Chasing up Speeding & Congestion Chg Prosecutions
Discussion
I currently am clueless as the the progress of two prosecutions, just need a bit of guidance.
Received an NIP August 2003 by a scamera which was hidden, on a road without any KSI record, placed after signs which are not prescribed. Didn't sign NIP and started a chain of correspondance which included getting proof from the police themselves of how safe the road is and the dodginess of the signage. Local council has even changed the signage since. Last letter was received in October 2003 saying that they were passing the case onto the CPS. Not heard anything since.
Seperately (and bear with me), received three NIPs for failure to pay for congestion charge in July 2004. This was for a four-day trip that I prepaid for via the web (they obviously didn't get a piccy of me on the fourth day!). Turns out the web was shite and after submitting my card details was directed to what I thought was confirmation but turned out to just be a list of days I wanted to pay for. Wrote them a letter complete with cheque for the original charge (£20) which they banked, although they said it was to pay off some of the fine.
Then the fun started. I asked for all three NIPs to be considered as one. My defence was that I had honestly paid for these in advance, it was only a computer error out of my hands that stopped the final transaction taking place and that I had not intention of dodging the charge. I could prove through the cookies on my PC that I'd submitted the payment form, but they could only accept a print out of the cookie record and not a disk. Then they said that 'due to a paperwork error and consequent lack of evidence' one of the NIPs was being withdrawn and here's a cheque for £5. Then I received another cheque for £5 because they 'could find where this was meant to go'. After some argie bargy, went down the appeals procedure via their 'independent solicitor' type thing, which was meant to make a decision in September 2003, then delayed to October 2003. Not heard anything since.
Question is - if I chase both these up to get a result, do I run the risk of reminding them I'm due for prosecution? Do I sit tight & shut up? Is there a chance both have been thrown in the bin?
The benefit of all of this is that I have a great knowledge now about singage & camera position regulations & guidelines!
Received an NIP August 2003 by a scamera which was hidden, on a road without any KSI record, placed after signs which are not prescribed. Didn't sign NIP and started a chain of correspondance which included getting proof from the police themselves of how safe the road is and the dodginess of the signage. Local council has even changed the signage since. Last letter was received in October 2003 saying that they were passing the case onto the CPS. Not heard anything since.
Seperately (and bear with me), received three NIPs for failure to pay for congestion charge in July 2004. This was for a four-day trip that I prepaid for via the web (they obviously didn't get a piccy of me on the fourth day!). Turns out the web was shite and after submitting my card details was directed to what I thought was confirmation but turned out to just be a list of days I wanted to pay for. Wrote them a letter complete with cheque for the original charge (£20) which they banked, although they said it was to pay off some of the fine.
Then the fun started. I asked for all three NIPs to be considered as one. My defence was that I had honestly paid for these in advance, it was only a computer error out of my hands that stopped the final transaction taking place and that I had not intention of dodging the charge. I could prove through the cookies on my PC that I'd submitted the payment form, but they could only accept a print out of the cookie record and not a disk. Then they said that 'due to a paperwork error and consequent lack of evidence' one of the NIPs was being withdrawn and here's a cheque for £5. Then I received another cheque for £5 because they 'could find where this was meant to go'. After some argie bargy, went down the appeals procedure via their 'independent solicitor' type thing, which was meant to make a decision in September 2003, then delayed to October 2003. Not heard anything since.
Question is - if I chase both these up to get a result, do I run the risk of reminding them I'm due for prosecution? Do I sit tight & shut up? Is there a chance both have been thrown in the bin?
The benefit of all of this is that I have a great knowledge now about singage & camera position regulations & guidelines!
So let me get this right.
1. You try and pay £20 for 4 days travel in kengestion zone. Computer / operator error causes payment failure.
2. You drive in kengestion zone for four days happy in the mistaken knowledge that you have paid in advance.
3. Kengestion muppets in Coventry (this is where operators based) detect you on 3 of 4 days and send you NoIPs.
4. You investigate and fess up that payment was subject to error, no intention to defraud and send cheque for the £20 pleading clemency and throwing yourself on their mercy.
5. At this point presumably investigations unit goes into gear because clemency and mercy are words expunged from their dictionary.
6. First investigation possible reveals their evidence is sufficiently flawed and will not support prosecution. So they return your £5 on the basis that they cannot prove you were in the zone and despite an admission in writing that you were within cc area you are entitled to refund.
7. Investigation 2 reveals that they have nowhere to put what where? Maybe they can't put your £5 into the bank because they have no menas of retrospective payment as everything is always prosecuted. See earlier references to missing clemency and mercy. So your second fiver is returned. Double
8. At this point someone accidentally knocks your file into the round filing cabinet and they all beggar off to the canteen for a doughnut on the basis that you are £10 up on the deal, so are they, let's call the whole thing off.
