Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: bumper31 on July 07, 2025, 08:06:55 pm
-
Can't help but feel I am being given the run around here -
I asked DVLA when TFL would have the VRM added to their database for ULEZ compliance and this was their reply - typos included....
"Thank you for your enquiry on 04/09/2025
I appreciate you taking the time to contact us in this matter.
This is incorrect. DVAALA duo not hold TFL Ulez information. Please contact TfL.
I hope this information is of assistance."
I have now gone back and tried to be specific about the date at which T30 JDC just "went live"
I am not holding out much hope
John
-
Hi,
I have had a response from TFL, basically they are telling me they will only say it is compliant, and they "can't" say the date from which it is compliant:
Thank you for your recent correspondence received on 15 August 2025, regarding your Ultra Low Emission Zone
(ULEZ) T30JDC.
Please be advised that as the your vehicle registration T30JDC has been updated directly by Driver and Vehicle
Licensing Agency (DVLA) we do not hold this information and we are unable to give you the exact date the DVLA has
added it to our system.
We would therefore advise you contact them directly to request this information.
If you have any questions, please visit tfl.gov.uk/ulez or call us on 0343 222 2222 (text phone 0207 649 9123 if you
have impaired hearing).
Shall I chase DVLA for this info? Or shall I just go with Mr 404's approach?
Thanks
Bumper
-
Perfect @404 - thanks
As per Mr Andersen, I have made the 1st step to confirm ULEZ conformance.
The lease company confirmed it is their T&Cs and to pay PCNs without transfer of liability.
I'll post again once I get a reply.
As they say, it isn't the money it is the principle!
Thanks
-
The next step is to obtain from TfL a formal written confirmation of the vehicle's compliance status and the date from which the personalised registration was recognised as compliant in their database.
I think this is exactly what I posted except mine was, may I say, in a more concise form!
-
On the facts you have provided, the critical point is that the vehicle in question was, and remains, Ultra Low Emission Zone compliant within the meaning of the Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging Order 2006 (as amended) and the subsequent Ultra Low Emission Zone Scheme made under section 295 and Schedule 23 to the Greater London Authority Act 1999. If TfL had no lawful entitlement to levy a penalty because the vehicle was exempt at the time of the alleged contravention, any Penalty Charge Notice purportedly issued in respect of it was a nullity. It follows that any payment made in respect of such a notice, whether voluntary or involuntary, is recoverable on grounds of restitution for unjust enrichment. The fact that your leasing company discharged the penalties without your consent, and without seeking a transfer of liability under the statutory scheme, does not extinguish the underlying unlawfulness.
The statutory framework provides, under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001, that where a Penalty Charge Notice is served on the registered keeper but the vehicle was, at the material time, hired or leased under a qualifying agreement, the keeper may transfer liability to the hirer by making formal representations within 28 days, supported by a statement of liability and a copy of the hire agreement. This provision is mirrored in TfL's own procedural guidance. In your case, the lease company failed to avail itself of that statutory mechanism, and instead made payment, thereby extinguishing their right of appeal. However, the absence of an appeal does not legitimise an unlawful demand ab initio. Where money is paid in consequence of an unlawful demand by a public authority, it may be recovered either by the payor or by the party who has suffered the loss, provided a sufficient nexus of authority exists between them.
The cause of action against TfL lies in restitution for money had and received, arising from an ultra vires demand. The cause of action against the lease company, if pursued, would be framed in breach of bailment and/or breach of contract, on the basis that they paid sums for which you were not liable and then sought to recover those sums from you without lawful basis. If the lease agreement contains terms that purport to authorise the lease company to pay and recharge all penalties without discretion, those terms may still be subject to the implied duty to act rationally and in good faith, and not to recover sums arising from an unlawful charge. Both parties could therefore be joined as defendants: TfL as the primary wrongdoer in making the unlawful demand, and the lease company as a secondary wrongdoer in discharging and recharging an unlawful sum to your account.
If you elect to pursue TfL alone, the letter of claim would be addressed solely to them. If you join the leasing company, it would be copied and marked as notice of intended proceedings in which they would be named as a joint defendant.
The form of words for such a letter might be as follows:
[Your address]
[Date]
Transport for London
Road User Charging Correspondence
PO Box 343
Darlington DL1 9QD
Dear Sirs
Re: Unlawful Demand and Payment – Ultra Low Emission Zone Penalty Charge Notice No. [reference]
I write in accordance with the Pre-Action Protocol for Debt Claims and the Practice Direction – Pre-Action Conduct. I am the hirer of vehicle registration mark [VRM] under a lease agreement with [Lease Company]. At all material times, this vehicle met the emissions criteria for exemption from the Ultra Low Emission Zone charge, as confirmed by your own vehicle compliance database.
On [date], you issued a Penalty Charge Notice alleging non-compliance with the ULEZ Scheme. This penalty was paid by my leasing company without my consent and without transferring liability to me under paragraph 2 of Schedule 1 to the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001. You were not entitled in law to issue or enforce the said Penalty Charge Notice, as the vehicle was compliant at all material times.
