Congestion Charge Appeal Nonsense
Discussion
Here is the Adjudicators response to my partners appeal which is self explanatory but highlights the supidity of the system:
Adjudicators Reasons
I have carefully read the evidence submitted in this case by the Authority and the representations produced by the Appellant and I am satisfied that on 8th June 2004 at 14:01 hours Merceded vehicle VRM S*** *** entered the Designated Charging Area. I am also satisfied that Miss ****** ***** was recorded as the Registered Keeper of that vehicle at DVLA Swansea and was therefore liable to pay the charge for that vehicle.
The Appellants case is that she paid the charge properly and she has provided a receipt for that payment. However her VRM is not correctly recorded on the receipt because her assistant mixed up the correct number with her own number.
The Congestion Charging Regulations afford no discretion in this situation. The registration recorded on the receipt must be for the vehicle used within the zone during the specified hours..Article 6(5) (a) of the Congestion Charging Scheme states "a license may be purchased only for a single vehiclehaving a specified registration mark. I accept this was a genuine error and whilst sympathising with the Appellant I have no power to allow an appeal unless the case comes within one of the exceptions in the regulations. There is no provision for special cases of this kind and only the Authority can decide not to contest because of mitigating circumstances. They have decided to proceed in this case and I am therefore bound to refuse this appeal.
Adjudicators Reasons
I have carefully read the evidence submitted in this case by the Authority and the representations produced by the Appellant and I am satisfied that on 8th June 2004 at 14:01 hours Merceded vehicle VRM S*** *** entered the Designated Charging Area. I am also satisfied that Miss ****** ***** was recorded as the Registered Keeper of that vehicle at DVLA Swansea and was therefore liable to pay the charge for that vehicle.
The Appellants case is that she paid the charge properly and she has provided a receipt for that payment. However her VRM is not correctly recorded on the receipt because her assistant mixed up the correct number with her own number.
The Congestion Charging Regulations afford no discretion in this situation. The registration recorded on the receipt must be for the vehicle used within the zone during the specified hours..Article 6(5) (a) of the Congestion Charging Scheme states "a license may be purchased only for a single vehiclehaving a specified registration mark. I accept this was a genuine error and whilst sympathising with the Appellant I have no power to allow an appeal unless the case comes within one of the exceptions in the regulations. There is no provision for special cases of this kind and only the Authority can decide not to contest because of mitigating circumstances. They have decided to proceed in this case and I am therefore bound to refuse this appeal.
- Streaky Did you watch the dispatches concerning the CC charge?
There was someone who had never owned the vehicle that they were being sent fines for. Because the person in question did not follow the correct CC appeal procedure the CC robots were saying that they could not call off the bailiffs.
There was someone who had never owned the vehicle that they were being sent fines for. Because the person in question did not follow the correct CC appeal procedure the CC robots were saying that they could not call off the bailiffs.
And another situation where the person had already satisfactorily proved a cloning situation to the shambles of an organisation in Coventry that run this system they still had to appeal all subsequent tickets individually.
Then iirc , because the subsequent appeals referred to the earlier correspondence and did not include the full evidence of the cloning, which btw had also been agreed by DVLA police etc, the Kengestion mob refused the subsequent appeals.
You just couldn't make it up.
Then iirc , because the subsequent appeals referred to the earlier correspondence and did not include the full evidence of the cloning, which btw had also been agreed by DVLA police etc, the Kengestion mob refused the subsequent appeals.
You just couldn't make it up.
PLS said:
If you agree with the adjudicator do you agree that we should be able to at least get our original payment refunded?
That is where they will drop the double six. If you pay your £5 to use the zone and don't subsequently enter due to change in plans then you can have a refund. Problem is the admin charge for that is.....
..... £5.
edited to say, sorry I spoke with forked tongue above.
System changed now DOH!
You can only claim if you have paid monthly annually, no refunds if you paid daily or weekly charge.
Any refunds are no of days multipled by daily charge less £10 for admin.
Sorry about that.
>> Edited by Flat in Fifth on Wednesday 27th April 12:54
Flat in Fifth said:
If you agree with the adjudicator do you agree that we should be able to at least get our original payment refunded?
That is where they will drop the double six. If you pay your £5 to use the zone and don't subsequently enter due to change in plans then you can have a refund. Problem is the admin charge for that is.....
..... £5.
It's £10 for a refund!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
BliarOut said:
PLS said:
If you agree with the adjudicator do you agree that we should be able to at least get our original payment refunded?
That is where they will drop the double six. If you pay your £5 to use the zone and don't subsequently enter due to change in plans then you can have a refund. Problem is the admin charge for that is.....
..... £5.
Yes sorry amended my post above, things crossed in cyberspace. Smacked wrist duly administered.
Flat in Fifth said:
Flat in Fifth said:
PLS said:
If you agree with the adjudicator do you agree that we should be able to at least get our original payment refunded?
That is where they will drop the double six. If you pay your £5 to use the zone and don't subsequently enter due to change in plans then you can have a refund. Problem is the admin charge for that is.....
..... £5.
Yes sorry amended my post above, things crossed in cyberspace. Smacked wrist duly administered.
Careful, Vixpy1's keyword monitor will pick that up
BliarOut said:So, a Double Five then! - Streaky
If you agree with the adjudicator do you agree that we should be able to at least get our original payment refunded?
..... £5.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff