Free Traffic Legal Advice

Here is their comment on the traffic penalty tribunal.

My reps below:

Dear Traffic Penalty Tribunal,  I am appealing against two separate PCNs which were for one instance of travel, and would like to ask for these to please be considered together in a personal hearing. The PCNs are XX and XX.   In the first instance, I would like to point out that I believed I had paid the daily charge for both XX & XX September 2023 and I happened to click the wrong option and paid the Birmingham daily charge instead. I submitted evidence of this to Bristol City Council (attached) but my appeal was rejected. I suggest that Bristol City Council should exercise their discretion not to enforce, as they did in case number BS00982-2308 (attached).   I further challenge liability for PCNs XX & XX on the basis that the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case.  The PCNs carry an 0870 premium rate telephone number, and I contend that as in Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022; attached) this amounts to an excessive demand. While I appreciate other payment methods are available, binding authority from the High Court in the case of London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) determined that where one payment method carries a surcharge, the availability of other payment methods is irrelevant and the penalty demanded is excessive.  In addition, the PCNs I have received demanded the CAZ charge as well as the penalty. The PCNs are only permitted to demand payment of the penalty charge, there is no legal mechanism in Regulation 7 of the Road User Charges regulations related to enforcement and appeals that allows the council to demand the CAZ charge in addition to the penalty charge on the PCN. This amounts to a procedural impropriety on the part of the charging authority, Bristol City Council, with precedent set by Caroline Sheppard, Chief Adjudicator in a judgement on 13/06/2018 for PCN IA89548088. See full document attached. In my case the PCNs may only demand £120, discounted to £60 for the first 14 days. The regulations do not allow the PCN to demand the additional £9 Bristol City Council are seeking, the amount demanded therefore exceeds the amount due by law.  It follows that the penalty charges must be cancelled.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I've lodged my appeal following all advice I've been given - thank you so much. Now, we pray!!!

Oh perfect thank you so much

Second ones here, sorry they’re the right way round on my phone!

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

I understand the deadline to be tomorrow - I know I’ve left it late! I’ve got a baby who isn’t sleeping so my brain is mush.

I’ve put together the below - is there anyone who would/could represent me at tribunal if they don’t drop it?


Dear Bristol City Council,

In the first instance, I would like to point out that I believe I had paid the daily charge for 21 & 22 September 2023 and I happened to click the wrong option and pay the Birmingham daily charge instead. I suggest that this is de-minimis and not a contravention at all, or in the alternative you should exercise discretion not to enforce.

I further challenge liability for PCN BS00000000 on the basis that the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case.

The PCN carries an 0870 premium rate telephone number, and I contend that as in Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022) this amounts to an excessive demand. While I appreciate other payment methods are available, binding authority from the High Court in the case of London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) determined that where one payment method carries a surcharge, the availability of other payment methods is irrelevant and the penalty demanded is excessive.

In addition, the PCNs I have received demanded the CAZ charge as well as the penalty. The PCNs are only permitted to demand payment of the penalty charge, there is no legal mechanism in Regulation 7 that allows the council to demand the CAZ charge in addition to the penalty charge on the PCN. This amounts to a procedural impropriety on the part of the charging authority, Bristol City Council, with precedent set by Caroline Sheppard, Chief Adjudicator in a judgement on 13/06/2018 for PCN IA89548088. See full document attached. In my case the PCNs may only demand £120, discounted to £60 for the first 14 days. The regulations do not allow the PCN to demand the additional £9 you are seeking, the amount demanded therefore exceeds the amount due by law.

It follows that the penalty charge must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

Oh that’s amazing thank you.

I deleted the first thread as I’d uploaded the images wrong and missed out half the stuff, sorry!

I’ve just seen that the council recently agreed to waive the PCN for someone who accidentally paid the wrong date (travelled shortly after midnight but paid for the previous day).

Is it worth my mentioning this as that’s another case of an honest mistake and they seem to have been lenient/seen sense on that occasion?