Your demand for payment was ultra vires and constitutes an unlawful act for which you are strictly liable to make restitution. The sum of £[amount] was paid in consequence of your unlawful demand. I require repayment of that sum within 14 days of the date of this letter.
If the sum is not repaid within that period, I will issue proceedings in the County Court without further notice, claiming restitution for money had and received, interest pursuant to section 69 of the County Courts Act 1984, and my legal costs.
If the leasing company is to be named as a joint defendant:
For the avoidance of doubt, this letter is also copied to [Lease Company] as proposed joint defendant, on the basis that they have wrongfully paid the said unlawful penalties and sought to recharge me for them, contrary to the implied duty to act in good faith and the law of bailment. Should repayment not be forthcoming, proceedings will be issued against both parties, jointly and severally, without further notice.
Yours faithfully
[Name]
The next step is to obtain from TfL a formal written confirmation of the vehicle's compliance status and the date from which the personalised registration was recognised as compliant in their database. That will form the central evidential plank of your claim, as it will demonstrate that no contravention ever occurred. Once that is secured, the claim should be advanced promptly to avoid any limitation or procedural defence.
-
You posted: Why someone doesn't look at this and the fact that the car has "always" been compliant should negate any fine, paid or otherwise?
Because you are going about this the wrong way IMO.
Simply ask TfL whether VRM ***** is compliant and when this took effect. Time lags in updating systems are NOT the motorist's concern, they're TfL's.
If TfL had no lawful authority to demand a penalty in the first place, then whether payment was made or not is irrelevant. But you would need to face them with their own evidence - their response to you(and you might need to coax this out of them) - to do this IMO.
I get this now, sorry for it to take so long to sink in.....
1st message sent as per your recommendation
-
You posted: Why someone doesn't look at this and the fact that the car has "always" been compliant should negate any fine, paid or otherwise?
Because you are going about this the wrong way IMO.
Simply ask TfL whether VRM ***** is compliant and when this took effect. Time lags in updating systems are NOT the motorist's concern, they're TfL's.
If TfL had no lawful authority to demand a penalty in the first place, then whether payment was made or not is irrelevant. But you would need to face them with their own evidence - their response to you(and you might need to coax this out of them) - to do this IMO.
-
https://imgur.com/gallery/tfl-appeal-u3vDrH7
(https://i.imgur.com/iGkahGH.jpg)
-
Just for clarity, when we say write to TFL, doews this have to be snail mail?
Thanks
B
-
Please post up the Notice of Rejection. Just redact/obscure your name & address. Leave everything else visible.
And please post up the text of the challenge you sent to TFL.
-
IMO, you don't complain, challenge or demand, you simply enquire.
I am a motorist; an issue has arisen regarding your VRM(*****, as can be seen it's a personalised plate albeit a leased car) and you would appreciate confirmation as to whether this is recognised as ULEZ compliant and when this classification became effective on the ULEZ database.
This is simply stage 1 in a several stage extra-procedural(as regards Road User procedures) process.
One step at a time.
Sorry I missed this, looks like I will following this advice and need to be patient.
In my defense after speaking to someone at TFL, they mentioned that as long as I got the lease companies permission it should be straight forward.
Thanks again
-
Just to keep you all in the loop,
I have had a response to my appeal.
Basically they say I had 28 days to appeal, and unless I can prove there is a valid reason, such as medical or out of the country, as to why I didn't appeal in the 28days, the fine is paid and the matter is closed - an unsurprising technicality!
This is the hell I was expecting, I am hoping that I can get to speak to someone with a bit of common sense on Monday.
I went down the email appeals route, because I had to forward the letter of approval from my lease company.
Why someone doesn't look at this and the fact that the car has "always" been compliant should negate any fine, paid or otherwise?
Once again thanks for your comments
Edited after reading Mr Andersen's comments a little more closely
-
This isn't to do with routes being closed off or small claims proceedings, IMO it's simple:
Get TfL to confirm that VRM **** is on **** car whose details make it exempt from ULEZ. And then you go to TfL with the fact that they demanded a penalty in error which must be refunded etc...
One step at a time.
-
I knew it was amprivate plate issue. I have a case ongoing atm for the same thing.
any representation to TFL will be met with a standard reply that they require a copy of all 4 pages of the original V5 and the new V5.
I've currently asked to raise a complaint re their the inadequate data checking system which requires me to provide evidence that I feel I shouldn't have to. they should re check DVLA data when an issue is raised. meanwhile they have taken 2 payments despite being aware the vehicle is compliant. oh and btw
they still haven't forwarded their complaint process since 30th June. Great!
-
I could be wrong, but my understanding is that this is purely dispute between you and the lease company, the TFL angle was closed off when TFL were paid.
