How to BEAT ULEZ Penalty Charges 

Err, you can, you just might be charged. The standards a vehicle must meet as part of that test also vary with age.

It's legalised highway robbery simple as that. We must all stand together and refuse to accept this shit

​@@beardyface8492Can you not see that the whole ULEZ and 'clean air' zones are a con period?

​@@beardyface8492Gov.Uk will know if you are ULEZ compliant

Totally agree , authorities cannot keep escalating levels of legality just because it suits them , if it’s ok for the mot , it’s ok for anywhere

Visited London a month or so ago (I'm a Northerner) and I found the whole system very confusing, apparently the vehicle I was driving was LEZ exempt - that surprised me as it was a 3l diesel engine car. I tried to pay any fees on the day (it was on expenses anyway - though I morally object to it and probably wouldn't have paid it personally) but the website was unable to process my attempt to pay.

@@matty_mcmattface Most cars and vans newer than 2016 will be exempt regardless of engine size. Euro 6c I believe, but I may be talking rubbish as I drive an EV now.

@@matty_mcmattface It's designed to be, ULEZ isn't supposed to be user friendly or in any way fair, it's designed as part of the war against motorists using the excuse of a climate fraud as justification, especially targeting poorer people.

@@st200ol That makes sense it was a 2017/18 car - but it makes no sense for emissions surely? I have the same car myself (but 2012 model) and 2l engine - so I'd have to pay for a smaller engine if I'd used my own car?

I got hit by this on my birthday last year, went to Wembley arena for a show, it was dark, i planned my route around it, there was an accident on a junction so i went around the accident missed my turn and went 200 yards down the road and turned around. Yep you guessed it, that 200 yard stretch was in ULEZ and i got hit by the full fine. I challenged it, got nowhere as i didnt deny being in it, they wouldnt let me just pay the fee, i had to pay the fine, no less…this is outrageous!

it's not a fine and stop appealing to the idiots who issue these notices.

the difference being - potentially - he was facing a five figure charge and ran a fleet of HGV's. I hope you succeed I really do

@@davess61 The figures are indeed different but irrespective of this, the principle still applies.

how would you deal with them@@paladin1066

The two day charge is certainly unfair for an hour and on that basis well worth appealing. If he didn't know he had entered or was forced to enter and the double charged that's insult added to injury.

Every time I have won an apeal of any PCN. I get a letter saying, in this circumstance we are willing to waive but don't you do it again you naughty boy. They never admit guilt from their side.

Angle grinders.

An aspect of such problems, and ULEZ is only the latest, can often be that the citizen's real conflict may turn out to be with the worst kind of jumped up council bureaucracy (there are better kinds, who tend to move on.) But some so drunk with petty power, they'll take a system they know is a crock, and desperately spend endless amounts of public money rather than surrender that power.

Why does this regime put ordinary innocent citizens through all this stress? For god's sake! A scandal that will fail

It’s all making work for the working persons to do. Bet they think all their Christmas’s have come at once.

There almost no depths Khans Council tax can be stolen, you can be sure Khans allies own the manufacturers of the equipment, its only private owners that lose from damage and theft

Sadly no, this is not the case. The Bladerunners aren't actually doing anything as you underestimate just how local and national govts waste your near unlimited taxpayer money (as you contiue to pay tax) by continuously buying new cameras, put armour on it and now pay security firms to protect it. The REAL solution is to not pay any charges and fines, sign your logbook owner to someone else with you as a named driver and get smart with dealing with scum bailiffs. Bladerunners won't save you.

everybody dont pay simple. you pay you feed the system

it makes so much money, it will last forever. Look at the Dartford Crossing. It was promised that fee would be collected for few years oncr the bridge had paid for itself. However, they like a revenue and continue just to increased.

Ulez was only meant to be installed in high traffic areas.. but now they have vans driving around to catch people wherever they want.. if thats not a racket then i dont know what is councils arent allowed to use vans to fine people for speeding only police can do that yet the councils still did it.. all this ULEZ stuff is clearly a violation of every day life.

It’s the vehicle’s engine Euro rating that determines if it’s ULEZ compliant or not. Passing or even failing an MOT makes no difference.

​@davecooper3238 you mean passing an arbitrary emissions level that can be changed at a whim, technically very difficult to meet but easy to keep on increasing the standard.

