Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: whynot on March 03, 2026, 09:34:51 pm
-
We have received the Adjudicator’s Decision. I will paste the important parts of the letter here, as I do not fully understand what has happened, except that we need to pay TFL but we are not really sure why the amount is £180 (the initial PCN was £90).
Is there anything else I can do here? Pay and complain to TfL?
Is there any reasonable approach for this case?
The amount is £180 because this is the penalty, not £90 as was stated in numerous posts i.e. the full penalty.
You lost because essentially your appeal went to mitigation which the adjudicator cannot as a matter of law consider.
The direction is to pay the £180 within the specified period.
IMO, given that TfL did not have a record of your representations in the first instance, that you didn't engage with TfL after receiving the Charge Certificate and that they were put to the trouble of engaging bailiffs, I'm not surprised they wanted to pursue you.
Unless anyone can find serious fault with the adjudicator's decision such that you could successfully pursue a review*, then IMO you have to pay I'm afraid.
*- I hesitate to even raise this because you might want to delve into it and eat into your time for paying the penalty because asking for a review does not of itself halt the 28-day clock.
-
All,
We have received the Adjudicator’s Decision. I will paste the important parts of the letter here, as I do not fully understand what has happened, except that we need to pay TFL but we are not really sure why the amount is £180 (the initial PCN was £90).
Is there anything else I can do here? Pay and complain to TfL?
Is there any reasonable approach for this case?
"The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has decided that the appeal against
liability for the charge should be refused. The reasons for the adjudicator’s decision are enclosed.
The amount of the penalty charge payable is set out in the reasons and must be paid and received by Transport
for London within the specified deadline."
"If the penalty has not been paid within 28 days, Transport for London can issue a charge certificate increasing
the full penalty charge by a further 50%."
"Adjudicator's Reasons
1. This appeal was determined as a personal appeal following the Appellant filing a statutory
declaration.
Issue
2. The responsibility is initially upon Transport for London (TFL) to demonstrate that there may have
been a 'contravention' that is a breach of the Congestion Charging Scheme.
3. If TFL produces this evidence to establish that there is a potential contravention, then the
responsibility moves to the Appellant to satisfy me that, it is more likely than not, that one of the six
grounds of appeal as set out in the relevant regulations is made out. The issue in this case is whether
the penalty charge is payable by the Appellant.
Law
4. The law relating to penalties imposed in regards to the Congestion Charge Zone is set out in the
Greater London Congestion Charging Scheme Order 2004 as amended. The relevant regulations
relating the grounds for appeal are Regulation 13(3) of the Road User Charging (Enforcement and
Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001, as amended.
The Appellant's case
5. The Appellant states that they had to travel into central London with their 7 week old baby to attend
the embassy. They relied on google maps that indicated that the ULEZ charge but that their
vehicle was ULEZ compliant but did not highlight that they were entering the Congestion charging
zone. She says that they live outside of London. She explains that due to the traffic and baby being
unsettled, they did not notice the road markings indicating the Congestion zone. She requests that the
penalty is cancelled and that they are happy to pay the daily charge. She has now set up Auto Pay.
Transport for London's case
6. Transport for London assert that the Appellant's vehicle was recorded as travelling within the
congestion zone within the charging hours on the 2nd September 2025. Furthermore, that it is the
legal duty of the registered keeper of a vehicle to make themselves aware of any charges that may be
in existence along their route. Transport for London state that motorists are made aware when they
are about to cross the boundary of the Congestion Charging Zone by entry and exit road traffic signs.
Findings of fact
7. There is no dispute that on the date in question, the Appellant's vehicle was used within the
Congestion charging zone. It is also agreed that no Congestion Charge payment had been made for
that date.
8. The Appellant states that she was unaware of the congestion charge on his route. She refers to the
circumstances on the day. These are mitigating circumstances that I am unable to take into account
(Walmsley v TFL & Others EWCA Civ 1540).
9. I find that it was the Appellant's responsibility to be aware of road signs and charges. There are
advance warning signs and congestion charge road signs at the entrance to the charging zones. I do
consider that the signage was compliant with the Department for Transport standards in line with the
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984. Drivers should not solely rely on satellite navigation systems to
alert them of road charges.
