Free Traffic Legal Advice
General discussion => The Flame Pit => Topic started by: stamfordman on August 10, 2024, 12:28:50 pm
-
Here's the full decision (x17). I'm just flagging up talk of the driving licence, not that TFL/DVLA may have made mistakes with the vehicle registration, although all 17 PCNs were sent to the 'wrong' address.
---------
1. This is an appeal against 17 penalty charges imposed by Transport for London in relation to journeys in the Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) between 11 April 2024 and 26 May 2024.
2. In accordance with the Appellant’s preference, this appeal was determined as a postal appeal.
The Law
3. The Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging Order 2006 as amended sets out the relevant law relating to penalties imposed in relation to the ULEZ.
4. The appeal process is in two stages. Transport for London must first show that there may have been a ‘contravention’, that is a breach, of the ULEZ scheme. If I am satisfied that there has been a potential contravention, it is for the Appellant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that one of the statutory grounds of appeal has been established.
5. Whereas Transport for London has complete discretion as to whether to enforce a penalty charge notice, I as an adjudicator do not have the same discretion. The case of Walmsley v TfL and others EWCA [2005] Civ 1540 established the principle that adjudicators do not have discretion to consider mitigating circumstances. I am limited to considering whether one of the six statutory grounds of appeal has been made out.
Ground of appeal in this appeal
6. The six available grounds of appeal are set out in Regulation 13(3) of the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001, as amended.
7. The Appellant relies on the ground of appeal that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable.
The Appellant’s case
8. The Appellant’s case is that the appeal should be allowed because each of the penalty charge notices was sent to the incorrect address – the road was correct but not the house number. This caused a delay in the Appellant receiving the penalty charge notices and deprived the Appellant of the chance of paying the reduced penalty of £90 for each penalty charge notice. The Appellant is willing to pay the penalty charge notices, but wants to pay £90 not £180 for each penalty charge notice. The Appellant relies on a copy of their driving licence as proof of their address. The date of issue of the driving licence is given as 19 January 2020.
Transport for London’s case
9. Transport for London’s case is that the vehicle was used within the ULEZ within charging hours, without paying the required daily charge and that the Appellant has not provided any evidence that they are exempt/ entitled to a discount.
10. Transport for London relies on information as to the postal address for the Appellant which it submits it has received from the DVLA. That information is reproduced in its evidence - Category D in Transport for London’s evidence pack. Some of the information it received from the DVLA shows two different house numbers (1 and 97) in the same road as the Appellant’s address and the rest show the house number as 1.
11. Transport for London relies on copies of the penalty charge notices issued to the Appellant. Each of the 17 penalty charge notices shows the house number as 1.
12. Transport for London submits that if incorrect information is held by the DVLA, it is the registered keeper’s responsibility to ensure that the information is updated (corrected).
Findings of Fact and Decision
13. Based on the evidence including photographic evidence submitted by Transport for London, I am satisfied that the Appellant is the registered keeper of the vehicle and that the vehicle was used within the charging zone within charging hours, without paying the required daily charges.
14. Transport for London has provided a document showing results of a search on the gov.uk website for the vehicle in question, stating that the vehicle was manufactured in 2016, is a diesel fuel vehicle and is ‘vehicle type approval’ category N1. Transport for London has asserted that diesel vehicles manufactured in that year were built to achieve emissions standards which do not meet those now required. Without any evidence having been provided by the Appellant to the contrary, I am satisfied that the vehicle’s emissions standards do not comply with the requirements of the ULEZ scheme, and that the vehicle is not exempt or entitled to a 100% discount.
15. None of this is disputed by the Appellant and I am satisfied that a contravention occurred. However, I must also be satisfied that the penalty charge notices were validly issued.
16. Regulation 12 of the Road User (Enforcement and Adjudication Regulations) 2011 as amended provides that if the daily charge is not paid Transport for London may serve a penalty charge notice on the registered keeper of the vehicle.
17. I have considered the evidence provided by the Appellant very carefully. The Appellant relies on a copy of their driving licence as evidence of their address. The house number on the driving licence is 97 and at section 4a of the licence, the date of issue of the licence itself is given as 19 January 2020.
18. I have compared the Appellant’s evidence to the evidence relied on by Transport for London. Within its evidence there is contradictory information which Transport for London states it has received from the DVLA as to the Appellant’s address - see above. Each of the 17 penalty charge notices which comprise this appeal was sent to house number 1, not house number 97.
19. I am not satisfied that the penalty charge notices were sent to the Appellant’s correct address and because of this I find on the balance of probabilities that that penalty charge notices were not properly served. As a result, I allow this appeal.
NOTE TO APPELLANT – My decision to allow this appeal has been made because I am not satisfied that the penalty charge notices were properly issued. It does not prevent Transport for London from reissuing the notices to your correct address in the future.
-
there's an awful lot of information missing there.
what else happened if the appellant was using his licence to prove address (as opposed to a utility bill)
@stamf what else is there to nake you thi know the adjudicator made a mistake?
-
Was the V5C in evidence? The adjudicator will (or should) decide the case on the evidence before them.
-
I was reading yesterday's London road charging cases and came across:
Case reference 9240289109
17. I have considered the evidence provided by the Appellant very carefully. The Appellant relies on a copy of their driving licence as evidence of their address. The house number on the driving licence is 97 and at section 4a of the licence, the date of issue of the licence itself is given as 19 January 2020.
18. I have compared the Appellant’s evidence to the evidence relied on by Transport for London. Within its evidence there is contradictory information which Transport for London states it has received from the DVLA as to the Appellant’s address - see above. Each of the 17 penalty charge notices which comprise this appeal was sent to house number 1, not house number 97.
19. I am not satisfied that the penalty charge notices were sent to the Appellant’s correct address and because of this I find on the balance of probabilities that that penalty charge notices were not properly served. As a result, I allow this appeal.
Now TFL may have messed up the evidence pack but it's alarming but lucky for the appellant with 17 of these that the adjudicator doesn't seem to know the difference between the V5C and driving licence.