9. Govt tries to introduce congestion charging on nationwide basis.
Treble and thrice treble
Wibble
1. You try and pay £20 for 4 days travel in kengestion zone. Computer / operator error causes payment failure.
2. You drive in kengestion zone for four days happy in the mistaken knowledge that you have paid in advance.
3. Kengestion muppets in Coventry (this is where operators based) detect you on 3 of 4 days and send you NoIPs.
4. You investigate and fess up that payment was subject to error, no intention to defraud and send cheque for the £20 pleading clemency and throwing yourself on their mercy.
5. At this point presumably investigations unit goes into gear because clemency and mercy are words expunged from their dictionary.
6. First investigation possible reveals their evidence is sufficiently flawed and will not support prosecution. So they return your £5 on the basis that they cannot prove you were in the zone and despite an admission in writing that you were within cc area you are entitled to refund.
7. Investigation 2 reveals that they have nowhere to put what where? Maybe they can't put your £5 into the bank because they have no menas of retrospective payment as everything is always prosecuted. See earlier references to missing clemency and mercy. So your second fiver is returned. Double
8. At this point someone accidentally knocks your file into the round filing cabinet and they all beggar off to the canteen for a doughnut on the basis that you are £10 up on the deal, so are they, let's call the whole thing off.
9. Govt tries to introduce congestion charging on nationwide basis.
Treble and thrice treble
Wibble
Tale in the (London) Evening Standard last night: man paid the fine for entering CC zone, then TfL said 'admin error' and refunded it. Then later they said 'oops, sorry, admin error, you did owe us' and the man repaid the fine. Then TfL said because he was late in paying (presumably working off the original date) he owed an additional amount. He refused to pay and the demands ratched up. Every time, TfL acknowledged the man's complaint about the increased 'fine' as owing to an 'admin error' but still the demands arrived and the total bill climbed. Eventually the bailiffs arrived and took away the man's car (for a bill that had reached around £500). TfL refuse to discuss the matter as it is now 'out of their hands'.
Streaky
Streaky
streaky said:
Tale in the (London) Evening Standard last night: man paid the fine for entering CC zone, then TfL said 'admin error' and refunded it. Then later they said 'oops, sorry, admin error, you did owe us' and the man repaid the fine. Then TfL said because he was late in paying (presumably working off the original date) he owed an additional amount. He refused to pay and the demands ratched up. Every time, TfL acknowledged the man's complaint about the increased 'fine' as owing to an 'admin error' but still the demands arrived and the total bill climbed. Eventually the bailiffs arrived and took away the man's car (for a bill that had reached around £500). TfL refuse to discuss the matter as it is now 'out of their hands'.
Streaky
I thought the Stasi had been disbanded years ago, or have they moved to the UK?
Regarding the speed NOIP in 2003. I am 99.9 percent certain CPS have kicked this into touch and why they could not send a letter, even a brief proforma, to that effect beats me.
The Conjestion Charge fiasco, isn't it a Charge ticket they send as opposed to NOIP, non payment leads to County Court action against the Reg Keeper if not paid for Debt recovery and a visit from knuckle dragging baliffs. From your account seems also that they have thrown the towel in, having discovered they were in the wrong. And again why not be open about it?.
Could be in this instant no news is good news. Keep quiet unless you wish to disturb a possible sleeping giant.
DVD
The Conjestion Charge fiasco, isn't it a Charge ticket they send as opposed to NOIP, non payment leads to County Court action against the Reg Keeper if not paid for Debt recovery and a visit from knuckle dragging baliffs. From your account seems also that they have thrown the towel in, having discovered they were in the wrong. And again why not be open about it?.
Could be in this instant no news is good news. Keep quiet unless you wish to disturb a possible sleeping giant.
DVD
wanty1974 said:
DWD - the voice of reason as always. A letter saying 'this is cancelled' would be wonderful and polite!
Indeed, but just because you, DVD and dare I say it, myself are reasonable people doesn't mean to say congestion charging mob are equally minded.
Remember, this is the outfit that kept sending charge notices to a woman who had been victim of car cloning. She had provided documentary evidence on the first instance, all of which backed up in writing by information from police and DVLA supporting her claim. This documentary evidence was accepted by kengestion outfit.
Subsequent penalty charge notices were issued, and kengestion muppets insisted that they needed the full documentary evidence for each penalty charge notice. It was not sufficient to refer to the previous correspondence.
It got to the stage where the "knuckle dragging bailiffs" were at her door and kengestion mob still insisted on copies of documentary evidence for each and every instance.
Dwight VanDriver said:Back to this - I did think that as they have a sliding scale of fines based on how soon you pay, with the monkeys turning up at the end, I would have heard something by now if they expected payment.
The Conjestion Charge fiasco, isn't it a Charge ticket they send as opposed to NOIP, non payment leads to County Court action against the Reg Keeper if not paid for Debt recovery and a visit from knuckle dragging baliffs.
In this case..
You ain't seen me, roit?
AN UPDATE!
