Decision refers to 14 PCNS - did they not contest the others.
-------------------
9250256139
This is an appeal against a total of fourteen Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) imposed by Transport for London (TfL) for use of a vehicle in the ULEZ on the 26th and 27th of February 2025, the 6th, the 7th, the 16th, the 17th, the 20th, the 26th, the 27th and the 29th of March 2025, the 3rd, the 4th, the 8th and the 12th of April 2025. This appeal was decided as a personal hearing in line with the Appellant’s preference.
The Law
1: The relevant law is set out in the Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging Order 2006 as amended, and the available six grounds of appeal are set out in Regulation 13(3) of the Road user Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001, as amended. I am only able to allow an appeal if one of these grounds of appeal has been established. The law imposes strict liability on the registered keeper to pay the charges if properly incurred.
2: The appeal is a two-stage process. TfL must first demonstrate that there has been a contravention of the scheme. If I am satisfied that there has been a contravention, then it is for the Appellant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that is to say more likely than not, that one of the six statutory grounds of appeal has been established.
3: Although TfL are entitled to take into account mitigating circumstances, when considering representations, as an Adjudicator I am not permitted to do so. This was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in the case of Walmsley v TfL & Others (2005) EWCA Civ 1540.
Transport For London’s Case
4: TfL’s case is that a motor vehicle Registration Number MG04 JNR was used within the ULEZ on the fourteen dates set out above between the 26th of February 2025 and the 12th of April 2025 inclusive. TfL have provided a document showing a record of information provided by the DVLA that the Appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle.
5: TfL have provided photographs of the vehicle in the ULEZ on each of the relevant dates and have no record of the daily charge having been paid.
6: It is TfL’s case that the vehicle is an M1 category vehicle, with diesel fuel, manufactured in 2013. TfL state that they are satisfied that their records in relation to the vehicle are accurate and given the age and characteristics of the vehicle they are satisfied that the vehicle does not comply with the ULEZ emissions standards defined in the Scheme Order, and that consequently there was a liability to pay the daily charge to avoid a penalty.
7: TfL state that it is for road users to familiarise themselves with the ULEZ emission standards for vehicles and the signage and boundaries of where the ULEZ applies. Additionally, TfL state that it is for road users to ensure that proper payment facilities are set up to ensure that payments of daily charges are made. As the registered keeper of the vehicle, TfL’s case is that it is the Appellant’s duty to make themselves aware of any charges, tolls, or fines which may be in existence along their route and to ensure that they were not in contravention of them.
8: TfL state that they have considered the representations made by the Appellant. TfL requested further evidence from the Appellant but maintain that, upon review, the vehicle is not ULEZ compliant and that the PCNs were all correctly issued and that enforcement ought to continue.
9: Specifically, TfL’s case is that the emissions levels of the vehicle are such that it is not Euro 6 compliant. TfL have considered the information provided by the Appellant and are satisfied that the Pm value of the vehicle of 1.160g/km is more than the Euro 6 permitted level of 0.005g/km.
10: TfL state that it is for the registered keeper to ensure that their vehicle is compliant with ULEZ or else to purchase daily charges for use in the ULEZ.
11: TfL concede that the Appellant may have received different results historically when checking the vehicle’s compliance status on their website. TfL indicate that this is likely to be as a result of the way in which the DVLA data they were provided with at the beginning of the year was interpreted by them. They state that following a subsequent data update, and based on the information they currently hold, the Appellant’s vehicle MG04 JNR is deemed to be non-compliant with the ULEZ scheme’s requirements.
12: TfL do not specify what specifically the data from the DVLA was which was interpreted differently, nor when it was received, nor when the relevant data update took place, beyond a reference to “the beginning of the year”.
13: TfL state that if the Appellant believes their vehicle is compliant, they require documentation to prove this prior to reconsidering the PCNs relevant to this appeal.
14: TfL state that they do not find that any of the statutory grounds of appeal have been met TfL have decided not to exercise their discretion in the Appellant’s favour and state that as each of the PCNs were correctly issued, enforcement ought to be pursued.
The Appellant’s Case
15: The Appellant does not challenge that they are the registered keeper of the vehicle MG04 JNR.
16: No representations are made by the Appellant to challenge the age of the vehicle.
17: The Appellant accepts that the vehicle was used in the ULEZ on each of the 14 occasions which give rise to the PCNs which are the subject of this appeal.
18: The appellant accepts that no daily charge was paid for the use of the vehicle in the ULEZ on any of these 14 occasions.
