Hello this is my first time using this forum so please be considerate.
My case is quite unique in that there was a technical error (did not recieve account number email) that prevented
me from logging into my TfL account, and therefore prevented me from setting up Auto Pay.
Based on the Adjudicator's interaction with me in the hearing and his written decision, I believe he agrees with my
position but based on
Walmsley v Transport for London [2005] EWCA Civ 1540 he cannot intervene?
There is also 2 things he mentioned which I do not think are true.
1. "Payment of daily charges can be made, either online, by app or by 24 hours a day voice recognition telephone,
without the need to have any account." - I have not heard of 24 hours a day voice recognition ULEZ payments?
2. "A VRM must be registered to a valid Auto Pay account by Midnight on the day of use in order for any charges
for that day's use to be automatically covered." - I thought it was the midnight of the 3rd day from when you travel?
Any advice would be greatly appreciated as I genuinely feel the outcome was unfair
Below I have pasted the Adjudicator's reasons for the refusal and within it contains the story of what happened.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Adjudicator's Decision
The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has decided that the appeal against
liability for the penalty charge should be refused.
The reasons for the adjudicator s decision are enclosed. The amount of the penalty charge payable is set out in
the reasons and must be paid and received by Transport for London within the specified deadline.
Adjudicator's ReasonsParties1. This is an appeal by XXX (the Appellant), against 4 penalty charge notices (PCNs),
imposed by Transport for London (TfL) in relation to the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ).
2. This appeal was determined following a video hearing attended by the Appellant.
Issue3. The responsibility is upon TfL initially to demonstrate that there may have been a 'contravention',
that is a breach, of the ULEZ scheme. If I am satisfied from the evidence that there has been a
potential contravention, then the responsibility moves to the Appellant to satisfy me, more likely than
not, that one of the six grounds of appeal as set out in the relevant regulations is made out.
Law4. The law relating to penalties imposed with regards to the ULEZ is set out in the Greater London
Low Emission Zone Charging Order 2006 as amended. The relevant regulations relating to the
possible grounds of appeal are Regulation 13(3) of the Road User Charging (Enforcement and
Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001, as amended (the Regulations).
Ground of appeal in this appeal5. The Appellant relies on the ground of appeal that "In the circumstances of the case, no penalty
charge is payable".
6. Although the Notice of Appeal refers to "In the circumstance of the case", this does not accurately
reflect the amended wording in Regulation 13(3)(c). The correct ground of appeal, as amended is:"
No penalty charge is payable under the charging scheme".
Undisputed Facts
7. There is no dispute that on 21, 22, 24 & 15 (Edit: 25 Adjudicator typo) August 2025
vehicle registration mark (VRM) ABCDEFG
was registered to the Appellant, as is also confirmed by the evidence I have been provided with from
the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DLVA).
The Appellant's Case8. The Appellant states that he does not live in London but was visiting for few days. He used TfL's
vehicle checker in advance of the trip to check whether his vehicle was liable to pay any charges. He
submits that the vehicle checker results were misleading as they highlighted in a box at the top of the
page that "Charges apply for Blackwall and Silvertown tunnel crossings" and he reasonably thought
that they were the only charges payable. He produces screenshots and video of the vehicle checker
results.
9. Notwithstanding the vehicle checker results and his intention to avoid using the tunnels, the
Appellant decided out of caution to also register for Auto Pay so that he would be covered if he made
future trips to London and incurred charges. He had also spoken to a family member who had referred
him to the ULEZ and that his vehicle might possibly be liable. On 24 August, within 3 days of the first use
of his vehicle within London and so within the time that he understood he could pay any charges already
incurred by Auto Pay, the Appellant went online and set up a Road User Charging Account.
10. Following set up, he received an email from TfL asking him to verify his email address, which he
did. However, he received no further email nor any other contact from TfL. He did not receive
anything to inform him what his account number was and without that he was unable to log into his
account. He produces screenshots and video of his inbox, deleted items and junk email boxes.
11. The Appellant thought initially that he would be able to use his email address to access his
account, but without the account number, the Appellant, despite his best efforts, was unable to log in
and complete the setup of Auto Pay or to pay any charges through his account. The Appellant
submits that this is a technical failing of TfL's system as a result of which he should not be liable for
these penalties.
12. The Appellant was unable to seek any assistance from TfL by telephone as he was setting up the
account on a Sunday evening just before 8pm and TfL's contact centre telephone line closed as 8pm.
However, the Appellant was not unduly concerned as he did not believe that his vehicle was liable for
charges other than for use of the tunnels and thought that he could complete the set-up of Auto Pay
at some later date before he travelled to London again.
13. Only on 5 September 2025, after receipt of the PCNs, when the Appellant telephoned and spoke
with TfL, was he given the details of his account number which allowed him to log in. It was only then
that he discovered that he should have received a second email from TfL with his account number.
14. The Appellant confirms that he supports the policies to ensure a safer and cleaner London and
remains willing to pay the original charges, as would have happened if he had been able to set up
Auto Pay. The Appellant confirmed that he has recently travelled again to London and set up Auto pay
successfully before he travelled.
Transport for London's case15. TfL produce evidence that the Appellant's vehicle is an XX type diesel vehicle manufactured in
XXXX. Due to its age, there is a presumption that the. vehicle was not manufactured to meet the
current ULEZ emission standards which did not become compulsory until 2015
16. TfL produces photographic evidence of use of the vehicle within the ULEZ at on 21 August 2025
at A12 Eastern Avenue, on 22 August 2025 at Bow Road by St Mary's Churchyard, on 24 August at
Burdett Road and on 25 August at Westferry Road and states that there is no record of a charge
being paid for use of the vehicle within the ULEZ on those dates
17. TfL confirms that the Appellant set up a road user charging account on 24 August 2025 but that
he did not register VRM ABCDEF for Auto Pay. Payment for use within the ULEZ should therefore
have been made by an alternative method, but the Appellant failed to do so.
