Author Topic: Bristol, code 17J using a vehicle within a CAZ without paying the charge - camera enforcement, A4 Hotwell Road  (Read 919 times)

0 Members and 67 Guests are viewing this topic.

*Reposting with corrected photographs*

I drive through Bristol quite a lot for work and paying the CAZ charge has become a habit. Unfortunately, I was in the city for two consecutive days in September and accidentally paid the CAZ charge for Birmingham instead of Bristol. I didn't realise I'd done it until I got two PCNs through the post around a month or so later.

The code on both was 17J Using a vehicle within a CAZ without paying the charge - camera enforcement. I've included photos of one of the initial PCNs as well as the rejection. I had faith that the council would be fair and see this for what it was - an honest mistake. I appealed both PCNs and gave proof that I'd paid the Birmingham CAZ. I also provided the receipts for every other time I've been in Bristol and paid the CAZ, just to show that it really was an honest mistake.

My appeal representation is below - this has since been rejected on both occasions.
"I mistakenly paid the CAZ charge for Birmingham, not Bristol. Unfortunately, I didn't realise my error until I received a PCN, as the confirmation email subject line doesn't mention the city and I just didn't spot it. I paid for both days I spent in Bristol, 21 & 22 September 2023. I have email proof of this if required and the payment reference was XXXXXXX.

I regularly work in Bristol and I have paid the CAZ charge without fail every time, I have the emails to prove this too and have put reference numbers below for you. I must have just clicked the wrong city this time.
I know this is my mistake, but if there's anything you're able to do regarding this, it would be so very much appreciated.

Thank you in advance,"



I received two templated rejections and rang the council to ask if there was anything they could do, especially given I'd end up paying two PCNs for what was essentially one mistake, but was told no.

I've found the below to take to tribunal, but are there any other grounds on which I can appeal? Based on some research, is the £9 charge added to the £120 something I can dispute based on clause 11 (p.12 of this document)?

Dear Bristol City Council,

I challenge liability for PCN BS00000000 on the basis that the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case.

The PCN carries an 0870 premium rate telephone number, and I contend that as in Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022) this amounts to an excessive demand. While I appreciate other payment methods are available, binding authority from the High Court in the case of London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) determined that where one payment method carries a surcharge, the availability of other payment methods is irrelevant and the penalty demanded is excessive.

It follows that the penalty charge must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,



Am I able to represent myself at tribunal, or do I need someone to represent me? Thanks so much if you've read this far!

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


I’ve just seen that the council recently agreed to waive the PCN for someone who accidentally paid the wrong date (travelled shortly after midnight but paid for the previous day).

Is it worth my mentioning this as that’s another case of an honest mistake and they seem to have been lenient/seen sense on that occasion?

Hi, does anybody have any advice?  :'(

Have you gone and started a 2nd thread ? If so, please copy all of this onto your original thread and cancel this one.

There is another ground for appeal which is encompassed in this judgement of 2018 by the Chief Adjudicator of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, no less

Quote
Mr Moran paid the £3 crossing charge at 23:20 on 14 January 2018, which was a day later
that the time required for payment. However, on 19 January 2018 Dart Charge sent him a
penalty charge notice stating he should pay either £38 within 14 days or £73 within 28 days.
Mr Moran made representations saying he had paid the crossing charge and produced the
receipt for payment.
Dart Charge rejected the representations saying, “Our investigations show that whilst you did
make payment of the RUC in respect of the above contravention, this payment was not made
until after midnight on the day following your crossing.” They therefore accepted that the
crossing was paid, but they go on to say. “Your late payment(s) will be held as credit against
your vehicle for future crossing(s). You must now make payment for the full amount outstanding
in respect of the above mentioned PCN(s), including the original road user charge, as shown at
the bottom of this notice.”. The amount payable at the end of the Notice of Rejection is £73.
Regulations 7(3)(g) and (f) require the penalty charge notice to state:
(f) 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;
(g) the manner in which the penalty charge must be paid and the address to which payment of the penalty charge
must be sent.
The clear intention is to set out clearly the amount of the penalty charge to be paid, and give
equally clear instructions as to how to pay the relevant amount.
While the PCN in this case dealt with the amounts of the penalty charge, according to when
they would be paid, it also stipulated that:
“In addition to the penalty charge you must also pay the applicable road user charge of £3.”
And the PCN further required Mr Moran to pay £38 or £73 (the relevant penalty charge with
£3 added), without an option to pay just the penalty charge.
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.
Nor is there a power for the charging authority to refuse to
allocate a payment made for a crossing to that crossing, and hold it, possibly indefinitely, for
future use.
It is not in dispute that Mr Moran had paid the £3 crossing charge, as evidenced by his receipt
dated 14 January 2018 for the £3 payment, and accepted by Dart Charge.
It is all very well to set out the amounts of the penalty charge, but 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.
The requirement for Mr Moran to pay the crossing charge in addition to the penalty charge, on
both the PCN and NOR, when he had already paid it, amounts to a procedural impropriety on
Adjudicator's Decision
the part of the charging authority (known as Dart Charge). That is a ground of appeal that
means that Mr Moran is not liable to pay the penalty charge. He did pay the crossing charge,
albeit a day late, so he is not liable to pay that again.

