All,
We have received the Adjudicator’s Decision. I will paste the important parts of the letter here, as I do not fully understand what has happened, except that we need to pay TFL but we are not really sure why the amount is £180 (the initial PCN was £90).
Is there anything else I can do here? Pay and complain to TfL?
Is there any reasonable approach for this case?
"The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has decided that the appeal against
liability for the 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."
"If the penalty has not been paid within 28 days, Transport for London can issue a charge certificate increasing
the full penalty charge by a further 50%."
"Adjudicator's Reasons
1. This appeal was determined as a personal appeal following the Appellant filing a statutory
declaration.
Issue
2. The responsibility is initially upon Transport for London (TFL) to demonstrate that there may have
been a 'contravention' that is a breach of the Congestion Charging Scheme.
3. If TFL produces this evidence to establish that there is a potential contravention, then the
responsibility moves to the Appellant to satisfy me that, it is more likely than not, that one of the six
grounds of appeal as set out in the relevant regulations is made out. The issue in this case is whether
the penalty charge is payable by the Appellant.
Law
4. The law relating to penalties imposed in regards to the Congestion Charge Zone is set out in the
Greater London Congestion Charging Scheme Order 2004 as amended. The relevant regulations
relating the grounds for appeal are Regulation 13(3) of the Road User Charging (Enforcement and
Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001, as amended.
The Appellant's case
5. The Appellant states that they had to travel into central London with their 7 week old baby to attend
the embassy. They relied on google maps that indicated that the ULEZ charge but that their
vehicle was ULEZ compliant but did not highlight that they were entering the Congestion charging
zone. She says that they live outside of London. She explains that due to the traffic and baby being
unsettled, they did not notice the road markings indicating the Congestion zone. She requests that the
penalty is cancelled and that they are happy to pay the daily charge. She has now set up Auto Pay.
Transport for London's case
6. Transport for London assert that the Appellant's vehicle was recorded as travelling within the
congestion zone within the charging hours on the 2nd September 2025. Furthermore, that it is the
legal duty of the registered keeper of a vehicle to make themselves aware of any charges that may be
in existence along their route. Transport for London state that motorists are made aware when they
are about to cross the boundary of the Congestion Charging Zone by entry and exit road traffic signs.
Findings of fact
7. There is no dispute that on the date in question, the Appellant's vehicle was used within the
Congestion charging zone. It is also agreed that no Congestion Charge payment had been made for
that date.
8. The Appellant states that she was unaware of the congestion charge on his route. She refers to the
circumstances on the day. These are mitigating circumstances that I am unable to take into account
(Walmsley v TFL & Others EWCA Civ 1540).
9. I find that it was the Appellant's responsibility to be aware of road signs and charges. There are
advance warning signs and congestion charge road signs at the entrance to the charging zones. I do
consider that the signage was compliant with the Department for Transport standards in line with the
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Drivers should not solely rely on satellite navigation systems to
alert them of road charges.
10. The law imposes a strict liability on the registered keeper to pay the charge. I find that the
An independent tribunal that decides appeals against
congestion charging penalties and low emission zone penalties in London
Road User Charging Adjudicators are supported by London Tribunals, a service provided by London Councils
Calls to London Tribunals will be recorded for training and quality purposes
Appellant's vehicle was used within the charging zone. The daily charge must be paid by midnight on
the third charging day following the date of entry, otherwise the penalty charge becomes payable. As
a result, I find that that the penalty charge of £180 is applicable in these circumstances. I do not have
a discretion to reduce the amount of penalty charge or allow an appeal as a gesture of
goodwill.
11. For the reasons given, I refuse this appeal. None of the six grounds of appeal set out in
Regulation 13(3) of the relevant regulations have been made out. The Appellant says that she was
unaware of the Congestion charge on her route, this does not amount to a ground of appeal.
12. I find accordingly that the Appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle is directly liable to
Transport for London for payment of this penalty charge.
Payment Amount
13. Transport for London confirmed in the case summary that the penalty to be paid is £180 in respect
of this contravention, if paid and received within 28 days of the date of this letter. If full payment is not
made by this date to Transport for London, then the outstanding amount will increase and Transport
for London will be able to pursue the normal enforcement procedures.
xxxxx
Adjudicator appointed under Regulation 3 of the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication)
(London) Regulations 2001 (as amended)."
