Decision was 15 January - I presume you asked for a review, which was refused. I presume you've paid the PCN as you must otherwise you'll have to pay a lot more.
I agree the signs as they are on Google Maps are inadequate from that direction turning right and the Maps view is the month after your contravention so would have been reliable.
To get this across you needed a personal hearing - things often go wrong if you rely on adjudicators just looking at the papers.
-------------
Case Details
Case reference 9240533549
Appellant Sabita Singh
Authority Transport for London
VRM LX73WTD
PCN Details
PCN LP15351563
Contravention date 15 Sep 2024
Contravention time 13:25:47
Contravention location Portland Place
Penalty amount GBP 180.00
Contravention Failure to pay Congestion charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 15 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Frances Thornton-Dale
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons
Parties
1. This is an appeal by Sabita Singh, the Appellant, against penalty charge LP15351563 imposed by Transport for London in relation to the Congestion Charge Zone.
2. This appeal was determined as a postal appeal, in accordance with the Appellant’s preference.
Issue
3. The responsibility is upon Transport for London initially, to demonstrate that there may have been a ‘contravention’, that is a breach, of the Congestion Charge 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.
Law
4. The law relating to penalties imposed regarding the Congestion Charge Zone is set out in the Greater London Congestion Charging Scheme Order 2004 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.
Ground of Appeal
5. The Appellant relies on the grounds of appeal that in the circumstances of the case no 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”.
The Appellant’s case
7. The Appellant admits that she drove into the Congestion Charge Zone but that there were no Congestion Charge signs as she turned right from Park Crescent into Portland Place. She accepts that there was a painted “C” on the road but that cannot be seen if there is a car in front. The Appellant maintains that she was looking for signs but that there were none.
8. The Appellant explains that once she realised she was in the Congestion Charge Zone she took the quickest exit.
9. The Appellant has provided a photograph and an extract from Google maps dated August 2024 in support of her argument.
Transport for London’s case
10. Transport for London states that vehicle registration mark LX73 WTD was used within the Congestion Charge Zone on Portland Place and was captured on camera at 13:25 on 15 September 2024
11. Transport for London further states that the vehicle was registered to the Appellant and has provided evidence from the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DLVA).
12. Transport for London states that there is no record of a charge being paid for use of the vehicle within the Congestion Charge Zone on the date in question.
13. Transport for London argues that motorists are made aware when they are about to cross the boundary of the Congestion Charge Zone as there are signs at the entry and exit points at the side of the road. Its only obligation is to erect road traffic signs at the points where vehicles enter or leave the Congestion Charging Zone. These signs are regulatory signs, authorised by the Secretary of State for the Department of Transport through Sections 64 and 65 of the Road Traffic Act 1984 under paragraphs 4 (1), (2) of Authorisation GT 46/62/1. The relevant regulation is Statutory Instrument 3113 of the Traffic Signs and General Directions 2002. Transport for London has provided documentation indicating the position of the signs.
14. Transport for London further adds that it remains the responsibility of the motorist to familiarise themselves with the regulatory road traffic signs.
15. Transport for London has decided not to exercise its discretion in this case.
Conclusion
16. I find that the Appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle registration mark LX73 WTD, based on the evidence from the DVLA. This is not disputed by the Appellant
17. I also find that Transport for London has not received the payment of the daily charge, which is also not disputed by the Appellant.
18. As stated by Transport for London signage required under the Congestion Charge scheme has been authorised in a special authorisation granted by the DfT, under sections 64 and 65 of the Road Traffic Act 1984. This requires Transport for London to place an authorised sign on or near to roads entering the Congestion Charge Zone and an authorised sign on or near to roads exiting the Congestion Charge Zone. These signs have been incorporated into Part 4 of schedule 8 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, which are referred to by the Appellant. The Congestion Charge Zone begins at the point of the designated boundary as set out in the Greater London (Central Zone) Congestion Charging Order 2004 and later regulations. Based on the camera evidence provided by Transport for London, which has not been challenged by the Appellant I am satisfied that the Appellant used her vehicle within the Congestion Charge Zone on the relevant date. I have also taken into account the plan provided by Transport for London. The case of Ini Ifon v London Tribunals Road User Charging Adjudicators makes it clear where where plans are provided the Appellant must provide some cogent evidence to disprove those plans. I have considered the photograph and the Google map provided by the Appellant and compared them against the sign locations shown on the plans. Neither the photograph nor the Google map show the correct angle for me to be able to determine the presence or absence of any signs because both the map and the photograph cut off the location where the signs are said to be on the plans. The Appellant also accepts that there was a C painted on the road which should have given her sufficient warning that she was about to enter the Congestion Charge Zone.
19. I accept that the Appellant left the Congestion Charge Zone as soon as she realised what had happened but under regulation 4 of The Greater London (Central Zone) Congestion Charging order 2004 a charge must be paid when a vehicle is used on a designated road within charging hours regardless of how long the vehicle remains in the Zone. Under regulation 12 a penalty charge is payable if the daily charge is not paid within the required time and manner required under the scheme.
20. The Appellant’s representations amount to mitigation and not to a defence under the regulations. My power in these circumstances is limited. The case of Walmsley v Transport for London and Others EWCA [2005] Civ 1540 confirmed that an adjudicator has no discretion to take mitigation into consideration. This can only be considered by Transport for London and in this case it has chosen not to exercise its discretion.
21. The appeal is refused. I decide this appeal in favour of Transport for London as I am satisfied, from the evidence before me, that that a penalty was validly imposed in relation to the use of the vehicle in question within the Congestion Charge Zone on the relevant date, and that none of the six grounds of appeal as set out in Regulation 13(3) of the relevant regulations has been made out.