Caroline Sheppard
Chief Adjudicator
13/06/2018
Adjudicator's Decision
I have put the relevant sentence in bold and underline.
Since 2018, this judgment has been totally ignored by all the road user charging authorities, and it's about time they were put to judgment.


[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Oh that’s amazing thank you.

I deleted the first thread as I’d uploaded the images wrong and missed out half the stuff, sorry!

OK, so at least we now know what is going on. 

Are you going to stand your ground or just fold when they reject your reps ?  Bristol are never going to admit error.

They’ve already rejected my reps, I’m just wondering whether I’d have a good shot at tribunal or not. I know it’s not guaranteed, I’d be happy even if they reduced it to one PCN to be honest!

They’ve already rejected my reps, I’m just wondering whether I’d have a good shot at tribunal or not. I know it’s not guaranteed, I’d be happy even if they reduced it to one PCN to be honest!
He either fears his fate too much
Or his deserts are small
Who fears to put it to the touch
To win, or lose it all

Earl of Montrose

Irrespective of your mispayments to Brum, you have two solid grounds to take to the tribunal -
1) continued use of 08780 number
2) demanding the fee as well as the penalty.

Draft an appeal around these grounds to cover both PCNs and post your draft here for constructive comment.

Use the search function (top r-h corner) to search out all previous Bristol CAZ threads in this forum.

Do not miss the deadline for registering the appeal - when do you understand this to be?
Agree Agree x 1 View List

I understand the deadline to be tomorrow - I know I’ve left it late! I’ve got a baby who isn’t sleeping so my brain is mush.

I’ve put together the below - is there anyone who would/could represent me at tribunal if they don’t drop it?


Dear Bristol City Council,

In the first instance, I would like to point out that I believe I had paid the daily charge for 21 & 22 September 2023 and I happened to click the wrong option and pay the Birmingham daily charge instead. I suggest that this is de-minimis and not a contravention at all, or in the alternative you should exercise discretion not to enforce.

I further challenge liability for PCN BS00000000 on the basis that the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case.

The PCN carries an 0870 premium rate telephone number, and I contend that as in Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022) this amounts to an excessive demand. While I appreciate other payment methods are available, binding authority from the High Court in the case of London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) determined that where one payment method carries a surcharge, the availability of other payment methods is irrelevant and the penalty demanded is excessive.

In addition, the PCNs I have received demanded the CAZ charge as well as the penalty. The PCNs are only permitted to demand payment of the penalty charge, there is no legal mechanism in Regulation 7 that allows the council to demand the CAZ charge in addition to the penalty charge on the PCN. This amounts to a procedural impropriety on the part of the charging authority, Bristol City Council, with precedent set by Caroline Sheppard, Chief Adjudicator in a judgement on 13/06/2018 for PCN IA89548088. See full document attached. In my case the PCNs may only demand £120, discounted to £60 for the first 14 days. The regulations do not allow the PCN to demand the additional £9 you are seeking, the amount demanded therefore exceeds the amount due by law.

It follows that the penalty charge must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,


As far as I can see, you are not writing to Bristol any more, you are appealing to the Tribunal for two PCNs.

You must register the appeals with the TPT, asking for them to be considered together, and opt for a personal hearing (its by phone/video link).
PLease post both letters of rejection (the right way up!) and any enclosures they sent about appealing.

I think you can register the appeal with 'full submission to follow' (you can do this in London: not sure about TPT - others will know)

You can drop the bit about the mis-payment.
See what others say.

Thank you so much! All attached now, sorry had to go dig them out.

Second ones coming in a comment.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Second ones here, sorry they’re the right way round on my phone!

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

You can breathe again - a little - you have 28days from the date of service of the Notices of Rejection (which are dated 26/11/23) to register appeal. So wait for further comments...
Funny Funny x 1 View List

Hi,

I’ve amended my letter below to address TPT and include both PCNs.

Does anyone have any further advice on this?

Thank you so much!


Dear Traffic Penalty Tribunal,

I am appealing against two separate PCNs which were for one instance of travel, and would like to ask for these to please be considered together. The PCNs are XXX and XXX.

In the first instance, I would like to point out that I believe I had paid the daily charge for both 21 & 22 September 2023 and I happened to click the wrong option and pay the Birmingham daily charge instead. I suggest that this is de-minimis and not a contravention at all, or in the alternative you should exercise discretion not to enforce.

I further challenge liability for PCNs BS00000000 & BS00000000 on the basis that the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case.

The PCNs carry an 0870 premium rate telephone number, and I contend that as in Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022) this amounts to an excessive demand. While I appreciate other payment methods are available, binding authority from the High Court in the case of London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) determined that where one payment method carries a surcharge, the availability of other payment methods is irrelevant and the penalty demanded is excessive.

In addition, the PCNs I have received demanded the CAZ charge as well as the penalty. The PCNs are only permitted to demand payment of the penalty charge, there is no legal mechanism in Regulation 7 that allows the council to demand the CAZ charge in addition to the penalty charge on the PCN. This amounts to a procedural impropriety on the part of the charging authority, Bristol City Council, with precedent set by Caroline Sheppard, Chief Adjudicator in a judgement on 13/06/2018 for PCN IA89548088. See full document attached. In my case the PCNs may only demand £120, discounted to £60 for the first 14 days. The regulations do not allow the PCN to demand the additional £9 Bristol City Council are seeking, the amount demanded therefore exceeds the amount due by law.

It follows that the penalty charges must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,