3. Bristol CAZ appeal lost - payment of the road user charge + penalty
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Bristol CAZ appeal lost - payment of the road user charge + penalty  (Read 178 times)

tincombe and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Bristol CAZ appeal lost - payment of the road user charge + penalty
« on: »
I appealed a Bristol CAZ and it has come back that I have lost the appeal.

Here is the Adjudicator's reasons:

---

1. This appeal was due to be determined after a hearing on 20 April 2026. However, (appellant) did not join the hearing, despite being allowed additional time. I therefore decided this case based on the evidence before me on the day. (appellant) subsequently contacted the Tribunal on 24 April, explaining that (appellant) missed the hearing due to illness. However, no explanation was provided on the day of the hearing, and I had already made my decision by the time the telephone contact was made. In any event, (appellant) had set out their case very clearly in writing, and I did not consider it appropriate to delay the case further.

2. (appellant) appeals on the basis that the penalty charge demanded exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. (appellant) refers me to a previous decision of this Tribunal, IA01249-1803, in which Chief Adjudicator Sheppard found that there was no power in The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 for a penalty charge notice to demand the road user charge in addition to the penalty.

3. I have considered the case to which (appellant) refers. Chief Adjudicator Sheppard found that the road user charge had already been paid, but because payment was made late, the Charging Authority had not allocated the sum paid to the outstanding crossing. However, the Chief Adjudicator also found 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.'

4. Chief Adjudicator Sheppard found that since the penalty charge notice demanded both the penalty and the road user charge, 'the impact and effect of the PCN is to demand an amount that is in excess of the penalty charge, and it implies that payment of £38 or £73 is the only amount that will be accepted.'

5. I find that Regulation 7 does not actually provide a power to require payment of any particular amount. Rather it sets out the information which must be specified within a penalty charge notice. In relation to the penalty, it states that the PCN must specify 'the amount of penalty charge that is payable if the penalty charge is paid in full— (i) within 14 days of the day on which the penalty charge notice is served; (ii) after the expiry of such 14 day period but within 28 days of the day on which the penalty charge notice is served; (iii) after the service of a charge certificate'.

6. I find that the penalty charge notice in this case does accurately set out the penalty rates that apply at the various stages of the case (£60/£120/£180), and therefore does comply with the requirements of Regulation 7. The penalty charge therefore does not exceed the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

7. What of Chief Adjudicator Sheppard's point that, although the penalty charge notice does accurately specify the penalty amount, the overall effect of it is to demand payment of nothing less than the penalty charge plus the outstanding road user charge?

8. The question is whether the Charging Authority has the power to demand payment of the road user charge, in addition to a penalty, as part of the enforcement process. Regulation 4 of the 2013 Regulations provides the power to impose a penalty for non-payment of the road user charge. Regulation 4(4) goes on to state that 'a charging scheme is to specify whether a penalty charge referred to in paragraph (1) or (2) is payable in addition to the road user charge or instead of such charge.'

9. Paragraph 11 of the Bristol Clean Air Zone Charging Order 2022, in compliance with paragraph 4(4) of the 2013 Regulations, states that the penalty charge will be payable in addition to the road user charge.

10. I therefore find that the penalty charge notice, in demanding payment of the penalty charge plus the outstanding road user charge, is simply communicating the total amount which is properly demanded. Accurately informing the recipient that both the penalty charge and the road user charge is payable is not procedurally improper, and does not have the effect of increasing the penalty charge beyond what is applicable in the circumstances of the case.

11. I am satisfied that this contravention did occur, and that the matter has been enforced in accordance with the relevant regulations. This appeal is dismissed, and I direct that the penalty of £120, plus the outstanding road user charge, must be paid within 28 days.

I wanted to have a screen / call hearing but was taken very ill and missed it unfortunately. I rang to tell them after the fact and they were very polite and said the adjudicator was considering the case based on the previously written statement.
I used information / templates from reading lots of posts on here.

Any thoughts and comments welcome.
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: Bristol CAZ appeal lost - payment of the road user charge + penalty
« Reply #1 on: »
Unfortunately the TPT is now totally captured by the councils, and it's no longer unbiased, and you see that here. TPT is also extremely secretive, and does not allow its statutory register to be searched online.

Whilst the toll fee remains payable, my reading of the regulations is that the PCN cannot demand its payment, it has to be obtained through normal debt recovery arrangements. Birmingham avoid this by explicitly stating that the toll charge is not recoverable if a PCN is served.