19: The Appellant set out in representations, and in the appeal hearing itself, that the vehicle was purchased by them in October 2023. At the time of purchase the vehicle bore a different registration mark, and the current registration mark, MG04 JNR, was registered with the vehicle either in late January 2025 or early February 2025, having been purchased as a birthday gift.
20: It is the Appellant’s case that when they purchased the vehicle in October 2023, they were informed that it was ULEZ compliant, and at the appeal hearing, that it was complaint was an important factor which was behind the decision to purchase it.
21: Since purchasing the vehicle, it is the Appellant’s case that it was used in ULEZ on an almost daily basis. The Appellant gave evidence that until the PCNs which form this appeal were received, they did not receive any earlier notification that the vehicle was not ULEZ compliant.
22: Whilst accepting that ultimately responsibility rested with them, the Appellant made representations at the appeal that the very fact that they did not receive PCNs prior to February 2025 was evidence in itself that the vehicle was and remained ULEZ compliant given that it was frequently used in the ULEZ prior to this date.
23: The Appellant stated in the appeal hearing that they did not receive any notification from either the DVLA nor from TfL that there had been any change in the data provided in relation to the vehicle’s status, nor the manner in which TfL interpreted that data and consequently the way in which their vehicle might be classified.
24: It is the Appellant’s case that every use of the vehicle in ULEZ without receiving a PCN reinforced their continued belief that the vehicle was ULEZ compliant and allowed them a realistic expectation that they were permitted to continue using the vehicle in ULEZ without purchasing a daily charge.
25: The Appellant’s view was perhaps that the changing of the vehicle’s registration plate triggered confusion with TfL so as to alter the ULEZ compliance status of the vehicle.
26: The Appellant argues in the circumstances that there ought to be no charge payable in respect of the fourteen PCNs which this appeal relates to.
Findings Of Fact
27: I make the following findings of fact.
(i) The vehicle MG04 JNR was used within ULEZ on the fourteen occasions which this appeal relates to between the 26th of February 2025 and the 12th of April 2025 inclusive.
(ii) That the Appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle.
(iii) That the vehicle is now one to which the ULEZ scheme applies.
(iv) That no daily charges were paid for any of the contraventions which this appeal is focussed upon.
Conclusion
28: The issue in this appeal is whether the Appellant should have to pay the penalty charge or else whether no charge is payable.
29: The law imposes strict liability on the registered keeper to pay the charge if properly incurred.
30: I have already made it clear that as an Adjudicator I am not permitted to consider mitigating circumstances, and that I can only allow an appeal if one of the statutory grounds for appeal has been established. Whilst TfL are entitled to take mitigating circumstances into account when considering representations, when deciding an appeal, I am not permitted to do so.
31: I have already indicated that once TfL establish a case it is for the Appellant to satisfy me on the balance of probabilities that one of the appeal grounds has been made out.
32: I listened carefully to the account given by the Appellant. I have had regard to their written representations and the documents confirming that the vehicle was purchased by them in October 2023 and that the registration mark was changed on the vehicle either in late January 2025 or early February 2025.
33: I accept the evidence of the Appellant that the vehicle was used on a considerable number of occasions in the ULEZ prior to the relevant PCNs being received by them.
34: I also accept that it is the registered keeper’s responsibility to ensure that any vehicle used in the ULEZ is compliant or else if not to purchase a daily charge for each use.
35: I further am satisfied on the information I have considered that as of the date of this appeal the vehicle is not ULEZ compliant, and the emissions figures are such that it does not reach Euro 6 status.
36: I have considered the information provided by TfL in relation to their data update and the fact that the way in which data was interpreted changed at some point after the beginning of 2025.
37: I am satisfied that the Appellant was not informed of this and could not reasonably have known that there was any change in the manner in which the status of the vehicle MG04 JNR was being interpreted.
38: I am not persuaded that the issuing of the PCNs was as a consequence of TfL’s systems mis identifying the vehicle as older than it actually is.
39: I am however persuaded that the Appellant, when using the vehicle in ULEZ on each of the fourteen occasions which this appeal relates to, had a reasonable expectation that the vehicle was still compliant. I consider that their use of the vehicle up to that point in ULEZ without receiving PCNs did reasonably give them the expectation that the vehicle was, and remained, compliant.
40: I am satisfied therefore on the balance of probabilities that the Appellant has persuaded me that an appeal ground has been successfully argued. I order TfL to cancel the PCNs in respect of each of the fourteen contraventions which this appeal relates to.
41: I made it clear when giving my oral judgment at the appeal, and I do so now, that on the basis of the up to date information made available to me I do consider that the vehicle is not ULEZ compliant and in my judgment any “realistic expectation” argument, were it to be advanced for any future PCNs received after the date of this appeal, would be unlikely to succeed.
