Congestion Charge

Gonzalez said:

I am digging my heels in. Perhaps I'm mad, but I have asked them to explain why I should suffer
financially for an event for which I have no responsibility.

I look forward to their reply.

So do I, do let us know how you get on eh?

🙂
--

"Bob"

'The people have spoken, the [censored]'

Email address is spam trapped.
To reply directly remove the beverage.

Call me Bob said:

Gonzalez said:

I am digging my heels in. Perhaps I'm mad, but I have asked them to explain why I should suffer
financially for an event for which I have no responsibility.

I look forward to their reply.

So do I, do let us know how you get on eh?

Here's our email correspondence to date:

I have taken measures to protect my identity.

==========

Dear TfL,

Today I received a PCN for a car I no longer own. You ask for a written representation but do not
provide the means to return the form, so here is my representation:

I sold the vehicle on 12th February 2004 and filled in the log book and posted it to DVLA, as
required by law, on 14th February 2004.

I am in no way responsible for any actions the current owner of this vehicle may make and am
therefore not responsible for its entering the charging zone.

I consider this matter now closed.

Kind regards, Speedy Gonzalez

==========

Transport For London

Our ref : 684073

Mr Speedy Gonzalez 00 Cyclists' Road London

Transport for London Congestion Charging PO Box 2985 Coventry CV 7 8 ZR Phone 0845 900 1234 Minicom
020 7649 9123

www.cclondon.com

26th February 2004

Dear Mr Gonzalez,

Central London Congestion Charging - 684073 / MS

Thank you for your recent inquiry regarding your Penalty Charge Notice.

As the issue of a Penalty Charge Notice forms part of a legal process we are only able to accept
written communication in respect of them .

The Congestion Charging Scheme is non profit - making . By law, all money raised by the scheme must
be spent on London Transport services. For this reason administration costs must be kept to a
minimum and so we are not able to bear the cost of postage when customers' write to us.

If you have any questions, please contact us on 0845 900 1234 ( or Minicom number 020 7649 9123 ) or
visit our website www.cclondon.com
.

Thank you for contacting Transport for London .

Yours sincerely

Sharon Corry Customer Services Manager Email : [email hidden] MAYOR OF LONDON

============

Dear Sharon,

Thank you for your email attachment.

I am not a customer of yours, never have been, and never intend to be.

I was not the legal owner of the car which drove into the congestion zone, and if you make enquiries
with DVLA I am convinced they will confirm this fact.

I completed all forms with regard to the sale of my former car in full accordance with the law.

I do not see why I should suffer any financial loss as the result of an event over which I have
absolutely no liability. If you feel that I should suffer a financial loss, I would enjoy reading
your explanation.

Kind regards, Speedy Gonzalez

PS I would very much appreciate it if you could reply in plain text and not as an email attachment.

Following on from Gonzalez's message. . .

Quoted message said:

I sold my car on 12/2/04. The new registration documents were filled in and posted in
Glencoe 14/2/04.

Yesterday I received a Penalty Charge Notice for an infringement on
19/2/04. Transport for London are demanding that I send my representation to them at my own
expense and they refuse to reimburse me the price of a second class stamp. They refuse to
accept my representations by email.

That then would appear to be their problem.

You have drawn it to their attention that their assumptions about the owner/keeper are incorrect.

I haven't a clue what the CC procedures are but either way they can't take money off you without
going through some court at some stage if you keep telling them to p**s off. Let them go to all that
trouble if they want, but they can't say they didn't know about the situation 'cos you told them by
an email. If they don't accept it that's not because you didn't tell them. Let them check up with
DVLA if they don't believe you
- It's THEIR problem not yours.

--
PETER FOX Not the same since the bra business went bust
[email hidden]

Just kep telling them to [censored] of. You haven't done anything wrong.

John Hearns said:

Gonzalez said:

I sold my car on 12/2/04. The new registration documents were filled in and posted in Glencoe
14/2/04.