I would ask for a review.

Sorry you lost.
Logged
Re: Bristol CAZ appeal lost - payment of the road user charge + penalty
« Reply #2 on: »
Pl post the PCN, your reps and their NOR.

Whether 'the penalty exceeded....'is valid is NOT IMO a function solely of what's printed in the PCN.
Logged
Re: Bristol CAZ appeal lost - payment of the road user charge + penalty
« Reply #3 on: »
Thanks for your replies.

Requesting a review - which of these should I choose as my grounds for review?

- The decision was wrongly made because of an error by one of our administrators.
- You failed for good and sufficient reason to join a scheduled hearing.
- New evidence has become available the existence of which could not reasonably have been known or foreseen.
- The interests of justice require a review.
« Last Edit: May 10, 2026, 07:47:28 pm by terrytazza »
Logged
Re: Bristol CAZ appeal lost - payment of the road user charge + penalty
« Reply #4 on: »
I would go for your first point, as it is clear the adjudicator has mis-interpreted the regulations. A penalty charge notice is just that, a notice of a penalty charge. It is not the vehicle for attempting to recover the CAZ toll, so its inclusion in the PCN is unlawful. If what the adjudicator says is correct, it implies that any PCN for a non-payment of a parking charge can include that in the PCN. What nonsense !!
Logged
Re: Bristol CAZ appeal lost - payment of the road user charge + penalty
« Reply #5 on: »
Thankyou.

I have asked for review

The decision was wrongly made because of an error by one of our administrators.:

I am disputing liability for PCN (redacted) on the grounds that no road user charge is owed, and that the penalty demanded exceeds what is lawfully due in the circumstances.

The Bristol Clean Air Zone Charging Order 2022 is governed by The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013. Under these Regulations, a penalty charge notice may only demand payment of the penalty charge itself. There is no legal basis permitting the Council to also require payment of the CAZ charge on the same PCN.

This is confirmed by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal Case Number IA01249-1803 Decision dated 13/06/2018, Adjudicator Caroline Sheppard.

This point was confirmed in Traffic Penalty Tribunal Case Number IA01249-1803, decided on 13 June 2018 by Adjudicator Caroline Sheppard. In her decision, she made clear that Regulation 7 does not empower a PCN to require payment of the road user charge alongside the penalty charge.

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.”

Bristol City Council's Notice of Rejection acknowledges this decision but argues it is not applicable because it related to a different scheme. This argument does not hold — the same 2013 Regulations govern Bristol's CAZ, and the legal principle established in that case applies equally here.

By refusing my appeal, it is clear the adjudicator has misinterpreted the regulations. A penalty charge notice is just that, a notice of a penalty charge. It is not the vehicle for attempting to recover the CAZ toll, so its inclusion in the PCN is unlawful. If the previous adjudicator decision were correct, it would imply that any PCN for a non-payment of a parking charge can include that in the PCN. That is not correct and has been confirmed as incorrect by adjudication previously (Traffic Penalty Tribunal Case Number IA01249-1803). If the public are to have faith in the adjudication process it is important that consistency is maintained in adjudication decisions.

By including both the £120 penalty charge and the £9.00 daily CAZ charge on a single PCN, the Council has exceeded the powers granted to it under the 2013 Regulations. This amounts to a procedural impropriety, and I respectfully request that the PCN be cancelled.
Logged
Re: Bristol CAZ appeal lost - payment of the road user charge + penalty
« Reply #6 on: »
Where are the notices, your reps and the NOR?
Logged
Re: Bristol CAZ appeal lost - payment of the road user charge + penalty
« Reply #7 on: »
PCN:

---

Penalty Charge Notice (PCN)
Transport Act 2000; The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013; Bristol Clean Air Zone Charging Order 2022
Penalty Charge Notice Number (PCN): [redacted]
Date of this Notice and date of posting: 06/02/2026
(Date of Service is taken as 2 working days from this date)

Please note that the amount due is currently £69 (which will increase after 14 days from the 'Date of Service' of this Notice).
Please see "What are my options now?" below for further details.

