I'm confused.
Do you have one or two PCNs?
One appears to have been appealed to the Adjudicator. Please post up the case number?
What about the second PCN, was that appealed to the Adjudicator? If so what is the case number?
Do you believe the Winnebago to be LEZ (Low Emission Zone) compliant? And that this is a registration error by the DVLA?
'''''''''''''''''''''''''''''''
OK! After a bit of digging I've found your cases, see below. Both have been lost at Adjudication. That's normally the end of the road unless you have very deep pockets to seek judicial review in the High Court and it looks like you're too late for that. In any event it seems to me that it's unlikely that a 2006 diesel truck, albeit a motorhome, is Euro VI compliant.
I'm at a loss for anything positive to suggest other than to make an offer to TFL.
Skip to main content
London Tribunals Road User Charging Adjudicators
Back
RUCA Register of Appeals
Register Kept Under Section 21 of the Schedule to the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication)(London) Regulations 2001
Case Details
Case reference 9240527524
Appellant Gary Rothwell
Authority Transport for London
VRM X444FUN
PCN Details
PCN LZ42740808
Contravention date 17 Aug 2024
Contravention time 11:41:23
Contravention location Northend Road
Penalty amount GBP 2000.00
Contravention Failure to pay charge for Low Emission Zone
Referral date -
Decision Date 14 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Lale Hussein-Venn
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons
Adjudicator's Reasons
Introduction
1. This is an appeal by Mr Gary Rothwell against two Low Emission Zone (LEZ) penalty charge notices imposed by Transport for London [TfL] relating to travel on 17 and 20 August 2024.
2. This appeal was decided on the papers, as a postal appeal in accordance with the Appellant's preference.
The Law
3. The relevant law is set out in the Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging Order 2006 as amended and the available grounds of appeal are set out in Regulation 13(3) of the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001, as amended. I can only allow an appeal if one of these grounds has been established.
4. The appeal is a two-stage process. TfL must first prove that there may have been a 'contravention' of the Scheme. If I am satisfied that there has been a contravention, it is then for the Appellant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that one of the statutory grounds of appeal has been established.
5. Although TfL are permitted to take mitigating circumstances into account when considering representations, I am not permitted to do so when deciding an appeal. This was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in the case of Walmsley v TfL & Others [2005] EWCA Civ 1540.
The Grounds of Appeal
6. The Appellant seeks to rely on the ground that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. I have, however, considered all six grounds of appeal set out within the 2001 regulations.
The Appellant's Case
7. The Appellant says that his vehicle is a motorhome, not a converted truck, that he checked whether he would need to pay any daily charges for it but the DVLA’s website said ‘ULEZ status unavailable’ and that the vehicle is a low emissions vehicle and he is awaiting confirmation from the manufacturer to support this. He also says he was unaware he needed to pay anything in respect of his use of the LEZ and that the sum TfL are seeking in respect of the PCNs is unreasonable.
8. The Appellant asks to pay £35 for each date of entry into the LEZ, which he says is representative of the daily charge for a low emissions truck instead of the PCN amounts TfL are seeking. In addition, the Appellant says he did not see any signs to support he was entering the LEZ.
Transport for London's Case
9. TfL say the vehicle was photographed using the zone on two occasions and they have no record of the daily charge having been paid and so they say contraventions occurred.
10. It is also TfL's case that the vehicle is a type N2 vehicle using diesel fuel and it was manufactured in 20006. Under the Low Emission Scheme, it is only registered keepers of diesel fuel vehicles of type N2 that have an emission standard of Euro 6 or above who are not required to pay the daily charge. The vehicle was manufactured before the said emission standard was introduced and that being so, its emissions would not have met that standard. Therefore, TfL contend that the vehicle was not compliant with the scheme and there was a liability to pay the daily charge to avoid a penalty.
11. TfL also say that there are signs along the boundary to the LEZ to provide advance warning on all approaches to the zone allowing motorists an opportunity to take an alternative route, thereby avoiding travel into it.
Findings of Fact and Decision
12. I am satisfied, based on TfL's evidence, that the vehicle is classified as an N2 vehicle, and by virtue of its age and weight, I think it’s likely that it did not meet the required emission standard so there was a liability under the Scheme to pay a daily charge under the LEZ. And whilst I accept it’s quite possible that this vehicle might have lower emissions than is usual for its age and weight, the Appellant hasn’t provided any evidence to support this from the manufacturer at the date of his appeal. As such I can’t accept, based on the evidence he has supplied, that the emissions for this vehicle are lower than the emissions that are common for a vehicle of its age and weight.
13. I accept TfL's evidence that the Appellant was the registered keeper of the vehicle and that it was used in the zone on the relevant dates without payment of the daily charge. As such I find that contraventions occurred.
14. The relevant scheme in this case is the Low Emission scheme and not the Ultra-low Emission scheme. They are two completely separate schemes and TfL set out full details of the Low Emission scheme in their Case Summary. So the fact that DVLA’s website said that the ‘ULEZ status unavailable’ makes no difference to the outcome of this appeal because it is not relevant here.
15. Although the Appellant's vehicle is a motorhome, given its age and weight, it is caught by the Low Emission scheme. The fact that the Appellant may not have been aware of this, is not a ground of appeal. There is an expectation that a motorist is aware of all the charges that apply to their vehicle. The law imposes strict liability on the registered keeper to pay the charges incurred.
16. Signage for the scheme has been authorised by the Secretary of State for the Department for Transport. I am satisfied that the signage at the entrance of and leading up to the zone is compliant and sufficient to put motorists on notice of the existence of the zone and scheme.
17. The Appellant’s representations amount to mitigation only and, although TfL are permitted to take mitigation into account when considering representations, an Adjudicator is not permitted to do so when deciding an appeal.