I would be sorely tempted to write back to the lease company saying that if they chose to pay a ULEZ fine for an ULEZ compliant car, that's their problem not yours. If they want to take you to the small claims court and argue that you're responsible for their mistakes, they are welcome to try. A lot will depend on the exact wording of the contract you have with then though, so answering John UK's question above would be the first thing I'd recommend you do.
Encedalus does have a reasonable plan, and HCA has a good approach, but to my mind it's the lease company that needs to go down that route, not you.
-
Is there a legal definition of a "motorist"? There's a driver, a registered keeper, the owner, a passenger. Not disputing what you're saying, but I asked his question a while ago and there was no reply forthcoming.
-
IMO, you don't complain, challenge or demand, you simply enquire.
I am a motorist; an issue has arisen regarding your VRM(*****, as can be seen it's a personalised plate albeit a leased car) and you would appreciate confirmation as to whether this is recognised as ULEZ compliant and when this classification became effective on the ULEZ database.
This is simply stage 1 in a several stage extra-procedural(as regards Road User procedures) process.
One step at a time.
-
Finally, yes I put a private plate on about 6 weeks before, in cooperation with the Lease company, so I suspect TFL's db takes a while to update
That's the root cause. There is a time-lag within the DVLA between your private reg going live on the car and the emissions data being updated. And add to that the TFL database is only updated once every four weeks from the DVLA, for emissions data. And sometimes the emissions data doesn't update at all within the DVLA.
TFL have a manual registration process (https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/compliance-registration/before-you-start) to deal with this. You will need the V5c with the new reg and either a letter from the vehicle manufacturer's homologation department stating the vehicle's Euro standard or a conformity certificate. Although they have been known to accept the original V5c instead since the VIN numbers should be identical.
Some manufacturers will charge for the certificate and some are FOC.
If the TFL online checker (https://tfl.gov.uk/modes/driving/check-your-vehicle/) now says the car with the revised reg is compliant then it means the TFL database has been updated.
You could ask the Lease company for a letter authorising you to act on their behalf in respect of the ULEZ PCNs. You can then write to and demand that TFL refund the penalty charges on the grounds that the car was always exempt. TFL might also refuse and say it was up to you check on the ULEZ checker before you drove into the zone.
-
Finally, yes I put a private plate on about 6 weeks before, in cooperation with the Lease company, so I suspect TFL's db takes a while to update
In all likelihood, this is your problem, which is now much more difficult to resolve because the lease company paid the PCNs without telling you.
-
Thanks for your replies....
I have been making phone calls.
First to Lease company who told me to speak to TFL, then to TFL who said as it was the lease company who paid the PCN I can't challenge it without the lease company writing to them to deal with me.
:'(
I asked hypothetically whether the charges could be challenged and they seemed to think they could....
So back to the lease company, and they are passing it to their claims team, so it is a waiting game.....
I have tried to pay any current charges for this weekend gone, but ironically the TFL website won't let me as it is exempt >:(
I suppose, at least I haven't hit a "Computer says nah" scenario........yet
Finally, yes I put a private plate on about 6 weeks before, in cooperation with the Lease company, so I suspect TFL's db takes a while to update
Bumper
-
'have you recently put a private reg on it?
Is something we see often, but...
....Given the strict rules around number plates, that the OP isn't the registered keeper and that they didn't mention this..I hope not!
OP, IMO just take this in slow time. You presumably still have the car. So:
1. If you enter the zone again make sure you pay any charges, do not accumulate more PCNs to dispute;
2. Write to TfL and simply say that you have a car on lease and were assured by the lease company that it is ULEZ compliant as regards present rules. However, an issue has arisen and you need confirmation on this point therefore would they confirm whether VRM **** (give further details as necessary) is compliant for the purposes of ULEZ regulations.
By all means write to your lease company, note their belated notification, tell them that you believe TfL were in error by issuing the penalty charge notices and that as this affects your use of the car you are taking the matter up directly with TfL. Should they receive any further PCNs, then they should seek to transfer liability which is standard procedure provided for and explained in the PCN. You will keep them posted regarding progress.
-
have you recently put a private reg on it?
-
What are the relevant clauses in yr contract with the lease co.about fines and penalties?
-
Thanks for the reply.
The lease company just paid the fines, they will charge me £200 for the privilege, including their charges.
They had then let me know 6 weeks later.
I am hoping to contact both the lease company and TFL tomorrow, I was just looking if there is some recourse here?
I have a horrible feeling TFL will just say tough.
-
I presume the lease company are proposing to pass the cost of the PCNs onto you?
Do you have any idea why TFL may have issued PCNs if their system confirms your vehicle is compliant? If it's their error the best route may be to try and shame TFL into refunding the money somehow.
-
Great forum BTW -
I have a ULEZ compliant leased vehicle (as confirmed by the TFL website), TFL have erroneously sent ULEZ PCNs that my lease company have automatically paid.
They emailed to tell me 6 weeks after the fact, which seems to be outside of a 28day period to challenge.
If I have a ULEZ compliant car that should never have had a PCN, is there a course of action here?
TIA
Bumper