Why have I received this PCN?
This Notice has been served on you by the Charging Authority, Bristol City Council ("the Council") because on 09/01/2026 you were the registered owner / keeper / hirer / lessee of:
[redacted]
This vehicle was detected inside the Bristol Clean Air Zone (CAZ) by an approved device on 09/01/2026 (please see images overleaf). This vehicle does not meet the required emissions standard for the CAZ, meaning a daily charge should be paid for each calendar day the vehicle is used in the zone. As no payment was received before the daily charge was due, the Council believes that a penalty charge of £120.00 is payable (reduced to £60.00 if paid within 14 days after the 'Date of Service' of this Notice), plus the £9 CAZ daily charge, for the following contravention:
Contravention: Code 17J - Using a vehicle within a Clean Air Zone without paying the charge - camera enforcement
Camera Location: Marlborough Street (CAZ0014)
Date Vehicle used in the zone: 09/01/2026
Time of Detection: 09:54:25
Date CAZ daily charge was due by: 23:59pm on 15/01/2026
The amount due is the PCN charge plus the CAZ daily charge.

What are my options now?
You can:

Pay £69 within 14 days from the 'Date of Service' of this Notice;
Pay £129 after 14 days from the 'Date of Service' of this Notice but within 28 days from the 'Date of Service' of this Notice;
Make a formal representation (appeal) to the Council within 28 days from the 'Date of Service' of this Notice if you disagree with the penalty charge.

Instructions on how to pay and make representations are included overleaf.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 12:22:13 pm by terrytazza »
Logged
Re: Bristol CAZ appeal lost - payment of the road user charge + penalty
« Reply #8 on: »
Appeal / Representation to Council:

I challenge liability for PCN [redacted] on the basis that no road user charge is payable, and the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case.
The regulations that apply to the Bristol Clean Air Zone Charging Order 2022 are The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013. The penalty charge notice is only permitted to demand payment of the penalty charge, there is no legal mechanism that allows the council to demand the CAZ charge in addition to the penalty charge on the PCN.
This is confirmed by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal Case Number IA01249-1803 Decision dated 13/06/2018, Adjudicator 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."
Bristol City Council's Notice of Rejection acknowledges that case but dismisses it on the basis that it concerned a different scheme. However, the same Regulations — the 2013 Regulations — apply to Bristol's CAZ. The legal principle established in that case is therefore directly applicable.
By demanding both the £120 penalty charge and the £9.00 CAZ daily charge on the same PCN, the Council has acted beyond the powers conferred by the 2013 Regulations. This constitutes a procedural impropriety and I respectfully submit that the PCN should be cancelled.
Logged
Re: Bristol CAZ appeal lost - payment of the road user charge + penalty
« Reply #9 on: »
Notice of Rejection from Council:

PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE : [PCN REF]
DATE OF DETECTION : [DATE]
VEHICLE REGISTRATION NUMBER : [REG]
LOCATION OF CONTRAVENTION : [LOCATION]
PENALTY CHARGE AMOUNT : £120.00
CAZ DAILY CHARGE AMOUNT : £9.00
Notice of Rejection of Representation
Thank you for your representations made in respect of the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) dated [DATE] which was served on the above vehicle for the contravention: Code 17J - Using a vehicle within a Clean Air Zone without paying the charge - camera enforcement.
We have considered everything stated in the representation but do not consider that sufficient grounds have been presented for cancelling the PCN.
Bristol's Clean Air Zone (CAZ) was introduced on 28 November 2022 under the Bristol Clean Air Zone Charging Order 2022, created pursuant to direction from central government. The scheme requires drivers of non‑compliant vehicles to pay a daily charge for entering the CAZ. Where that charge is not paid within the permitted timeframe, a Penalty Charge Notice may lawfully be issued.
The CAZ charge and the penalty charge are distinct:
The CAZ charge is the original road user charge applicable to non‑compliant vehicles entering the zone.
The Penalty Charge Notice enforces non‑payment of that charge and is issued in addition to the outstanding CAZ charge where payment has not been made as required.
This structure is reflected in all publicly available CAZ enforcement guidance and payment instructions.
Director
Management of Place
Growth and Regeneration
Growth and Regeneration Parking Services (PCN Appeals)
Bristol City Council
PO Box 3399
BS1 9NE
Website www.bristol.gov.uk
The information published by Bristol City Council clearly explains that if the CAZ charge is not paid, a PCN will be issued and both the CAZ charge and the PCN amount must be paid, with the penalty subject to a statutory discount for early payment.
The earlier Traffic Penalty Tribunal case you cite concerned a different road user charging scheme, operating under different local charging arrangements and documentation. It does not apply to, nor override, the statutory regime underpinning Bristol's CAZ, which has been designed and approved in accordance with the 2022 Charging Order and associated national systems.
After reviewing your representations, the Council is satisfied that the PCN was issued correctly, in accordance with the Charging Order and statutory guidance.
Your challenge is therefore not upheld, and the Penalty Charge Notice remains payable.
You may still pay the PCN at the discounted rate if payment is received within the timeframe specified in your notice. Details of payment options and deadlines are available on the Council's website. bristol.gov.uk
If you do not wish to pay, you may await the Notice of Rejection and appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, where an independent adjudicator will consider your case.
Only vehicles that meet the emissions criteria are permitted to enter Bristol's Clean Air Zone (CAZ) without payment of the daily charge. Your non-compliant vehicle was observed within the CAZ at the above location without payment of the required daily charge. For future reference, you can check whether your vehicle is compliant or not prior to entering the CAZ using the Government's Drive in a Clean Air Zone Service at www.gov.uk/clean-air-zones.
We have rejected your representation for the following reasons:

