Congestion Penalty arrived 6 weeks late

[Cicciona]

Hi, I wonder if anyone can give me any advice on this?

 

I've been issued (correctly) a penalty notice for driving in a congestion zone in December 2008; i thought it was free on the day I incurred the notice, hence why I didn't go home and pay immediately.

 

I've only JUST received their letter, which is dated the first week of January 2009; since I haven't paid (because I didn't know) with in the first 14 days of the notice, the fine has jumped from £60 to £120; and because i've missed even the deadline for that (because I didn't know that i had incurred a fine) it could be bumped up to £180/court summons at any time. TfL say they're not responsible for delivery, only for issuing the notice...which only just arrived, six weeks late. How do I prove I didn't receive it until now? I'm happy (as much as one can be) to pay the initial £60 because I was obviously in the zone during a charging period. But the extra charges incurred are totally unfair since I didn't even know about the fine so how could i have paid it! Has anyone got any experience of this sort of thing? I'd be very grateful for your advice.

[flyingdoc]

what date is the post mark on the envelope?

[Cicciona]

No postmark as it's in a busines pre-paid and pre-printed envelope...

[flyingdoc]

This would make a legal argument interesting.

 

The postal rule says quite clearly that when a fine(or any document for that matter) is posted, it is deemed to have reached the addressee (with a reasonable amount of time for postage.)

 

However the period of time that elapsed between them posting it and you receiving it is ridiculously long.

 

As they (perhaps deliberately) use a method of postage that is not postmarked (and therefore not dated) there is no proof of when the document was posted, only the date on the letter itself, which could be easily altered to whatever the sender wishes it to be.

 

I dont know how this defence would go down in court, but I would personally write to TFL, explaining when you received the document and offering, within 14 days of receipt, to pay the original penalty (I might even be tempted to enclose a cheque to prove willingness)

 

Send it registered post.

 

My personal position then would be to see if they would waive the additional fees and penalties, and if not, I would probably be prepared to argue in court that they cannot really prove when they posted the document, as just because the letter was generated on a certain day doesnt mean it was posted on the same day.

 

just my opinion

[green_and_mean]

The 28 day deadline date for CC PCN payment is from date of notice not date of service.

[flyingdoc]

sorry green - got my stupid head on tonight what is difference.

[green_and_mean]

Date of notice is when its sent, date of service when its received.

[flyingdoc]

ok - that seems even more unfair to me then, whats to stop them printing out notices and then keeping them in a tray for 14 days, (or longer) to ensure you have to pay the higher tariff.

 

As there is no postmark date there is no way to show what date they were posted on...

[adamna]

This is an important issue for all CCTV generated fines (and I will call them fines). They rely completely on service, using a mail process that is 'legally' assumed guaranteed to be 2 days from posting, but we all know that this can vary wildly.

 

However, I believe you have an opportunity to state that service was NOT made as assumed, in the manner that you propose.

 

Technically, the date of notice is relevant, but if the date of notice is wholly dependant on your receipt of it, then date of service must surely be taken into account.

Edited February 16, 2009 by adamna
sp

[lamma]

they are supposed to have systems in place to make sure that post is dealt with correctly. from much evidence of late notices they patently don't.

[flyingdoc]

I think the post office should date stamp all mail that goes through to provide evidence of sending, and if they do not do so then all agencies issuing time sensitive documents such as fines NIP's and the like should be made to use a method of postage that IS date stamped in the post.

[green_and_mean]

ok - that seems even more unfair to me then, whats to stop them printing out notices and then keeping them in a tray for 14 days, (or longer) to ensure you have to pay the higher tariff.

 

.

 

It would have to be a big tray in a 14 day period Tfl issues approx 58,000 PCNs.

[flyingdoc]

lol true.

 

It still doesnt resolve the issue thought - for instance.

 

Lets say an office Jr starts at TFL and his job is to print out the letters.

 

He gets min wage and 0 training, and he inadvertantly drops a letter down the back of a desk.

 

Couple of weeks later (or more) he is fishing around behind the desk for another letter/pen/zit cream tube he has dropped and comes across the letter.