@@jeffzuess9149 The London ULEZ is based around a vehicle’s Euro rating. ICE vehicles are being designed to become less polluting as the years pass. An area’s ( city, town etc ) max pollution level is set by law. The local area are responsible to comply with the law. Note. Euro ratings are standard worldwide.

That's why non-drivers will vote Sadiq Khan back into power next year.

Vehicle tax was SUPPOSED to be based on emissions... The Chancellor sent that lie up in flames when he decided that zero emission vehicles would be liable for tax from 2025 and retroactively applied to anything built since 2017.

@@mda5003 Nope Smartmatic will vote Khan back into power next year as they did in 2021

Road tax is based on co2 and uzlez is based on no2.

@@user-fb6lj1hq6s But not for vehicles over 40 years old !!!!!!!!!!!!!

They have,they then send you a PCN, you have to prove to the contrary. There evidence is evidence enough.

Well they have a photo of your car in the ULEZ so that's proof, unless you can successfully undermine it.

In this case, only providing a Vehicle Registration Mark would not be sufficient to establish a definite determination that a particular individual (in this case you) was the same person driving the vehicle. In addition, we could not assume the same individual was driving the same vehicle on all journeys. It would not be practical or proportionate to attempt to establish who was driving the vehicle on each occasion, and TfL’s cameras focus on the vehicle (make, model and number plate) as opposed to any occupants. Providing a more detailed level of journey data without verifying the identity of the actual driver, could mean that we enable a person to construct the movements and travel patterns of another individual and who has a reasonable expectation that the details of their journeys should remain private. ============ Just had this back from them. I want all the videos of the vehicle. Subject Access Requests are the way to really gum up the system which is why they are fighting tooth and nail over this.

Is this a way around it then, I guess we could all say our car is cloned

THey have told me that they cannot see the driver from their photographs. So if you say its cloned, how are they going to prove otherwise? @@jaycedixon6704

I had something similar and told them you will see them in court

The statement of the money isn't enough evidence...

@@RIForg _The appeal process luckily disagrees with you, I had this overturned._

All major parties are pushing the same treasonous agenda.

He’s too busy wrecking public transport elsewhere in the country to give a stuff about the place that has the very best public transport in the country.

The ULEZ expansion is government policy and they wanted it to be even stricter to raise more funds.

A very very good response you gave there and I can confirm that your assumption is very likely correct, I recently received a PCN notice from my local council for not displaying a residents parking permit, the ticket officer did take multiple photographs of signage in the area in order to prove I had been correctly notified of the need to comply with the local restrictions on parking in the area and was therefore liable. I will also point out Lord Dennings 'Red Hand rule' in that correct signage must be clearly displayed in order to notify a person may be liable for fines or any charges, Lord Denning was a Barrister and Judge of great notoriety who held any and all liable under the rule of law including government agencies and their employees, his adjudications are well worth studying in regard to common law torts and contract law as some of his rulings, judgements and precedents were most contentious especially when they found statutory bodies or agents liable for their actions or lack thereof. Considering the random actions of a certain group of vandals in and around ULEZ areas who seem to be targetting cameras and related signage one does wonder if this is evidence enough that signage may be missing or absent at any given time. Regards my residents parking PCN: fortunately for myself I had recently spent £20 on some parts for my car and I was able to claim my vehicle had broken down which was correct as my car had an intermittent fault though was still mobile. Once I sent evidence of the part I had purchased a few days before the PCN was issued I received the no fee payable notice as I had found this specific exemption listed on the local council website.

Ask them for their reasons to accept and bounce the letter on to this fellah , see what he says

I have an adjudicator meeting (online) next week, I will use this line. Thanks. Any other tips please, be very grateful.

Lol, you share the same sentiment as many others...

Cutting down cameras could bring a greater penalty. A criminal damage conviction can lead to many problems.

​@@davecooper3238When law becomes tyrannical one has a moral duty to fight it.

^^77 Brigade TROLL ALERT^^@@davecooper3238

And? the people have a right to rebel against tyranny, oppression ad fraud... it's the law...@@davecooper3238

I'm currently trying todesign an app to help people bypass ULEZ / Clean Air Zones, with live maps of camera locations, a biolerplate appeal system would be a nice addition i think...

@@user-yn7ll3qz1p going to be hard when you have those ULEZ vans changing position all the time.

That "person" is a certain D. Milton, according to all correspondence that makes its way out of TfL HQ.

@@kramer26 D. Milton, yep, she's the lady who said I'm too late and failed to even acknowledge any of my complaints or difficulties in trying to pay the charges.