The CAZ is in operation 24 hours a day 7 days a week.
The CAZ is clearly signed on entrance and exit of the zone (please see below photographs of example signage).
All signage complies with current legislation and has been approved by the Department for Transport.
It is the responsibility of the driver to take note of any signage/instructions that are in place on the highway.
Unfortunately, you have provided no acceptable reason or evidence why the non-compliant vehicle in question entered the CAZ without payment of the required daily charge.

This letter is served on you as a formal Notice of Rejection under the Transport Act 2000, The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 and the Bristol Clean Air Zone Charging Order 2022.
What are my options now?
As you submitted your formal representation within the discounted period, the Council is using its discretion to offer you another opportunity to pay this penalty charge at the discounted amount of £60.00 plus the CAZ daily charge of £9.00. This offer is only available if payment of this discounted amount and CAZ daily charge is received within 14 days of the 'Date of Service' of this Notice of Rejection.
Alternatively, you can:

Pay the penalty charge of £120.00, as well as the £9.00 CAZ daily charge within 28 days after the 'Date of Service' of this Notice.
Appeal to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (TPT) within 28 days after the 'Date of Service' of this Notice for your case to be heard by an independent adjudicator. If you choose to appeal to TPT the full penalty charge of £120.00 (plus the CAZ daily charge of £9.00) may apply if the adjudicator finds against you. The adjudicator will not normally make an order for a person appealing to pay the costs and expenses of Bristol City Council but may make such an order if the adjudicator considers the person has acted frivolously or vexatiously, or that their conduct in making or pursuing the appeal was wholly unreasonable. This may include cases where the person withdraws their appeal.

Note: If you do not make any of the above payment options and you have not made an appeal to the independent adjudicator against the penalty charge within a period of 28 days (beginning with the 'Date of Service' of this Notice of Rejection), we may serve a Charge Certificate on you which would increase the penalty charge by 50% to £180.00. If the increased penalty charge plus the outstanding CAZ daily charge of £9.00 (a total of £189.00) is not paid in full within a further 14 days, the Council may recover this sum via the County Court whereby you will be liable to pay further costs.
Yours sincerely
PCN Appeals Team
Parking Services
Logged
Re: Bristol CAZ appeal lost - payment of the road user charge + penalty
« Reply #10 on: »
2nd Review back already:

Adjudicator Barfoot |
Reviewed on: 11/05/2026
The review request has been dismissed.
The Adjudicator's decision will be final unless one of the limited grounds for review set out in Paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 applies.
The decision to dismiss the appeal will not be changed and the relevant penalty charge (or charges) should be paid to the authority. That is now an end to the appeal process as far as the Tribunal is concerned but there remains the right to make application to the High Court for Judicial Review on a point of law.