10. The law imposes a strict liability on the registered keeper to pay the charge. I find that the
An independent tribunal that decides appeals against
congestion charging penalties and low emission zone penalties in London
Road User Charging Adjudicators are supported by London Tribunals, a service provided by London Councils
Calls to London Tribunals will be recorded for training and quality purposes
Appellant's vehicle was used within the charging zone. The daily charge must be paid by midnight on
the third charging day following the date of entry, otherwise the penalty charge becomes payable. As
a result, I find that that the penalty charge of £180 is applicable in these circumstances. I do not have
a discretion to reduce the amount of penalty charge or allow an appeal as a gesture of
goodwill.
11. For the reasons given, I refuse this appeal. None of the six grounds of appeal set out in
Regulation 13(3) of the relevant regulations have been made out. The Appellant says that she was
unaware of the Congestion charge on her route, this does not amount to a ground of appeal.
12. I find accordingly that the Appellant as the registered keeper of the vehicle is directly liable to
Transport for London for payment of this penalty charge.
Payment Amount
13. Transport for London confirmed in the case summary that the penalty to be paid is £180 in respect
of this contravention, if paid and received within 28 days of the date of this letter. If full payment is not
made by this date to Transport for London, then the outstanding amount will increase and Transport
for London will be able to pursue the normal enforcement procedures.
xxxxx
Adjudicator appointed under Regulation 3 of the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication)
(London) Regulations 2001 (as amended)."
-
The adjudicator must apply the law and IMO the only options are:
To allow your appeal under one of the grounds which an adjudicator may consider;
To reject your appeal;
To reject but make a recommendation to the authority.
As regards the third option, I am not aware of any recommendation which includes paying the congestion charge only,so I think you're in for the penalty or the discount*.
An adjudicator may not consider mitigation/discretion because these powers are reserved to the authority alone.
In effect, it's now as if on receipt of a PCN you are appealing directly to the adjudicator therefore, as per Incandescent, it's the full chebang. IMO, the style and content of the reps which weren't received are a guide to you only. You should treat this as de novo i.e. as if for the first time.
So, what were the circumstances of incurring the penalty and why was the charge not paid within the allowed time etc.
-
You are at London Tribunals, so the maximum amount you are likely to have to pay is the PCN penalty, but you won't get the discount option.
It is important to put all your representation arguments to the adjudicator, but I suggest you include your initial reps if you still have them. Whatever you do, do NOT opt for a papers-based adjudication; always opt for a hearing. Hearings are by phone or, (if you have the kit) by video. TfL are almost certain not to turn up, it will be you and the adjudicator.
-
First of all, thank you all for your engagement and for taking the time to help – I really appreciate the advice and support.
TfL’s position is that they have never received my representation. This might be true if their website/representation form malfunctioned on that day, but I don’t think potential IT issues on their side should strengthen their case.
I have now received a letter from the tribunal.
I plan to respond and would like to include my wife as a witness.
Could anyone advise what evidence I should provide at this stage and what format the tribunal expects when submitting documents?
I would like to include the following evidence:
- Email confirmation from TfL that two accounts were created
- Email confirmation that Auto Pay was set up
- A screenshot from Messenger showing that I wrote “representation was sent today at 2 pm”, together with the full representation attached in that message
Considering all of the above, I still think it would be fair for me to pay the original Congestion Charge fee. Should I suggest this in my written communication to the tribunal, or is it better to raise it during the hearing?
Below is the letter I received from the tribunal.
https://imgpile.com/p/XNKlSJc#Gli96TE
https://imgpile.com/p/XNKlSJc#P2ucMPQ
https://imgpile.com/p/XNKlSJc#LX2NkSC
-
If you made your statutory declaration under the grounds of 'made reps but did not receive a notice of rejection', then this regulation applies IMO:
Where a declaration has been served under paragraph (2)(b) or (c),[2(c) being 'made reps..' etc.] the charging authority shall refer the case to the adjudicator who may give such directions as he considers appropriate.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2001/2313/regulation/19/made
IMO, you are not at adjudication, the authority has referred the matter to the adjudicator for 'directions'. These are likely to be that you should provide evidence to the adjudicator that you submitted reps(because the authority's evidence says that you did not). If you convinced them-by submission of written evidence- then the matter would be registered as an appeal. If you did not, then the adjudicator would likely direct you to pay the full penalty without an appeal being heard.
