ULEZ Representation possibility

MIHE18

Good afternoon,

I have received two Penalty Charge Notices for the London ULEZ and although I don't have any conventional grounds for appeal, I think it is (or should be) possible to listen to and accept my representation.

I'm afraid they won't, and would also lose the opportunity to pay them with the early payment discount.

Would you please read below how I would explain my representation and give me your informed opinion and advice?

My partner drove from home (Milton Keynes) to and from Heathrow airport as he had a family emergency abroad. His close relative died unexpectedly (committed suicide) and he had to travel to Spain to support his family.

I can prove this with the "emergency" tickets. Ordered just 4 hours before the flight time and an official notice of the death of his close relative.

1 - We live in Milton Keynes and only travel locally. We weren't aware that the London ULEZ had been extended to include Heathrow Airport.

2 - The ULEZ signs were unknown for me and were not expected by me. I did not see any explicit reference to the expected payment, neither realised they meant that implicitly.

3 - I'm very sorry for this mistake and to ensure it doesn't happen again, we have already set up an automatic payment for our car, as you can probably confirm yourself.

I hope you can understand the extremely unfortunate and unique circumstances. Perhaps you can accept this exceptional representation and allow me to pay the usual ULEZ charges as opposed to the penalty charges. If this is not acceptable for both notices, I hope you can accept it for at least one of them. In the event that you cannot accept this representation for either penalty charge, I'd really appreciate if you can grant me an extension for the discounted penalty charge period.

Mildly_Miffed

The best you can hope for from that is a discretionary compassionate waiving of the penalties. Driving into the airport on one day and out on another is not "the same journey".

None of those give any exemption from the requirement to be aware of the meaning of all legally valid road signs.

For Spain, I presume you used Terminal 5, so straight off the M25. I can't easily find a pic of that junction, and Streetview is out of date, but this is the current signage from the M4 for the main spur... I would suggest that the chances of the T5 junction not being similarly adequately signed are very, VERY low.



If your mental state was such that you claim you couldn't be reasonably expected to see and process this scale of signage, were you in a fit state to drive? Would you have been better getting a taxi to the airport, or a friend to drive you?

MIHE18

Very clever and funny reflections, Mildly_Miffed.

Does anyone have an informed opinion on how likely they would grant the discretionary compassionate waiver based on my representation above?

Also, how likely would they be to extend the discount period if they declined the representation? (so that I can pay the discounted penalty)?

Thank you, all

LightFlare

I think Mildly_Miffed put it very well

Often what is perceived as mitigation is often viewed as aggravation 

Using your “mitigation” for say a speeding ticket could very well lead to a more severe charge of Driving without due care or Careless driving

Hoenir

Given the number of frivolous appeals that they probably receive. Unless there's an immediate justifible reason why the relevant charge wasn't paid within the 3 day grace window. They are highly unlikely to waste their time in debating the matter further.

MattMattMattUK

MIHE18 said:

Very clever and funny reflections, Mildly_Miffed.

They were entirely accurate and fair, both in terms of the scale of the signs and telling an official body you drove whilst unable to process road signs. Telling them that you lacked the observational skills to correctly read road signs, regardless of the reason, would be a very bad idea, it could well be deemed admitting to driving without due care and attention.

MIHE18 said:

Does anyone have an informed opinion on how likely they would grant the discretionary compassionate waiver based on my representation above?

My guess would be that the odds are very low. They do have the following paragraph on the site. You do not qualify for any of the six grounds.

If none of the six grounds are applicable, you can still make a representation to us. If you explain your circumstances, we will consider any mitigating circumstances and use our discretion in reaching a decision.

They also state the following, amongst other irrelevant things.

We will not accept the following explanations:

• Forgetting to pay the charge, without any mitigating circumstances for doing so

Now that indicates that they may accept forgetting to pay with mitigating circumstances. Again, telling them that you were unable to read huge road signs and markings would be very unwise, telling them that you forgot to pay once at the airport may be grounds, provided you are prepared to lie in a sworn legal statement (equivalent of being under oath, so could be treated as perjury), though again, that would be very unwise.