The [appellant] applies for the review of the appeal decision, dated 1 May 2025, on the basis that the decision was wrongly made due to an administrative error on the part of the tribunal.
I can identify no administrative error on the tribunal's part, or at all.
The basis of the review application is, in fact, that the appeal adjudicator has misinterpreted The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 (the 2013 Regulations) in deciding that the demand in the penalty charge notice for payment of the road user charge in addition to the penalty charge was not a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority.
An inherent part of the statutory scheme is to ensure that an adjudicator's decision is final and conclusive. An application for review is not a further appeal, or opportunity to reargue the case. It is a process of review; an assessment as to whether one of the limited grounds for review set out in paragraph 12 of the Procedure in Adjudication Proceedings in the Schedule to the 2013 Regulations applies.
The review application repeats representations already considered and dismissed by the appeal adjudicator in his detailed written decision.
The appeal adjudicator had regard to the previous adjudicator's decision referred to and relied upon by the appellant in his appeal representations and again in his review application (the decision in case number IA01249-1803). The appeal adjudicator is not bound to follow the decision of another adjudicator. Further, the appeal adjudicator has given clear and cogent reasons for reaching a different conclusion to the adjudicator in that case (see paragraphs 4 to 10 of the detailed written decision).
In my view, there is no error of law in the appeal adjudicator's decision that the inclusion of a demand for payment of the road user charge in the penalty charge notice is not a procedural impropriety for the reasons explained by the appeal adjudicator, in particular at paragraphs 8 to 10 of the detailed written decision.
In any event, even if the appeal adjudicator erred in law in his assessment of the 2013 Regulations, which is the basis of the appellant's review application, it is not a ground for review of an adjudicator's decision under paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the 2013 Regulations that the decision in question was wrong in law. Any challenge to the adjudicator's application of the law must be made by way of an application to the High Court for judicial review of the adjudicator's decision, not by way of an application for review (See R (on the application of Transport for London) v London Tribunals (Environment and Traffic Adjudicators) and Commercial Plant Services [2023] EWHC 2889 (Admin) [at paragraph 26]).
For these reasons, the application for review of the appeal adjudicator's decision is refused.
The appeal remains refused for the reasons provided to the parties on 1 May 2026.
Logged
Re: Bristol CAZ appeal lost - payment of the road user charge + penalty
« Reply #11 on: »
The only next step is taking it to the courts.

Seems challenging these Bristol CAZ at tribunal level no longer works.
« Last Edit: Yesterday at 06:47:03 pm by terrytazza »
Logged
Re: Bristol CAZ appeal lost - payment of the road user charge + penalty
« Reply #12 on: »
Quote from: terrytazza on Yesterday at 06:45:20 pm
The only next step is taking it to the courts.

Seems challenging these Bristol CAZ at tribunal level no longer works.
Yes, it stinks doesn't it.
Logged
Re: Bristol CAZ appeal lost - payment of the road user charge + penalty
« Reply #13 on: »
Yes it does stink.
So much of our government feels it is above the law and above the people nowadays.
I wanted to challenge this because I work with older people and know of several who are too poor to upgrade their cars and are therefor financial discouraged from travelling into/through swathes of Bristol by this virtue signalling Green policy.
So progressive - for the few (woke), not the many (ordinary people).
Logged
Re: Bristol CAZ appeal lost - payment of the road user charge + penalty
« Reply #14 on: »
My thoughts.

Para. 26 seems definitive and restrictive:

That same principle of finality means that the Chief Adjudicator was wrong to conclude that a review on the interests of justice ground could consider the legality of an adjudicator's decision applying the principles relevant on an application for judicial review. Properly understood, paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the Appeal Regulations provides no such jurisdiction. Decisions of adjudicators are susceptible to judicial review. If the losing party wishes to challenge a decision on the basis it was wrong in law the correct route is by application for judicial review to this court, not an application under paragraph 12 for a review on the interests of justice ground.

OP, IMO your review was made wrongly, and now that you've posted the NOR it seems clear that you could have used this as your main point of appeal in the first instance.

Bristol have demanded payment of the daily charge from you at every stage including, but not limited to, the PCN.

The adjudicator in your case agreed that there was NO power available to the authority to demand payment of the daily charge but contended that the wording of the PCN alone was not a PI.

But IMO repeated demands for payment - incl. this classic 'If you choose to appeal to TPT the full penalty charge of £120.00 (plus the CAZ daily charge of £9.00) may apply if the adjudicator finds against you' mean that they've exceeded their lawful powers within the procedure taken as a whole.

But IMO everything in your appeal/review focused on the PCN.

Possible grounds under the Review regs, perhaps the adjudicator failed to take into account something which they should have, in this case the NOR and other correspondence.


But it's probably too late now.




Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. Bristol CAZ appeal lost - payment of the road user charge + penalty