IMO, there's no option to be issued with a fresh PCN because your grounds were not related.
TfL's response to you is misleading as regards what happens, but this isn't a defence. Your next communication should be from the tribunal and, as posted by stamfordman, I suggest you contact them (the tribunal) to find out the current position
-
I don't know what happened but there is no record of your representation, and it went as far as bailiff.
(https://i.ibb.co/sJ9WkQgR/Screenshot-2026-03-03-at-23-09-45.png)
-
The case has been sent to the adjudicator as you made a statutory declaration presumably on the grounds you made reps but didn't get a reply.
The outcome which will probably be a reissue of the PCN.
Call London Tribunals and check the response will reach you - are the address and email correct.
What are the PCN number and car VRM.
Right, that makes sense. They’ll likely reissue the PCN, I’ll submit a representation again, and they’ll probably reject it.
PCN: LP34347097
VRM: DL67HLE
-
The case has been sent to the adjudicator as you made a statutory declaration presumably on the grounds you made reps but didn't get a reply.
The outcome which will probably be a reissue of the PCN.
Call London Tribunals and check the response will reach you - are the address and email correct.
What are the PCN number and car VRM.
-
Hi all,
I would really appreciate some advice regarding a Congestion Charge PCN we received from Transport for London.
The case has now been referred to the independent adjudicator at London Tribunals.
We did not intend to formally challenge the charge; we simply wanted to try our luck and ask for a gesture of goodwill.
PCN: LP34347097
REG: DL67HLE
- Last letter from Congestion Charge: Congestion Charge (https://imgpile.com/p/7yVmFMm)
Timeline:
- In September 2025, the registered keeper received a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for the Congestion Charge.
- In our representation, we asked for the matter to be considered as a gesture of goodwill and confirmed that we were willing to pay the original Congestion Charge fee for entering the zone.
- Within 2 days, we submitted a representation based on mitigation and discretion (as stated: “If none of the six statutory grounds apply, you may still make a representation explaining your circumstances and we will carefully consider these.”).
- We never received a Notice of Rejection from TfL.
- In December, we received a Statutory Declaration form, which was completed in January and later accepted by the court.
- Now we have received a letter from TfL (dated 20/02, delivered on 2 March) stating:
“We have reviewed your application and the processing of the PCN and have decided we wish to proceed with its enforcement.”[/list]
Key details:
- On the same day we submitted the representation, both my partner and I created Congestion Charge accounts.
- I also set up Auto Pay that same day and mentioned this in my representation.
- The representation was submitted via the TfL website.
- Unfortunately, I did not receive an email confirmation after submitting the representation. Because of that, I submitted it a second time to make sure it had gone through. However, I did not receive confirmation for the second submission either. This may indicate there were issues with the TfL website at the time, particularly as TfL now states that they never received any representation from us.
- On the same day, I messaged my partner on Facebook confirming that I had submitted the representation and shared details of it there. I have logs and screenshots available.
My questions:
- Would this be sufficient evidence to potentially achieve a positive outcome with the independent adjudicator?
- What evidence should we now provide to the adjudicator?
- How do we properly contact or submit additional information to the adjudicator?
- What outcomes can we realistically expect in this situation?
Could the adjudicator decide that:
We must pay the current £270 charge?
We only need to pay the original £90 PCN amount?
We are allowed to pay just the original Congestion Charge fee for that day?
Or that nothing is payable? - Also, do we need to clearly state what outcome we are seeking in our appeal (for example, cancellation of the PCN or permission to pay the original Congestion Charge only), or will the adjudicator determine this automatically based on the case?
Any guidance or similar experiences would be greatly appreciated. Please let me know if I should share anything more. Thank you in advance.