Free Traffic Legal Advice

Without at this stage submitting documentation, I got a PCN for allegedly infringing Bradford's CAZ - clear picture of the vehicle and front registration plate, clear location, date/time of the picture appear to be correct.

I've checked the PCN spreadsheet for Bradford - no known weaknesses in appeal, so wanted to check before I paid the £60 + £9.

Date of delivery is noted as 2 days after date of posting, the phone number given is 0345 ... - any other procedural improprieties I could potentially use ?

Does anyone have knowledge of the signage / issues there which may help?  Does that depend on the route taken through the CAZ, i.e. a sign missing if joining from a side road may invalidate the PCN?

Also, checking the location given against the map it seems the boundary there covers the whole road, doesn't split it down the middle - so presumably no grounds for driving one way and not the other along the particular road?

Like Bristol, (and also Bath), the PCN is unlawful because it is asking for more than the penalty demanded by law. Birmingham and the London ULEZ PCNs are compliant. The Order for Birmingham specifically states that payment of the PCN discharges liability for the toll fee

There are no powers in Regulation 7 of the road user charging regulation that allow them to claim the toll fee as well as the penalty.  This was also ruled by an case in 2018 at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for a DART PCN, (same regulations).

Anyway, have a read of the regulations (Reg 7) and also the file attached

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1783/regulation/7/made




[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

So a form of words challenging it as a procedural impropriety, in that there are no powers under the relevant legislation and regulations to charge a penalty as well as the original CAZ charge?

No not quite correct; there are no powers to demand the CAZ charge on the PCN, only the Penalty Charge.

All you need to do submit is a simple and short representation.

This should state that the regulations that apply to the Bradford CAZ are The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013. You have been independently advised that the PCN is unlawful because there are no powers within the above regulations for the CAZ charge to be demanded in the Penalty Charge Notice, only the penalty charge can be demanded. This is confirmed by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal Case Number IA01249-1803 Decision dated 13/06/2018, Ajudicator Caroline Sheppard.

In her decision, she stated, (inter alia) that " There is no power in Regulation 7 for the PCN to require the road user charge to be paid in addition to the penalty charge."

Therefore demanding payment of the CAZ charge as well as the Penalty Charge is a procedural impropriety and the PCN must be cancelled forthwith.

What I suspect they will do is ask you to just pay the CAZ fee as they seem desperate to avoid the matter getting to the TPT. I wonder why !!!

I've had my appeal rejected - apparently the regs *do* allow councils to decide whether to charge both the penalty and the PCN.

Suggestions?  Or is this the end of the road?

RUCS Regs article 4 - https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2013/1783/part/2/made

Link to Bradford CAZ Charging Order - https://www.bradford.gov.uk/media/7229/bradfordcleanairzonechargingorder2022.pdf

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Ok - so one piece of the legislation says they can decide whether to charge the penalty + PCN charge, and another says the PCN can only contain a penalty.

So Bradford's view is different and says they can charge both on the PCN, but the view here is that the PCN can only charge the penalty and there needs to be a separate mechanism to collect the outstanding CAZ charge?

And if so, I'd be a guinea pig?

Ok then - so Bradford are wrong, even though they say their scheme was post 2018 and therefore the DART decision doesn't apply.

If I apply to the tribunal there's a very good chance of winning on appeal, is what I'm interpreting this to mean?

The dart decision does not apply in as much as decisions don't set real precedents. An adjudicator could come to a different decision.

It is your money of course. It is, perhaps, curious that there is no known case of Bristol going to tribunal where this narrow point has been raised.

So far (in all probability) nobody related to Bradford enforcement who has any real understanding of the regulations has looked at it to recognise the issue.

It is perhaps somewhat odd that the regulations allow for the charge to be payable (*) in addition to the penalty yet the mechanism of issuing a penalty does not allow it to be demanded as part of the penalty.

Birmingham and TFL may have produced their charging orders - which do not include the toll - having undertaken a more thorough review of what they were implementing with respect to the overarching regulations.

(*) There is a potential issue with that. The bristol order only allows the toll to be paid x days before or y days after.

As far as my simplistic view goes the "unless" doesn't kick in.

However, cautionary, well drafted appeal will be needed.