TFL congestion charge PCN received 17 days after offence, grounds to appeal?

[GmartSuy]

Received a £160 pcn for driving through central London on a sunday without paying.

Date of the offence is 11/09/22, issue date 18/09/22, received PCN 28/09/22. This is a total of 17 days after the offence was committed, leaving me with less than a week to pay the "discounted" amount of £80. Do i have grounds to appeal since the notice landed on my doorstep 17 days after the offence?

[des8]

Under the Interpretation Act 1978 s.7, unless the contrary is proved, service is deemed to have been effected at the time when the PCN would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

[GmartSuy]

Under the Interpretation Act 1978 s.7, unless the contrary is proved, service is deemed to have been effected at the time when the PCN would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.

Thank you for your answers, apologies for my ignorance with interpretation. Does this mean that an appeal would be worthless? I don't know how i'd prove service was effected just that it landed on my doorstep after the 14 day mark.

[des8]

My advice, based on the info you have given, is to pay the reduced amount if you cannot prove late delivery.

[GmartSuy]

My advice, based on the info you have given, is to pay the reduced amount if you cannot prove late delivery.

Just out of interest, how would this be proven in normal circumstances? I've only seen the david beckham case which seems like they did a full on investigation at the court case.

[des8]

Don't really know, but I suppose an argument could be had if the post office delivered to the wrong address and the envelope was so marked

[Manxman]

Just out of interest, how would this be proven in normal circumstances? I've only seen the david beckham case which seems like they did a full on investigation at the court case.

There is another forum in the UK that specialises in advising on motoring cases. As I understand it, one of their members was convicted of an offence where a Notice of Intended Prosecution had to have been served on him within 14 days of the offence. He appealed against his conviction to the High Court, but lost. He then appealed to the Court of Appeal and won.

He won because his postman had given evidence to the original court that the NIP had been delivered to the defendant after the expiry of 14 days.

(Exactly how the postman knew what he delivered and when, I don't know. But that case and the Beckham case shows it can be done if the stars come into correct alignment... )

[atticus]

Mr Beckham may well have deeper pockets than the OP.

[GmartSuy]

There is another forum in the UK that specialises in advising on motoring cases. As I understand it, one of their members was convicted of an offence where a Notice of Intended Prosecution had to have been served on him within 14 days of the offence. He appealed against his conviction to the High Court, but lost. He then appealed to the Court of Appeal and won.

He won because his postman had given evidence to the original court that the NIP had been delivered to the defendant after the expiry of 14 days.

(Exactly how the postman knew what he delivered and when, I don't know. But that case and the Beckham case shows it can be done if the stars come into correct alignment... )

Thanks, i've posted it on the other popular forum too but haven't been given a straight answer on whether the 14 day thing applies to the congestion charge as well must not be a very common thing compared to speeding and parking.

I'm sure that postman was happy to appear in court for Beckham just for the novelty not sure how it'll fly with joe bloggs though lol.

[HandyAndy]

Just out of interest, how would this be proven in normal circumstances? I've only seen the david beckham case which seems like they did a full on investigation at the court case.

You should note that the Beckham case and the one referred to by Manxman involved criminal prosecutions (both for speeding) and the defence can only be tested in court. The congestion charge is not a criminal matter.

The David Beckham case was not straightforward. Mr Beckham was not the Registered Keeper. Messrs. Bentley Motors were. The Notice of Intended Prosecution was sent to them in time so as to arrive within 14 days in the normal course of events but it didn't arrive until day 16. Bentley Motors had a system of recording incoming post and the court accepted this as proof that the notice did not arrive in time.

The case that Manxman refers to is that of "Peter Gidden vs Chief Constable of Humberside". This is even less straightforward. Mr Gidden was convicted of speeding in the Magistrates’ Court. He appealed to the Crown Court on the basis that no NIP was served within the required 14 days (it actually arrived on day 16, the delay being due to a postal strike). The prosecution accepted that service was late. Nonetheless the Crown Court rejected his appeal. The reasons for this are convoluted and revolve around whether the “presumption of service” is rebuttable or not and are really not relevant to your case. Mr Gidden then applied to the High Court by way of a “case stated” and that court found in his favour. The transcript of the Gidden case is here if you want the full details:

https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC...2009/2924.html

To address your question, proving a negative (e.g. that a notice did not arrive in time) is notoriously difficult. As well as that, courts are naturally sceptical when defendants claim such a thing (if it was easy to convince a court, everybody would simply turn up and say “didn’t receive it in time, guv"). So the usual advice is, assuming you are otherwise guilty and defending the matter on late service and failing would involve considerable additional expense, unless you have concrete evidence that proves late service, then swallow it and pay the reduced amount.