Yesterday I received a Penalty Charge Notice for an infringement on

I read something similar in one of the Sunday newspapers. The columnist sold his old car for cash,
and was pleased till the penalty charge notices came pouring in. If I recall, the person buying it
gave him a false name/address. Don't know what the legal situation is there, but it is worrying.

If he'd sent of the V5 his obligation ends.

--
The Reply & From email addresses are checked rarely. mseries.freeserve.co.ukmseries.freeserve.co.ukOpen ↗

"Peter Fox" <[email hidden]> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I haven't a clue what the CC procedures are but either way they can't take money off you without
going through some court at some stage if you keep telling them to p**s off. Let them go to all
that trouble if they want, but they can't say they didn't know about the situation 'cos you told
them by an email. If they don't accept it that's not because you didn't tell them. Let them check
up with DVLA if they don't believe you
- It's THEIR problem not yours.

If it is anything like council tax. This probably isn't true.

The system will be stacked against you, if it does go to court they will be able to deal with
hundreds of cases at one sitting, you will probably have to sit around for a long time before your
case comes up. They will be incompetent and claim to have "no knowlege" of anything relevent, they
will probably deny any knowlege of the emails, the court will then be adjorn for the facts to be
checked. You will have wasted half a day they will have wasted 5 minutes.

Send a record delivery complaint letter to the head of Transport For London. State the car is no
longer registered in your name. State that because they did not accept your earlier email regarding
the cars ownership you are charging them £50 costs for having to write the letter.

Gets everything off on the right foot.

"Gonzalez" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

I sold my car on 12/2/04. The new registration documents were filled in and posted in Glencoe
14/2/04.

Yesterday I received a Penalty Charge Notice for an infringement on
19/2/04. Transport for London are demanding that I send my representation to them at my own
expense and they refuse to reimburse me the price of a second class stamp. They refuse
to accept my representations by email.

I am digging my heels in. Perhaps I'm mad, but I have asked them to explain why I should suffer
financially for an event for which I have no responsibility.

You're mad. All I can say is, don't complain if you end up with bailiffs chasing you for a debt of
several £00's because you decided as a matter of principle not to spend the cost of a second class
stamp to ensure your representations reached them in the manner they require. It may be annoying to
be put to cost to defend your innocence, but believe me the costs could vastly escalate beyond the
price of a second class stamp.

Rich

Gonzalez said:

I sold my car on 12/2/04. The new registration documents were filled in and posted in Glencoe
14/2/04.

Yesterday I received a Penalty Charge Notice for an infringement on
19/2/04. Transport for London are demanding that I send my representation to them at my own
expense and they refuse to reimburse me the price of a second class stamp. They refuse
to accept my representations by email.

My understanding is that they are entitled to ask you to make your representations in writing
because the legal standing of e-mail is open to interpretation. For instance, there are many
contracts that can only be enforced if they bear a written signature.

It seems to me that your expectations of the efficiency of the vehicle registration system are a
trifle too high. ;-)

--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "He has Van Gogh's ear for music." - Billy Wilder
www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:15:14 +0000 someone who may be Michael
MacClancy <[email hidden]> wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

For instance, there are many contracts that can only be enforced if they bear a written signature.

Incorrect.

Words like "writing" and "written" in all laws have referred to electronic forms of writing for a
number of years now. The relevant law was passed in ISTR 1999. The title included something like the
E-commerce, or E-signatures and it came out of the DTI.

Any organisation which insists on paper communications is stupid, ignorant or bombastic. Possibly
all three.

--
David Hansen, Edinburgh | PGP email preferred-key number F566DA0E I will always explain revoked
keys, unless the UK government prevents me using the RIP Act 2000.