@@iangevaux4338 how do you know it's a lady? I just assumed it's a non-person n just an arbitrary name with zero legal standing so none of these letters are actually legitimate...

But the plate has to match the car they're driving to look as under the radar as possible. I.e It's bloody stupid if you have one car and a plate of another.

More than just a good idea . It’s a legal requirement. Also leaves you open if the vehicle is dumped or driven without valid Road Fund License. Or valid MOT etc.

Can you simply call the police and ask for a crime reference number just because you think your car has been cloned or do you need to provide proof?

Appeal it with the dates and times of the incident. If needs be, speak to the police force in question for something in writing

Same for me, any news?

@@ryanhumpyy7864 Sadly I had to pay. You have to set up a second account, but that is in no way clear.

Kinda gives the middle finger to the whole innocent till proven guilty thing.

The person liable for the charge is the registered keeper not the driver. thus an image showing the numberplate is enough as it dosent matter who the driver was.

I am aware of this but if my vehicle has been cloned, at least they have a image of the person driving.

100% agree

@@martinclark1411 thank you, it’s a genuine question. Why do we have to prove innocence when they should have to prove guilt ?

I got fined recently because of a very long stretch of roadworks that close a dual carriageway, the detour caused me to clip the edge of a ulez zone and I just got the fine through the door.

Don't know about London, but Bristol, despite being run by a hard left council with an equally far left Mayor, don't charge non-compliant vehicles for travelling through their scam zone if directed there by diversions due to surrounding roads being shut. So, if the M5 is closed and you get directed into town in a non-compliant vehicle, in theory, you won't be charged, but I strongly suspect that they'll send out the PCN and you'll have to challenge it.

@@shinkansenshinkansend8316 I wouldn't be surprised though if most drivers simply pay up rather than go through the rigmarole of trying to challenge it for fear of the fine being doubled.

It's not even a law.

I am having the same problem

In a court of law ... and tou need to provide evidence for your argument. Plus a penalty charge isn't a fine.

The registered keeper is responsible for the vehicle. Worth remembering if you loan a vehicle out.

That's not what discrimination is...

Which cars are are not being charged ? ?

​@@tttt4029 any that haven't been fixed by the manufacturer and are still defective meaning they're incorrectly categorised for ULEZ purposes?

Anythings possible I guess, would just be nice to get some money back for the current emissions scandal.

Eventually it will be everywhere, you will therefore sit at home, or walk, or cycle, or use a bus. Fascism is here.

@2malachi I agree about the fascism...but I trust the British people will wake up soon

@@barukkazhad8998 MPAI, most are sheeple, they will never awaken. Some will, but they will struggle against the power of the state. Individual action is perhaps necessary.

It would be reasonable to expect them to have a record of calibration and some kind of certificate (UKAS Traceable to ISO 17025 certified - audited standards) to that effect that would prove the camera's are recording the time correctly or that they are linked to a reliable - certified Greenwich meantime signal with a measurement uncertainty that is less than 120 - 180 seconds or the time difference TFL are claiming made you liable for the fee in my opinion as a calibration and measurement engineer. Should the camera in question update the time stamp via a live link to a certified GMT timebase clock at intervals that exceed the 2-3 minutes you take issue with you may have an argument as any update interval that exceeds 3 minutes would leave room for 'reasonable doubt' in my opinion. Any and all digital devices can freeze or fail to update a time display correctly for a number of reasons, power supply variance, cold temperature, humidity, air pressure, taxi radios, solar flare radiation, mobile phone signal interference etc. I would appeal and request evidence that the time clock has a valid calibration certificate with a stated measurement uncertainty and a polling rate - update interval of less than 3 minutes, note a certificate of calibration only certifies a given device at the time of comparison to a known or given standard of 10x the accuracy of the unit under test. ie: I measure regular digital clocks to an accuracy of around 0.55 seconds with a certified stopwatch, said stopwatch is checked against a high frequency counter with an accuracy of around 5000 cycles per second and so on. Any comparison - calibration standard like my stopwatch should be listed along with serial number or other unique identifier on the certificate for the camera clock.

They let mine go and all i said was the vehicle is not registered to my account but that was a charge not a pcn

Yes but please check your statement as i was charged for a vehicle which was a letter wrong on the reg no

Well, unless you visit Birmingham and are ignorant of the existence of the scheme. And plenty of other cities have them too I subsequently found out. Fascism is here now.