18.I refuse the appeal.
Penalty Amount
19. TfL have said that the time to pay the discounted rate for the PCNs has now expired and as such the sum payable for each amounts to £2,000 per PCN, which totals £4,000. This sum must be paid and received by TfL within 28 days.
20. The amount payable is determined by TfL, and I have no discretion to vary the amount.
21. Adjudicators have no power to reduce the amount of a PCN or to accept payments in instalments. Any arrangement regarding the payment of the PCN is a matter between the appellant and TfL.
PCN LZ42752567
Contravention date 20 Aug 2024
Contravention time 11:18:27
Contravention location Harrow Manorway
Penalty amount GBP 2000.00
Contravention Failure to pay charge for Low Emission Zone
Referral date -
Decision Date 14 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Lale Hussein-Venn
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons
Adjudicator's Reasons
Introduction
1. This is an appeal by Mr Gary Rothwell against two Low Emission Zone (LEZ) penalty charge notices imposed by Transport for London [TfL] relating to travel on 17 and 20 August 2024.
2. This appeal was decided on the papers, as a postal appeal in accordance with the Appellant's preference.
The Law
3. The relevant law is set out in the Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging Order 2006 as amended and the available grounds of appeal are set out in Regulation 13(3) of the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001, as amended. I can only allow an appeal if one of these grounds has been established.
4. The appeal is a two-stage process. TfL must first prove that there may have been a 'contravention' of the Scheme. If I am satisfied that there has been a contravention, it is then for the Appellant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that one of the statutory grounds of appeal has been established.
5. Although TfL are permitted to take mitigating circumstances into account when considering representations, I am not permitted to do so when deciding an appeal. This was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in the case of Walmsley v TfL & Others [2005] EWCA Civ 1540.
The Grounds of Appeal
6. The Appellant seeks to rely on the ground that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. I have, however, considered all six grounds of appeal set out within the 2001 regulations.
The Appellant's Case
7. The Appellant says that his vehicle is a motorhome, not a converted truck, that he checked whether he would need to pay any daily charges for it but the DVLA’s website said ‘ULEZ status unavailable’ and that the vehicle is a low emissions vehicle and he is awaiting confirmation from the manufacturer to support this. He also says he was unaware he needed to pay anything in respect of his use of the LEZ and that the sum TfL are seeking in respect of the PCNs is unreasonable.
8. The Appellant asks to pay £35 for each date of entry into the LEZ, which he says is representative of the daily charge for a low emissions truck instead of the PCN amounts TfL are seeking. In addition, the Appellant says he did not see any signs to support he was entering the LEZ.
Transport for London's Case
9. TfL say the vehicle was photographed using the zone on two occasions and they have no record of the daily charge having been paid and so they say contraventions occurred.
10. It is also TfL's case that the vehicle is a type N2 vehicle using diesel fuel and it was manufactured in 20006. Under the Low Emission Scheme, it is only registered keepers of diesel fuel vehicles of type N2 that have an emission standard of Euro 6 or above who are not required to pay the daily charge. The vehicle was manufactured before the said emission standard was introduced and that being so, its emissions would not have met that standard. Therefore, TfL contend that the vehicle was not compliant with the scheme and there was a liability to pay the daily charge to avoid a penalty.
11. TfL also say that there are signs along the boundary to the LEZ to provide advance warning on all approaches to the zone allowing motorists an opportunity to take an alternative route, thereby avoiding travel into it.
Findings of Fact and Decision
12. I am satisfied, based on TfL's evidence, that the vehicle is classified as an N2 vehicle, and by virtue of its age and weight, I think it’s likely that it did not meet the required emission standard so there was a liability under the Scheme to pay a daily charge under the LEZ. And whilst I accept it’s quite possible that this vehicle might have lower emissions than is usual for its age and weight, the Appellant hasn’t provided any evidence to support this from the manufacturer at the date of his appeal. As such I can’t accept, based on the evidence he has supplied, that the emissions for this vehicle are lower than the emissions that are common for a vehicle of its age and weight.
13. I accept TfL's evidence that the Appellant was the registered keeper of the vehicle and that it was used in the zone on the relevant dates without payment of the daily charge. As such I find that contraventions occurred.
14. The relevant scheme in this case is the Low Emission scheme and not the Ultra-low Emission scheme. They are two completely separate schemes and TfL set out full details of the Low Emission scheme in their Case Summary. So the fact that DVLA’s website said that the ‘ULEZ status unavailable’ makes no difference to the outcome of this appeal because it is not relevant here.
15. Although the Appellant's vehicle is a motorhome, given its age and weight, it is caught by the Low Emission scheme. The fact that the Appellant may not have been aware of this, is not a ground of appeal. There is an expectation that a motorist is aware of all the charges that apply to their vehicle. The law imposes strict liability on the registered keeper to pay the charges incurred.
16. Signage for the scheme has been authorised by the Secretary of State for the Department for Transport. I am satisfied that the signage at the entrance of and leading up to the zone is compliant and sufficient to put motorists on notice of the existence of the zone and scheme.
17. The Appellant’s representations amount to mitigation only and, although TfL are permitted to take mitigation into account when considering representations, an Adjudicator is not permitted to do so when deciding an appeal.
18.I refuse the appeal.
Penalty Amount
19. TfL have said that the time to pay the discounted rate for the PCNs has now expired and as such the sum payable for each amounts to £2,000 per PCN, which totals £4,000. This sum must be paid and received by TfL within 28 days.
20. The amount payable is determined by TfL, and I have no discretion to vary the amount.
21. Adjudicators have no power to reduce the amount of a PCN or to accept payments in instalments. Any arrangement regarding the payment of the PCN is a matter between the appellant and TfL.