In article <[email hidden]>,=20
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

You're mad. All I can say is, don't complain if you end up with bailiffs chasing you for a debt of
several =A300's=20
=20

But the point being that's exactly what he does owe them =A300,and any=20 bailiff that wants to
chase =A300 is welcome to the aggravationn

"marc" <marccdimspamremovedimspamto [email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]... In article
<[email hidden]>, [email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

You're mad. All I can say is, don't complain if you end up with bailiffs chasing you for a debt
of several £00's

But the point being that's exactly what he does owe them £00,and any bailiff that wants to chase
£00 is welcome to the aggravationn

No, that isn't actually correct, and it's not that simple. If, because you haven't made
representations in time or paid up, it goes so far as a Court ordering that you owe a sum of money,
then you do owe that sum of money. Although it is (IMO) against human rights and the principles of
natural justice, it is quite possible for people who have never even owned a motor vehicle to become
legally liable for penalty charges incurred by the vehicle user if they do not make representations
against the imposition of a penalty in time. The further things go without proper formal legal
representations being made, the harder and the more aggravation it is to get out of the penalty
charge, and the vastly more expensive it becomes if you can't get out of it. It will not be
aggravation for the bailiffs - they thrive on it, and make their money out of giving it. The
aggravation will be with the alleged debtor, especially if he finds he's got himself in such a mess
for the sake of a 2nd class stamp, that he needs legal help to get out of it. Bailiffs are not
pleasant people to have to deal with, and the Northampton County Court, which deals with penalty
charge enforcement by the bucket load, is not the most generous or tolerant of late applications for
set aside of its orders.

If Mr. Gonzalez wants to make his representations by email, he would be best advised to make sure
that they have been accepted in that form before the time limit expires. If not then he should
spend the money on the stamp to get it in time. If he won't do that, he should make sure he has a
deep enough wallet to pay for the defence of his principled stand that he should only have to
submit them by email.

Rich

David Hansen said:

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 15:15:14 +0000 someone who may be Michael MacClancy <[email hidden]>
wrote this:-

Quoted message said:

For instance, there are many contracts that can only be enforced if they bear a written signature.

Incorrect.

Words like "writing" and "written" in all laws have referred to electronic forms of writing for a
number of years now. The relevant law was passed in ISTR 1999. The title included something like
the E-commerce, or E-signatures and it came out of the DTI.

My learned friend may be correct but the situation wasn't as clear in 2000 as he suggests.

See news.bbc.co.uk863144.stmOpen ↗

I wonder if the necessary changes have been effected?
--
Michael MacClancy Random putdown - "He is not only dull himself, he is the cause of dullness in
others." -Samuel Johnson www.macclancy.demon.co.uk www.macclancy.co.uk

marc said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

You're mad. All I can say is, don't complain if you end up with bailiffs chasing you for a debt
of several £00's

But the point being that's exactly what he does owe them £00,and any bailiff that wants to chase
£00 is welcome to the aggravationn

It *can* become quite amusing. For four years now I have been having a 'tussle' with Cable &
Wireless over a Bill I owe them of £0.00. They even wrote to me once as a kind gesture to let me off
paying it. But still to this day I receive a quarterly demand for £0.00 :-)

John B

In article <[email hidden]>,

Richard Goodman said:

You're mad. All I can say is, don't complain if you end up with bailiffs chasing you for a debt of
several £00's because you decided as a matter of principle not to spend the cost of a second class
stamp to ensure your

How far does that argument go? I have an analagous situation with the TV licensing people, who keep
on and on asking why I don't have a license. The first time they asked after I'd moved here, I did
reply, but I'm d***ed if I'm going to keep on doing so every few months.

--
Nick Kew

"Nick Kew" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Richard Goodman"

Quoted message said:

You're mad. All I can say is, don't complain if you end up with

bailiffs

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

chasing you for a debt of several £00's because you decided as a matter

of

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

principle not to spend the cost of a second class stamp to ensure your

How far does that argument go? I have an analagous situation with the TV licensing people, who
keep on and on asking why I don't have a license. The first time they asked after I'd moved here,
I did reply, but I'm d***ed if I'm going to keep on doing so every few months.

