Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: foxie3333 on October 30, 2025, 02:32:54 pm
-
Swinton and Acton are parallel one way streets running east-west from King's Cross Road to Gray's Inn Road, but Acton is in the CC zone and when you are going down Penton Rise you cam miss the turn-off to Swinton.
The case below shows an appeal is not likely to succeed if this is what happened.
(https://i.ibb.co/CKV9jWLP/Screenshot-2025-10-30-at-15-48-09.png)
Case reference 9250004996
Appellant David McNeill
Authority Transport for London
VRM KU08WZM
PCN Details
PCN LP17645022
Contravention date 25 Oct 2024
Contravention time 15:52:26
Contravention location Grays Inn Road
Penalty amount GBP 180.00
Contravention Failure to pay Congestion charge
Referral date -
Decision Date 20 Feb 2025
Adjudicator Edward Barnett
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons
Introduction
1. This is an appeal against a Congestion Charging zone penalty charge notice (PCN) imposed by Transport for London (TfL).
2. This appeal was determined at a postal hearing as the Appellant indicated this was his preference.
The Law
3. The law relating to the London Congestion Charge is set out in the Greater London Congestion Charging Scheme Order 2004 (the Scheme). The law relating to appeals against Congestion Charge PCNs is set out in the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001.
4. The appeal is a two-stage process. TfL must first prove that there may have been a 'contravention' of the Scheme. If I am satisfied that there has been a contravention, it is then for the Appellant to prove, on the balance of probabilities, that one of the statutory grounds of appeal has been established.
5. Although TfL are permitted to take into account mitigating circumstances when considering representations, I am not permitted to do so when deciding an appeal. This was confirmed by the Court of Appeal in the case of Walmsley v TfL & Others [2005] EWCA Civ 1540.
6. The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 gives the Secretary of State the power at sections 64 and 65 to authorise signage for roads. The Secretary of State did this for the Congestion Charging Zone under Authorisation GT 46/64/1 (the Authorisation). Signage must be present at the entry of the zone for it to be enforceable.
Transport for London’s case
7. TfL’s case is that a vehicle with the registration number KU08WZM was photographed within the Congestion Charging zone on 25 October 2024. TfL have no record of the daily charge being paid at the time and in the manner required.
8. TfL has provided evidence including photographs of the vehicle being used. TfL provides a diagram showing the location of the camera that captured the Appellant’s vehicle. This indicates that the Appellant was at the junction of Swinton Street and Grays Inn Road. The diagram does not indicate what signage TfL say was present.
9. TfL also provided a document showing a TfL record of information provided by the Driver and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA). This indicates that the Appellant was the registered keeper of the vehicle in question on the date of the contravention.
The Appellant’s case
10. The Appellant does not dispute that he was using the vehicle on the day in question, that he is the registered keeper for the vehicle, and that the charge was payable.
11. The Appellant states that he believes the notice was issued in error, because he did not see any congestion zone signage. He states that this indicates the camera is wrongly positioned or there is inadequate signage. He notes that he saw clear signage indicating the entry to the zone at other points on his journey. He also notes that there was clear signage showing the end of the zone. He provides an annotated map showing his direction of travel and where he believes the signs were placed.
12. He provided TfL with Google Street View images showing the following:
a. The end of Swinton Place, turning into Swinton Street, which has signage showing the end of the zone.
b. The A201 which signage relating to the zone at an upcoming junction. Comparing this to the map the Appellant provided it appears to show signage showing entry to the zone if you continue down the A201. There is a sign on the right side of the A201 that could relate to Swinton Street or the A201 but it is not clear and I note that the floor markings indicate that the A201 is in the zone but that Swinton Street is not.
c. The entry to Grays Inn Road from Swinton Street which does not show any apparent signage showing entry to the zone on either side.
Findings of Fact
13. The key issue in this case is the location of the Appellant’s vehicle when it was seen. I take note of the boundary of the charging zone, as it is a matter of public record. The Appellant states that he drove down Swinton Street and turned right into Grays Inn Road, which would not take him into the charging zone.
14. The camera location as shown by TfL is to the right of Swinton Street, and the photos show that the Appellant’s vehicle is approaching the camera. This could support his claim that he turned right into Grays Inn Road and did not enter the zone. However, the photos show the vehicle in a road of at least three lanes, whereas Swinton Street has only two (this too is a matter of public record, though it can also be seen from the photos the Appellant provided). I therefore find it more likely that the Appellant was approaching the camera from further down Grays Inn Road. In other words when the camera captured his vehicle he was driving out of the zone. The question of signage therefore falls away as he would have entered the zone in a different area.
15. I have considered the detailed and careful way the Appellant presented his case and his route, but based on the photographic evidence of the vehicle’s location I find it more likely than not that the Appellant has made a mistake about the route he took that day. The Appellant, likely without realising it, was driving within the charging zone without having paid.
16. The vehicle was used within the Congestion zone on the date in question. No congestion charge had been purchased for this use. The Appellant was the registered keeper. A contravention therefore occurred.
17. I accept that the Appellant may not have realised he was in the zone, and that any failure to pay was therefore unintentional. However, an unintentional failure to pay is not a ground on which an appeal may be allowed.
18. This mistake is mitigation only. As indicated above, although TfL are permitted to take mitigation (including financial and personal circumstances) into account when considering representations, an Adjudicator is not permitted to do so when deciding an appeal. This means that I am unable to exercise any discretion in the Appellant's favour.
19. The Appellant has not established any ground of appeal.
Decision
20. I refuse the appeal.
Amount to Pay
21. TfL have confirmed that amount due is £180, which must be paid to and received by TfL within 28 days of the date of this letter. After 28 days the penalty amount will increase by 50% and TfL will be able to pursue its normal enforcement procedures.
22. I have no discretion to vary the penalty amount or consider any payment plan. Payment is a matter between the Appellant and TfL.
-
I thought I was turning right on Swinton and then north onto Grays inn road
However I am not sure from their picture where the camera was which took my picture....
Are you suggesting I was heading south on Grays Inn road and missed Swinton and went right onto Acton?
-
The camera detects vehicles in the CC zone on Gray's Inn Road but about to exit the zone.
What route exactly did you take? The common error is to miss Swinton and use Acton instead.
-
I have received above charge. I believe I was driving west towards Heathrow along Grays Inn Rd, and turned onto Swinton street. The agent said it occurred at the location of Swinton St / Grays Inn Rd
This is outside the congestion zone, as referenced here
However TFL could not tell me which camera or the exact location over the phone where I contravened the zone even though I called several times. When I challenged the ticket they SENT me what looks like the camera location. Grays inn road is a long road and some of it is NOT in congestion zone. I believe there were roadworks that directed me in that direction
1. I understood they HAD to give me camera name and exact location.
2. the signage on the road is not clear
On a different vain, the signage for ulez/LEZ is the same. It says you are about to enter a Ulex/lez zone. Should they not specify which one it is?
I am appealing and received a document the size of War and Peace! Surely the challenge is unclear signage?
Can anyone help?
https://imgpile.com/p/klnQHwO
https://imgpile.com/p/RpZeEqP