 

does he

 

a) go to his boss and say - oops look what I did, and risk getting shouted at, reamed, or fired

b) simply stick it in an envelope and send it and cost the poor sod who gets it late a lot more money.

 

because there is no post mark there is NO way to know when it was sent and so the date of printing is relied upon.

[green_and_mean]

I love the though of some poor work experience bod licking the stamps of 1.5 million PCNs, lol. I think most of the process is automated like bank statements and utility bills and unfortunatly they NEVER get lost down the back of a desk.

[Vermillion]

If they don't use the post office, but an alternative, the post office can't date stamp.

[adamna]

They can use the alternative Royal Mail service of recorded delivery. After all, they're not short of cash with those 1.5 million fines. In fact, it sounds like they could even start their own postal business.

[green_and_mean]

They can use the alternative Royal Mail service of recorded delivery. After all, they're not short of cash with those 1.5 million fines. In fact, it sounds like they could even start their own postal business.

 

Recorded delivery would show it was delivered a few days ago which neither party is disputing and since its date of notice that is required a date of service would be a waste of 70p. It doesn't even prove it was served just that 'someone' signed for it, it could be the wrong address, a neighbour or even the postie who signs it. The postal service used has nothing to do with this what you are questioning is can Tfl be trusted to send out PCNs as and when they are printed with the date. Since the system is automated and taking into account the bulk of the mail it would seem logical that the PCNs would be printed, sent to despatch and then collected bu Royal Mail on a daily basis. To delay the mail in order to avoid payment during the discount period would require fraud on a massive scale with thousands of PCNs being hidden away or the date on the computer system being changed with the complicity of all the staff which surely even the to most paranoid here would seem unlikely.

[flyingdoc]

Paranoid?

 

I think not.

 

All these organisations have, time and again proved that they will steal money from us given any opportunity to do so.

 

Having said that I do agree that given the circumstances you describe that it is not likely that wholesale delay of these letters is going on.

 

My argument is not that it IS in this case happening, but there is the potential, in cases where mail is delivered un postmarked, for people to abuse the situation. (it is not only TFL that uses this method, and not all work on the same scale or have the same processes.

 

when the only proof of date is the one placed on the letter by the issuing company/authority, then you have no way of challenging it, and they can put any date they want, to their own advantage, should they be of a mind to do so.

[Surfer01]

I was under the impression that over the Xmas period until the 4th of Janaury there was no congestion charge imposed however if it was after that date, the issue will be the late posting.

[adamna]

Not quite, 25th December to 1st January were non-paying days, Friday 2nd January was normal, then 3/4 January was a weekend, so also non-paying.

Christmas 2008 congestion charge changes - MayorWatch®

What date did the OP go in?

[adamna]

Here is the the detail of the 1.5 MILLION that bothered to complain about deliveries.

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/5877/response/16575/attach/2/06-07%20Annex%20A.pdf

and you can check out your own post code area performance here:

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/5877/response/16575/attach/3/06-07%20Annex%20B.pdf

Again, only detailed by those that complain, my area is dreadful, but I didn't need the figures to tell me that.

[green_and_mean]

Late representations (those received after 28 days) will be considered if a valid reason for lateness is provided. By way of an example, a valid reason might be if you explained that you were on holiday at the time the PCN was served. If we receive evidence, such as your boarding pass, we will extend the time in which you can make a representation and also look to see if you are still eligible to pay the penalty at the discounted rate.

 

 

[adamna]

How can you provide evidence that the post didn't arrive as it might be expected to???????

Again it's left up to goodwill, and I for one know they don't have much of that to spare.

It is wrong that the onus in on the recipient to prove these things.

[snipoman]

The postal rule says quite clearly that when a fine(or any document for that matter) is posted, it is deemed to have reached the addressee (with a reasonable amount of time for postage.)

 

The postal rule says quite clearly that when acceptance of an offer is posted, it is deemed to have reached the addressee. Other documents (for example, revocation of an offer) do not take effect until the letter is delivered (although there are exceptions).

 

Note that the postal rule only applies when you're dealing with Royal Mail. Can't remember off the top of my head what occurs with couriers...

[lamma]

What 'postal rule' do you have in mind. Would you quote it for us please ?