Letter from the Congestion Charge Mafia this morning; two out of the three original fines still stand, adjudicator judges that although we had mitigating circumstances, it is still the driver's responsibility to ensure they have the correct payment in place when travelling. £35 each if paid within 28 days.
Taking this one on the chin; don't think there's anything else reasonable I can do!
Letter from the Congestion Charge Mafia this morning; two out of the three original fines still stand, adjudicator judges that although we had mitigating circumstances, it is still the driver's responsibility to ensure they have the correct payment in place when travelling. £35 each if paid within 28 days.
Taking this one on the chin; don't think there's anything else reasonable I can do!
wanty1974 said:
Letter from the Congestion Charge Mafia this morning; two out of the three original fines still stand, adjudicator judges that although we had mitigating circumstances, it is still the driver's responsibility to ensure they have the correct payment in place when travelling.
What a monumental pile of steaming horse shite! How are you expected to check??
wanty1974 said:
Taking this one on the chin; don't think there's anything else reasonable I can do!
If they've accepted the appeal for one fine (and not taken anything for the day you admit you entered the zone) how can they not accept the appeal for the other two days? It was the same error on their part that meant you failed to pay.
Flat in Fifth said:
clemency and mercy are words expunged from their dictionary.
To which we can obviously add common, sense, competence.
I think they need to explain exactly the reason for the returned fivers.
Not sure from information provided exactly which appeal stage you are now at but ultimately this lot do have to answer to the LGO Ombudsman. www.lgo.org.uk
One who deals with cc is at:-
10th Floor
Millbank Tower
Millbank
London
SW1P 4QP
Fax: 020 7217 4621
Considering time, confusion and general muppetry involved you should take every route to make life difficult for them and keep money in your bank account as long as possible. That is as long as the charge is suspended and not mounting up per streaky's account earlier.
Perhaps, on a slightly sour note, they used the bad news of the last days and the suspension of charging to catch up and deal with unpopular messages. Rather like Jo Moore.
I note actually that the adjudication was actually as fair as it could be without letting me 'win'! The adjudicator noted that TfL had actually got some of their paperwork wrong so instead of having to pay the full £80 fine, she decided that if I paid £35 within 28 days then it should be all square.
It seems that one case was dropped only because TfL didn't duplicate the car's details for the second case and the paperwork for that one was incomplete (photocopier obviously broken).
I'm relatively happy with the score, so I have paid but may look at contacting the Ombudsman. Is it purely coincidence that the Ombudsman happens to be in the same building as the Labour party?
It seems that one case was dropped only because TfL didn't duplicate the car's details for the second case and the paperwork for that one was incomplete (photocopier obviously broken).
I'm relatively happy with the score, so I have paid but may look at contacting the Ombudsman. Is it purely coincidence that the Ombudsman happens to be in the same building as the Labour party?
So in essence what the adjudicator has said is that you must pay the full fine of £40 less the £5 that you have already paid, and that very kindly they will not ask you to pay the full whack but an amount as if you had paid in full within 28 days.
Nice and generous are they not. Accent on not.
They took two years to resolve something which they claim they will deal with in 14 days. This is unreasonable delay.
No comment about why the £5 payments were returned then?
Despite the statement that the £20 was in part payment of the fines. So their system would show that Mr wanty1974 owed 3*£40(£80) against which they offset £20 as part payment. So when they find that it's not 3*£40 but 2*£40 why return a fiver? Why not just keep the £20 against the outstanding amount? Likewise the fiver which they cannot find a place for it, though it already had a place as part payment of fines.
To my mind the return of some money and things being left for so long is an indication that they are not looking for any more money from you.
I hope you do complain to ombudsman because this is maladministration without a doubt.
You can quote me in that my view of congestion charging muppets is that Mrs Palm-Sinister and her five daughters obviously have no idea what Mrs Palm-Dexter and her five daughters are up to.
wanty1974 obviously you are too reasonable. One could hope that the ombudsman declares a penalty charge on cc muppets, somewhere around £80 should do it.
Nice and generous are they not. Accent on not.
They took two years to resolve something which they claim they will deal with in 14 days. This is unreasonable delay.
No comment about why the £5 payments were returned then?
Despite the statement that the £20 was in part payment of the fines. So their system would show that Mr wanty1974 owed 3*£40(£80) against which they offset £20 as part payment. So when they find that it's not 3*£40 but 2*£40 why return a fiver? Why not just keep the £20 against the outstanding amount? Likewise the fiver which they cannot find a place for it, though it already had a place as part payment of fines.
To my mind the return of some money and things being left for so long is an indication that they are not looking for any more money from you.
I hope you do complain to ombudsman because this is maladministration without a doubt.
You can quote me in that my view of congestion charging muppets is that Mrs Palm-Sinister and her five daughters obviously have no idea what Mrs Palm-Dexter and her five daughters are up to.
wanty1974 obviously you are too reasonable. One could hope that the ombudsman declares a penalty charge on cc muppets, somewhere around £80 should do it.
Gassing Station | Speed, Plod & the Law | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff