Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: terrytazza on May 08, 2026, 06:41:59 pm
-
Pl post the PCN, your reps and their NOR.
Whether 'the penalty exceeded....'is valid is NOT IMO a function solely of what's printed in the PCN.
-
Unfortunately the TPT is now totally captured by the councils, and it's no longer unbiased, and you see that here. TPT is also extremely secretive, and does not allow its statutory register to be searched online.
Whilst the toll fee remains payable, my reading of the regulations is that the PCN cannot demand its payment, it has to be obtained through normal debt recovery arrangements. Birmingham avoid this by explicitly stating that the toll charge is not recoverable if a PCN is served.
I would ask for a review.
Sorry you lost.
-
I appealed a Bristol CAZ and it has come back that I have lost the appeal.
Here is the Adjudicator's reasons:
---
1. This appeal was due to be determined after a hearing on 20 April 2026. However, (appellant) did not join the hearing, despite being allowed additional time. I therefore decided this case based on the evidence before me on the day. (appellant) subsequently contacted the Tribunal on 24 April, explaining that (appellant) missed the hearing due to illness. However, no explanation was provided on the day of the hearing, and I had already made my decision by the time the telephone contact was made. In any event, (appellant) had set out their case very clearly in writing, and I did not consider it appropriate to delay the case further.
2. (appellant) appeals on the basis that the penalty charge demanded exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case. (appellant) refers me to a previous decision of this Tribunal, IA01249-1803, in which Chief Adjudicator Sheppard found that there was no power in The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 for a penalty charge notice to demand the road user charge in addition to the penalty.
3. I have considered the case to which (appellant) refers. Chief Adjudicator Sheppard found that the road user charge had already been paid, but because payment was made late, the Charging Authority had not allocated the sum paid to the outstanding crossing. However, the Chief Adjudicator also found that 'there is no power in Regulation 7 for the PCN to require the road user charge to be paid in addition to the penalty charge.'
4. Chief Adjudicator Sheppard found that since the penalty charge notice demanded both the penalty and the road user charge, 'the impact and effect of the PCN is to demand an amount that is in excess of the penalty charge, and it implies that payment of £38 or £73 is the only amount that will be accepted.'
5. I find that Regulation 7 does not actually provide a power to require payment of any particular amount. Rather it sets out the information which must be specified within a penalty charge notice. In relation to the penalty, it states that the PCN must specify 'the amount of penalty charge that is payable if the penalty charge is paid in full— (i) within 14 days of the day on which the penalty charge notice is served; (ii) after the expiry of such 14 day period but within 28 days of the day on which the penalty charge notice is served; (iii) after the service of a charge certificate'.
6. I find that the penalty charge notice in this case does accurately set out the penalty rates that apply at the various stages of the case (£60/£120/£180), and therefore does comply with the requirements of Regulation 7. The penalty charge therefore does not exceed the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.
7. What of Chief Adjudicator Sheppard's point that, although the penalty charge notice does accurately specify the penalty amount, the overall effect of it is to demand payment of nothing less than the penalty charge plus the outstanding road user charge?
8. The question is whether the Charging Authority has the power to demand payment of the road user charge, in addition to a penalty, as part of the enforcement process. Regulation 4 of the 2013 Regulations provides the power to impose a penalty for non-payment of the road user charge. Regulation 4(4) goes on to state that 'a charging scheme is to specify whether a penalty charge referred to in paragraph (1) or (2) is payable in addition to the road user charge or instead of such charge.'
9. Paragraph 11 of the Bristol Clean Air Zone Charging Order 2022, in compliance with paragraph 4(4) of the 2013 Regulations, states that the penalty charge will be payable in addition to the road user charge.
10. I therefore find that the penalty charge notice, in demanding payment of the penalty charge plus the outstanding road user charge, is simply communicating the total amount which is properly demanded. Accurately informing the recipient that both the penalty charge and the road user charge is payable is not procedurally improper, and does not have the effect of increasing the penalty charge beyond what is applicable in the circumstances of the case.
11. I am satisfied that this contravention did occur, and that the matter has been enforced in accordance with the relevant regulations. This appeal is dismissed, and I direct that the penalty of £120, plus the outstanding road user charge, must be paid within 28 days.
I wanted to have a screen / call hearing but was taken very ill and missed it unfortunately. I rang to tell them after the fact and they were very polite and said the adjudicator was considering the case based on the previously written statement.
I used information / templates from reading lots of posts on here.
Any thoughts and comments welcome.