MIHE18 said:

Also, how likely would they be to extend the discount period if they declined the representation? (so that I can pay the discounted penalty)?

Thank you, all

From their website they will suspect the PCN enforcement process, but they make no statements about extending the 14 day discount period, equally them not specifically mentioning it could mean it gets temporarily suspended as well.

Once we receive your representation, the PCN will be frozen until we have investigated it and written back to you.

https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/ultra-low-emission-zone/challenge-a-penalty-charge-notice

If it were me I would just pay and move on with life. You made a mistake, we all do those sometimes and sometimes they cost us a bit of money, but can also be a learning experience, make this one.

Mr_Jay

The photo shown mentions nothing about a charge or a payment. The Dartford crossing certainly does.  M4 spur road signage is not fit for purpose IMHO.  

Goudy

It wasn't long ago that I was reading that only 7% of ULEZ appeals were successful in the first 6 months of the original ULEZ with the smaller city centre boundary.

I also read the success rate over the years have fallen lower year on year after that.
It appears they were being generous (at 7%) in the first few months while most cash cows drivers got used to it.

As mentioned above, mitigation for carelessness isn't a reason and as TFL are a local government organisation, you would be hard pressed to get any compassion out of their computers either. 

I know it's not what you want to hear, but you wouldn't get out of a parking fine by saying you didn't see the signs and no one is getting out of those A20 speeding fines, even though one of the speed limit signs was wrong!

TooManyPoints

Any driver living in south-east England who does not  know about the ULEZ extension or who does not know that a fee is payable has been living in a bit of a bubble for the past seven or eight months, IMHO.

The photo shown mentions nothing about a charge or a payment. The Dartford crossing certainly does.  M4 spur road signage is not fit for purpose IMHO.  

No LEZ or ULEZ signs (nor those indicating the Central London Congestion Charge) mention any payments at all. This was challenged by Noel Wilcox, of Wilcox Scaffolding Co in August 2023 and the adjudicator found in Mr Wilcox's favour, ruling the signs unlawful:

Ulez expansion chaos as scaffolder wins £11,500 ruling over ‘unlawful’ signage (gbnews.com)

However, this was based on the fact that TfL did not submit evidence demonstrating the signs' legality (which they say was established in 2008). I haven't heard much about Mr Wilcox or anybody else making this claim so I assume the decision was reversed on appeal.

MIHE18

Hi Hoenir, Mr_Jay,

Thank you for your comments.

Unlike others, I find yours very respectful, fair and relevant!

Hoenir said:

Given the number of frivolous appeals that they probably receive. Unless there's an immediate justifible reason why the relevant charge wasn't paid within the 3 day grace window. They are highly unlikely to waste their time in debating the matter further.

I think you are right, they may not have the resources to read the appeals and probably reject the ones that appeal to their discretion right away. It's their discretion to save some of their time

Unless someone with actual experience or relevant knowledge can tell whether they read and pay attention, it is probably safe to assume that they do not bother to read any representation that appeals to their discretion.

It's a shame, because I think any fair and reasonable person would accept it if they read it.

I remember getting another unfair private parking fine years ago. I also appealed and can confirm that they did not read a single word of it. They replied immediately with a general refusal that wasn't relevant to the point I was making in my appeal.

Mr_Jay said:

The photo shown mentions nothing about a charge or a payment. The Dartford crossing certainly does.  M4 spur road signage is not fit for purpose IMHO.  

That's a very good and relevant point. If I had read something explicit about paying a fee online, I would have understood it and paid it.

You reminded me of the first time I drove in the UK many years ago. I had to use the Dartford crossing. I'd never seen those signs, but they specifically mentioned that I had to pay (as you said) and I understood that very clearly, although my first priority was to drive properly on the left!

Unfortunately TFL have decided not to mention the charge in their ULEZ, probably on purpose so they can fine more people.

Obviously for some, these people (or victims) live in bubbles, are unfit to drive, blind or something worse

Kind regards

MattMattMattUK

MIHE18 said:

Unlike others, I find yours very respectful, fair and relevant!

Just because you do not like an answer, does not mean it is wrong.