Sheffield Congestion Charge From Feb 27th 2023

[The_DADDY]

23 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

It’s probably gone to bailiffs if a payment plan is involved.

 

Costs escalate very quickly once bailiffs are involved.

 

Never ignore legally enforceable penalties.

Maybe SCC should refrain from using them for now? The caz has been with us only 6 months yet people are clearly getting shafted. Bailiffs are the scum of the earth. Had them once for a debt for a previous tenant.  Absoloute animals terrorized my kids once trying to stop them getting into My car on MY drive.

If scc mean it when they say the caz is about clean air then surely education is better than fines for the 1st 12 months. 

17 minutes ago, mike1961 said:

 

Not gone to bailiffs 

WHAT??!!

So that's the scc ramping up the price and not bailiffs? 

I don't swear, usually but this is the closest I've come in a long while.. Absolutely disgusting and yes, Extortion!!

Edited September 9, 2023 by The_DADDY

[mike1961]

No there are no bailiffs involved at the moment,I think he's had 3 separate fines which added together now total £980.00.

 

With two of the fines it took way over 28 days for SCC to write to him.

 

As I have previously said SCC may you rot in hell.

 

I always thought and believed that the Labour party stood for the working man.

 

Evidently not anymore,the only thing they care about is themselves so sod everyone else.

[Planner1]

10 minutes ago, mike1961 said:

He's tried going to tribunal but they are not interested in listening so the fines have escalated.

The way that SCC escalate these fines is totally wrong and I would consider is extortion.

Not gone to bailiffs 

The traffic penalty tribunal is completely independent. They will have listened to the facts and decided. As you would expect.

 

If you lose at tribunal, you just pay the full amount of the penalty. You know this before you go to tribunal.

 

The process that is followed is set by law, it isn’t the councils fault the fines escalate. The government have set it up that way. It’s the same for any civil penalty like a parking ticket or bus lane penalty.

 

How many penalties did he get?

 

 

[mike1961]

2 minutes ago, Planner1 said:

The traffic penalty tribunal is completely independent. They will have listened to the facts and decided. As you would expect.

 

If you lose at tribunal, you just pay the full amount of the penalty. You know this before you go to tribunal.

 

The process that is followed is set by law, it isn’t the councils fault the fines escalate. The government have set it up that way. It’s the same for any civil penalty like a parking ticket or bus lane penalty.

 

How many penalties did he get?

 

 

During the tribunal the person he was speaking with kept reverting back to someone at SCC so the council were involved with the tribunal.

 

IT IS THE COUNCIL'S FAULT

 

They run this ridiculous scheme and please don't hide behind central government.

 

SCC could have said no before it started like Leeds or Manchester but they chose not too.

[The_DADDY]

3 minutes ago, mike1961 said:

During the tribunal the person he was speaking with kept reverting back to someone at SCC so the council were involved with the tribunal.

 

IT IS THE COUNCIL'S FAULT

 

They run this ridiculous scheme and please don't hide behind central government.

 

SCC could have said no before it started like Leeds or Manchester but they chose not too.

And let's not forget,  SCC will definitely charge all private cars at some point.

I reckon it'll be around the same time they extend the zone to other areas. ..

[HeHasRisen]

53 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

And let's not forget,  SCC will definitely charge all private cars at some point.

I reckon it'll be around the same time they extend the zone to other areas. ..

Post bookmarked. 

[The_DADDY]

4 minutes ago, HeHasRisen said:

Post bookmarked. 

Save it to the "New World Order" folder.

I'm sure you'll have one 😉 

[Planner1]

38 minutes ago, mike1961 said:

During the tribunal the person he was speaking with kept reverting back to someone at SCC so the council were involved with the tribunal.

 

IT IS THE COUNCIL'S FAULT

 

They run this ridiculous scheme and please don't hide behind central government.

 

SCC could have said no before it started like Leeds or Manchester but they chose not too.

Of course the council were there at the tribunal hearing.

 

It’s a little bit like being in court. Both the appellant and the council are there to put their points and answer the adjudicators questions.

 

The adjudicator is completely independent. ( they are barristers).
 

If they could have found a reason to cancel the penalties they would have. My experience is that they tend to err on the side of the motorist if they can.

 

I’m struggling to understand how the fees have increased to over £300 for each penalty.

 

According to this guide on TPT’s website:

 

The penalty is £120 plus you owe the CAZ fee. ( 50% discount on the penalty if you pay within the timescale)

 

If you get to tribunal, you pay the full £120 if you lose.

 

If you the don’t pay then, a charge notice is made and the penalty increases by 50% to £180. ( plus the CAZ fee.)

 

Theres a further £8 added if an order for recovery is made.

 

Then it goes to bailiffs.

 

So how are they over £300 each? I’d be interested to know.

 

Your son could have avoided going into the well signed CAZ. He could have paid the fines when they were £60 each. He didn’t. The fault is his. He decided to appeal, with the knowledge he’d pay the full fine if he lost. His decision. Had his day at the tribunal, wasn’t successful. Pay up and learn the lesson.

 

You don’t agree with the CAZ, which is fair enough, but it is there and it’s legally enforceable and the council will enforce the penalties just like they do for any civil enforcement penalty.

 

It is not advisable to ignore legally enforceable penalties. Pay or appeal and if you lose the appeal, pay. That’s the mantra you need to follow. If you don’t, it gets nasty and expensive.

 

The system isn’t very forgiving and it will feel harsh, but my advice would be to pay up, put it down to experience and move on.

 

[HeHasRisen]

8 minutes ago, The_DADDY said:

Save it to the "New World Order" folder.

I'm sure you'll have one 😉 

Ha. 

 

I have no sympathy here. Have seen everyone on that Facebook page egging everyone else on to ignore everything that they get sent, or to leave it and go to tribunal. Play silly games, win silly prizes. 

[Planner1]

1 hour ago, The_DADDY said:

Maybe SCC should refrain from using them for now? The caz has been with us only 6 months yet people are clearly getting shafted. Bailiffs are the scum of the earth. Had them once for a debt for a previous tenant.  Absoloute animals terrorized my kids once trying to stop them getting into My car on MY drive.

If scc mean it when they say the caz is about clean air then surely education is better than fines for the 1st 12 months. 

WHAT??!!

So that's the scc ramping up the price and not bailiffs? 

I don't swear, usually but this is the closest I've come in a long while.. Absolutely disgusting and yes, Extortion!!

The council gave out warning notices for a period before they started giving out penalties.

 

That is something they always do when bringing in a new enforceable restriction ( like a new bus lane etc)

 

They use bailiffs because they have to. It’s the only way to collect the fines if they aren’t paid.

 

Yes a visit from bailiffs is thoroughly unpleasant. Your car is usually the thing they target first.  So my advice is always pay or appeal.

 

The escalation of the fine is just the normal regulated process, same as for parking or bus lane penalties. That’s how the government has set it up.