Free Traffic Legal Advice

Case in front of Caroline Shephard, Chief Adjudicator, Traffic Penalty Tribunal

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Case number:IA01249-1803 dated 22nd March 2018
Decision : 13th June 2018

Decision - PCN IA89548088
Mr Luke
There is nothing to pay and the charging authority will cancel the penalty charge.
There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the Charging Authority.

Adjudicator's Reasons
Mr Moran paid the £3 crossing charge at 23:20 on 14 January 2018, which was a day later
that the time required for payment. However, on 19 January 2018 Dart Charge sent him a
penalty charge notice stating he should pay either £38 within 14 days or £73 within 28 days.
Mr Moran made representations saying he had paid the crossing charge and produced the
receipt for payment.
Dart Charge rejected the representations saying, “Our investigations show that whilst you did
make payment of the RUC in respect of the above contravention, this payment was not made
until after midnight on the day following your crossing.” They therefore accepted that the
crossing was paid, but they go on to say. “Your late payment(s) will be held as credit against
your vehicle for future crossing(s). You must now make payment for the full amount outstanding
in respect of the above mentioned PCN(s), including the original road user charge, as shown at
the bottom of this notice.”. The amount payable at the end of the Notice of Rejection is £73.

Regulations 7(3)(g) and (f) require the penalty charge notice to state:
(f) 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;
(g) the manner in which the penalty charge must be paid and the address to which payment of the penalty charge
must be sent.



The clear intention is to set out clearly the amount of the penalty charge to be paid, and give
equally clear instructions as to how to pay the relevant amount.
While the PCN in this case dealt with the amounts of the penalty charge, according to when
they would be paid, it also stipulated that:
“In addition to the penalty charge you must also pay the applicable road user charge of £3.”
And the PCN further required Mr Moran to pay £38 or £73 (the relevant penalty charge with
£3 added), without an option to pay just the penalty charge.
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. Nor is there a power for the charging authority to refuse to
allocate a payment made for a crossing to that crossing, and hold it, possibly indefinitely, for
future use.
It is not in dispute that Mr Moran had paid the £3 crossing charge, as evidenced by his receipt
dated 14 January 2018 for the £3 payment, and accepted by Dart Charge.
It is all very well to set out the amounts of the penalty charge, but 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.
The requirement for Mr Moran to pay the crossing charge in addition to the penalty charge, on
both the PCN and NOR, when he had already paid it, amounts to a procedural impropriety on
Adjudicator's Decision
the part of the charging authority (known as Dart Charge). That is a ground of appeal that
means that Mr Moran is not liable to pay the penalty charge. He did pay the crossing charge,
albeit a day late, so he is not liable to pay that again.

Caroline Sheppard
Chief Adjudicator
13/06/2018
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sorry this isnn't formatted better, but the original is a PDF and I'm not sure how to past it in here.  TPT don't operate a searchable statutory register, to their everlasting shame, unlike London Tribunals. I've marked the relevant sentence in Bold plus underline.

Reason for suspension was "domestic" so hardly an emergency, so one would expect the sign to have been put up more than 3 days in advance. When did you become aware of the PCN on your car ?

Their photo shows the suspension sign was very close to your car, so difficult to see how you would have missed it if it was there on the 3rd.

I suggest you submit reps stating that when you parked legally on 3rd March you saw no suspension sign and would have expected more notice for what is a routine suspension, ("domestic"). They should reply to say when the sign was put up.

Yes, I am a permit holder.

If I ask for discretion, and it gets rejected, which seems highly likely with Islington nowadays. What grounds could I take it to tribunal on?

Either way I'd look to take it to tribunal.

Adjudicators cannot accept appeals based on mitigation. This was decided in the High Court many years ago. This has always puzzled me because why have a statutory grounds of "the penalty exceeded the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case". There is nothing in the regulations that defines "circumstances".

No reoffer of the discount means it is now a total no-brainer to take them to London Tribunals, because the penalty remains the same, and there are no additional costs. If you win, you pay nothing, if you lose, you pay the £140 they've already asked you to pay.

I don't know what it is, but so many people seem to miss "seeing" the yellow signs at the top. Maybe its the absence of text that does it, because the "No Waiting" symbol is used instead.

You have the absolute right in law to take them to London Tribunals, but have to risk the full PCN penalty of you do so; no discount option. So it's your decision, fold and pay, or stand your ground.

So as your son is on the V5C, the Notice to Owner will be sent to him, and he has legal responsibility for paying or appealing. He can authorise you to act for him when submitting representations, and when appealing to London Tribunals, but if the case is lost, he is responsible for payment.

Is the V5C up-to-date ?