

So, TfL accept that I should not pay the penalty, the Law says I
should.

It would seem that the Law is unjust.

A theme of recent laws seems to be a move away from a presumption of
innocence and a fundamental test of reasonableness. I don't believe
that the adjudicator and review adjudicator have interpreted the law
incorrectly.

Can you cite the exact Regulation, rather than the snippet above?

--
Joe * If I cannot be free I'll be cheap