18. TfL produce a printout from their systems of the Appellant's account showing that it was created
on 24 August at 19:55:32 and that at the same time a new account letter and an email verification link
were sent to the Appellant's registered email address.
19. TfL state in their Case Summary that the new account created confirmation email was sent on 26
August (copy produced) and that the Appellant only validated his email address on 5 September
(screen print produced) which is after the dates of all the contraventions.
20. TfL produce a copy of the details produced by their vehicle checker for the Appellant's VRM which
shows that it is liable to pay the ULEZ. Congestion and Tunnel charges.
21. TfL did not consider it was appropriate to exercise their discretion to cancel the penalty charge in
all the circumstances.
Conclusion22. I find, based upon TfL's evidence which is not disputed, that the vehicle was used within the ULEZ
on 21, 22, 24 & 25 August 2025, was liable to pay the daily charge and that the Appellant was the
registered keeper. I accept TfL's evidence that no daily charge was paid. The PCNs were therefore
validly issued.
23. While I accept the Appellant's statement that he genuinely believed that his VRM was only liable
to pay tunnel charges, I find that he was mistaken in that belief as it was liable to pay tunnel, ULEZ
and Congestion Charges. This is clearly stated on TfL's vehicle checker. Even the video evidence
produced by the Appellant shows that the full details of all liabilities are recorded. If the Appellant
scrolled down the page then details of all charges were visible. TfL cannot be held liable for the
Appellant's failure to fully consider the information they correctly provided.
24. I find that on 24 August the Appellant set up a Road User Charging Account and intended to set
up Auto Pay for his vehicle.
25. I accept the account detail evidence provided by TfL that the Appellant only set up a base account
and had not set up Auto Pay or added his VRM for Auto Pay. I find that on 24 August the Appellant
only received an email address verification email from TfL and that he followed the link and verified
his email address that day. While TfL state in their Case Summary that the Appellant only verified his
email address on 5 September, their own screen print shows that the Appellant twice verified the
address on 24 August at 19:59 and at 20:04.
26. Although TfL's system shows that an account set up email was also sent on 24 August 2025 at
19:55, I find that this is incorrect. The set-up email was not sent until two days later on 26 August
2025 at 12:07 as shown by the copy of the email produced by TfL. TfL provides no explanation as to
how its system can incorrectly record a letter as having been sent at 17:32 on 24 August and also fail
to record a new account letter actually sent by email on 26 August.
27. I find that TfL failed to provide the Appellant with details of his account number on 24 August
which meant that he could not access his account and could not set up Auto Pay.
28. While I accept that the Appellant was unable to contact TfL on the Sunday night to sort out the
position with his account and setting up Auto Pay, the current position arises as the Appellant then
failed to take any steps to contact TfL when their contact centre was next open to establish his
account number or to ensure that he made payment of any charges liable to be paid for his vehicle.
The reason the PCNs were issued is the Appellant's failure to take any additional action having set up
an account. While TfL have clearly not assisted him by failing to immediately send details of his
account number, that is not the reason that the charges were not paid. Payment of daily charges can
be made, either online, by app or by 24 hours a day voice recognition telephone, without the need to
have any account.
29. I have already found that the Appellant mistakenly believed that no charges were due for his
vehicle, other than tunnel charges, therefore he was not concerned about not having set up Auto Pay,
thinking he could deal with it at a later date, and did not realise that he would need to make payments
of the ULEZ charge, despite the possibility having been flagged by his family member.
30. Further, even if the Appellant had set up and registered his VRM for Auto Pay on 24 August, this
would not have covered him for use of the VRM within the ULEZ on 21 & 22 August. A VRM must be
registered to a valid Auto Pay account by Midnight on the day of use in order for any charges for that
day's use to be automatically covered.
31. I do not doubt the Appellant's genuine belief that he had done what was necessary to cover
himself in respect of driving in London. I found the Appellant to be a clear, fair and open witness in his
oral evidence and submissions. I have also found some of TfL's evidence regarding set up of the
Appellant's account inconsistent and unhelpful. However, none the matters set out in the Appellant's
representations satisfy any of the grounds of appeal but they amount to mitigating circumstances
only, which TfL has considered, but it has decided not to exercise its discretion to waive the PCNs. I
have no such discretion to consider mitigation or to vary or waive the PCNs, as was determined in the
case of
Walmsley v Transport for London [2005] EWCA Civ 1540.
32. I am limited to considering whether any of the statutory grounds of appeal have been made out or
not. As no ground of appeal has been established, I therefore refuse the appeal.
Amount to be paid33. TfL has chosen to accept the discounted sum of £90.00 in relation to each penalty charge
[Total £360.00] provided that the total amount is paid to and received by TfL within 14 days of
the date of this letter. If payment is not made within this time, then each penalty amount will
revert to £180.00 and the Appellant will have a further 14 days in which to make payment. If full
payment has not been made within 28 days of the date of this letter, the penalty amounts will
increase by 50% and TfL will be able to pursue its normal enforcement procedures.
Adjudicators do not have the power to reduce the amount of the penalty or to accept
payments by instalments. Payment of the penalty is a matter between the Appellant and TfL.