It's not really the same. Although TV licensing are a nuisance, they can't prosecute you if you
really don't have a set. On the other hand you can become liable for certain fines and penalties
merely by being the registered keeper of a vehicle. If you were not the true keeper/owner at the
relevant time then you'd better make your representations about it in time if you want to avoid
having to pay the penalty (plus the additional penalties and costs of late payment).

Rich

On Fri, 27 Feb 2004 16:56:08 +0000, [email hidden] (Nick Kew)

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Richard Goodman"

Quoted message said:

You're mad. All I can say is, don't complain if you end up with bailiffs chasing you for a debt
of several £00's because you decided as a matter of principle not to spend the cost of a second
class stamp to ensure your

How far does that argument go? I have an analagous situation with the TV licensing people, who keep
on and on asking why I don't have a license. The first time they asked after I'd moved here, I did
reply, but I'm d***ed if I'm going to keep on doing so every few months.

I had that problem. Initially I phoned and wrote and assumed that by doing so I'd get myself off
their blacklist. Of course, it didn't work like that and I just chucked the increasingly threatening
letters in the bin.

I just braced myself for a visit from the detector van (do they still use them) and prepared for a
debate on whether a monitor was a TV receiver or not. I've not been visited and I've been here 10
years now. It could be because my house is a bit off the beaten track.

Nick Kew said:

In article <[email hidden]>, "Richard Goodman"

Quoted message said:

You're mad. All I can say is, don't complain if you end up with bailiffs chasing you for a debt
of several £00's because you decided as a matter of principle not to spend the cost of a second
class stamp to ensure your

How far does that argument go? I have an analagous situation with the TV licensing people, who
keep on and on asking why I don't have a license. The first time they asked after I'd moved here,
I did reply, but I'm d***ed if I'm going to keep on doing so every few months.

i'm going through the same. I'm now on my 7th letter from them since last March, all with varying
degrees of threat. What is stupid is that they say that they are going to visit anyway, whether I
respond or not. Last month's letter was particularly threatening saying they had "caught 288 evaders
in my area in the last three months alone" and that "there is a very real chance you could be taken
to court and fined up to £1000". Well, as there are only around 1500 houses, that's one 'ell of a
big proportion of my neighbours who've been done. I suspect a fib ;-)

I have been waiting for their 'Enforcement Team' to arrive with gleeful anticipation as I hope to be
playing a DVD film at the time, and to be able to say, "Hang on a sec.... <call into sitting room>
Children, can you turn that down please", then ask him what he wants ;-)

John B

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Nick Kew
In article <[email hidden]>,

Richard Goodman said:

You're mad. All I can say is, don't complain if you end up with bailiffs chasing you for a debt of
several £00's because you decided as a matter of principle not to spend the cost of a second class
stamp to ensure your

How far does that argument go? I have an analagous situation with the TV licensing people, who keep
on and on asking why I don't have a license. The first time they asked after I'd moved here, I did
reply, but I'm d***ed if I'm going to keep on doing so every few months.

--
Nick Kew

We have something similar in our student house. because we live under the one tenancy we only need the one license. We have one license between us in the name of one of the other 3 lads. The other 3 of us (whose names are on the document) keep getting grief from the TV licensing people. We have contacted them several times to tell them that it is a joint tenancy and we can prove it, but that we are not prepared to go out of our way to do so. Basically, should they send an inspector round, we will show him the license, show him the tenancy with all four signatures on it and tell him to f**k off.

Quoted post said:

Originally posted by Richard Goodman


It's not really the same. Although TV licensing are a nuisance, they can't prosecute you if you
really don't have a set. On the other hand you can become liable for certain fines and penalties
merely by being the registered keeper of a vehicle. If you were not the true keeper/owner at the
relevant time then you'd better make your representations about it in time if you want to avoid
having to pay the penalty (plus the additional penalties and costs of late payment).

Rich

So you are saying that theorectically I could be sent fines for driving offences despite the fact I don't own a car and am not even the holder of a driving lciense, and have never driven a car in my life and only been inside one a handful of times. Of course if I told them that they would then sue me for driving without a license, insurance etc etc!!!!! ;-)