Free Traffic Legal Advice

With the tribunal opt for a personal (phone) hearing. This ensures you can add any needed clarity for the adjudicator.

Keep an eye on the portal once submitted And the date is known so you can change date if needed and also see if the council submits any evidence. If not you win.

If they do you can arm yourself to know how to challenge their case.

I’ve had a response from Bristol City Council through the tribunal. Pasted below.

Authority Summary:
After reviewing the PCN’s, Bristol City Council has concluded Mr Kevin Foy’s non-compliant vehicle was observed within the Bristol Clean Air Zone without payment of the required tariff for the dates of travel, therefore their PCN was issued correctly.
The appellant argues that the inclusion of the Clean Air Zone (CAZ) charge in the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) is unlawful based on the interpretation of The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013. However, the regulations do not explicitly preclude the council from referencing the CAZ charge in the PCN.
Regulation 7 of The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 specifies the content requirements for a PCN, but it does not limit the council from providing additional information pertinent to the road user. Including information about the CAZ charge aids transparency and helps ensure the recipient is fully aware of all liabilities resulting from their contravention.
The appellant's contention that the CAZ charge and the penalty are separate debts is acknowledged; however, the inclusion of information about both charges in the same document does not amount to a procedural impropriety. In evidence number 20, The council have attached Part 2 section 4 of The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 which explicitly states that “the charging scheme is to specify whether a penalty charge… is payable in addition to the Road user charge or instead of such charge”. In Evidence number 12 the council have provided a screenshot of the Bristol Clean Air Zone Charging Order 2022 Penalty charge for non-payment of charge, section 11 (1) which states “A penalty charge will be payable, in addition to the charge imposed under article 7”. The separation of debt simply serves as a comprehensive notification to the road user. The PCN still distinguishes between the penalty charge and the CAZ charge, clearly indicating what amount is due under what category.
The appellant cites a previous decision by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal (Case Number IA01249-1803) as a precedent. However, tribunal decisions are case-specific and may not be directly applicable to the current circumstances. The factual matrix, local regulations, and specific wording of the PCN in the current case may significantly differ, and thus, the previous decision should not be considered determinative.
Bristol City Council has acted in good faith by providing comprehensive information regarding all charges associated with the contravention. This approach is consistent with ensuring that road users are well-informed, thus fostering compliance and understanding of the regulatory framework.
The appellant's claim of procedural impropriety is unsubstantiated. Bristol City Council's inclusion of the CAZ charge information in the PCN does not violate The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013. Instead, it serves the purpose of transparency and clarity for road users. Therefore, I urge the tribunal to uphold the validity of PCN BS59751797 and PCN BS59761746 and dismiss the appellant's claim.

For me, the Caroline Sheppard adjudication of 2018 is compelling; there are no powers in the road user charging regulations to demand payment of the road user charge in the PCN. This is akin to a council putting in a car park charge into a parking PCN. Parking PCNs have been around since 1991, but no council anywhere has yet had the temerity to add the parking charge to the PCN. If a PCN recipient just pays the penalty charge, what are Bristol going to do ? Send out a charge certificate ? Then register the debt at TEC. They have no powers to do this. The road user charge is just a debt and outwith the PCN enforcement process.  Of course their Order may say that the charge is payable even if a PC penalty is paid, but they only have normal debt recovery procedures outside the PCN process to recover it.
Birmingham have obviously read the regulations more carefully, and their Order specifically states that payment of a PCN discharges liability for the road user charge.

Hi all,

Thanks for taking the time on this matter. I thought I would wait a moment to hear a few opinions. Everyone has interesting & I believe valid points. I’m just a little confused on how to proceed. Whether to just leave it to the process & continue without comment or if I make further argument, which stance to take. What I am clear about though is that it doesn’t seem like anyone feels Bristol Council have a compelling enough case in order for me to withdraw.

Thanks for any advice.
K