DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 113297--------------------------------------------------
Bristol, Code 17J, Clear Air Zone camera enforcement, penalty ch
arge + outstanding fee
By: croatoan Date: March 15, 2026, 5:07 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I was recently caught out when visiting Bristol as part of my
path went through a slice of the CAZ I was unaware of. I know I
should have checked before hand, now I know better, but I live
in the country so these restrictions are not typical for me, and
my car has been compliant at other locations I have visited (and
normally google maps is reliable in warning me...).
While trying to find information about this PCN I came across
some posts (e.g. this
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/bristol-caz-code-17j-using-a-vehicle-within-clean-air-zone-a370-brunel-way-(caz0/<br
/>and this
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/bristol-clean-air-zone-pcn-17j-a4-ring-road-hotwell-road-(caz0001)-(route-to-bri/msg974/#msg974)<br
/>from a couple years ago, which argue that it is not lawful for
the PCN to ask for both a penalty charge AND the daily CAZ
charge at once, and this can be appealed for a dismissal.
However, I could not find anything newer, and I was hoping
someone could clarify if this is still worth appealing, and
whether there are more up to date points/cases I should refer
to. Also, this page
HTML https://www.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/bristol-clean-air-zone-grounds-of-appeal/<br
/>states they can ask for the daily charge "in some cases".
PCN front:
[img width=1051
height=1600]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/0tTitux_xl.jpeg[/img]
PCN rear:
[img width=1100
height=1420]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/GxcdT2v_xl.jpeg[/img]
#Post#: 113310--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol, Code 17J, Clear Air Zone camera enforcement, penalt
y charge + outstanding fee
By: tincombe Date: March 15, 2026, 7:50 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Pages 3 and 4 pl.
As I understand it, on the face of it the PCN is out of time
i.e. contravention 7 Feb. date of service PCN 11 March, an
elapsed period of 33 days.
So, is it a leased or hire vehicle?
Is the PCN actually addressed to you?
#Post#: 113312--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol, Code 17J, Clear Air Zone camera enforcement, penalt
y charge + outstanding fee
By: croatoan Date: March 15, 2026, 8:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes, it is addressed to me. The vehicle is mine, V5 is on my
name.
What does it mean if the PCN is "out of time"?
I am attaching pages 3-4 below.
Thanks.
[img width=1100
height=1466]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/NouTHIo_xl.jpeg[/img]
[img width=1100
height=1466]
HTML https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/a9ISoZk_xl.jpeg[/img]
#Post#: 113313--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol, Code 17J, Clear Air Zone camera enforcement, penalt
y charge + outstanding fee
By: John U.K. Date: March 15, 2026, 8:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
What date was the PCN delivered? Was it to your address as on
the V5C?
#Post#: 113322--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol, Code 17J, Clear Air Zone camera enforcement, penalt
y charge + outstanding fee
By: croatoan Date: March 15, 2026, 9:27 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I can't say exactly, was away for a week. I found the letter
yesterday when we got home. Yes, it is the V5C address.
#Post#: 113328--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol, Code 17J, Clear Air Zone camera enforcement, penalt
y charge + outstanding fee
By: tincombe Date: March 15, 2026, 12:06 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
IMO, actual date doesn't alter the presumption of service 2
working days after posting.
IMO you have at least 2 procedural grounds (Ground G).
1. The date of contravention is given as 7 Feb. 2026 and the
date of posting of the notice 9 March. The notice was therefore
presumed served on 11 March, an elapsed period of 33 days. The
notice was therefore served out out time.
2. I refer the authority to page 1 of the notice which reads:
The amount due is the PCN charge plus the CAZ daily charge
What are my options now?
You can:
Pay £69 within 14 days from the 'Date of Service' of this
notice
I also refer the authority to the clear wording of Ground G of
the statutory grounds of representation set out in the notice:
If you believe that there has been a failure on the part of
the council in relation to this notice or its enforcement you
must explain this to us....
There is only one notice in this case and it is the PCN.
By virtue of its clear statements it is demanding £69 or £129 as
payment.
These are unlawful demands within this notice and it would be
disingenuous for the council to pretend that within this notice
there is a distinction between the penalty of £60/£120 and the
sum being demanded: the fact that the notice clearly requires
payment of the sums of £69/£129 as shown above proves this
point.
The PCN must be cancelled.
Let them rebut your assertions if they feel they're lawfully
entitled to do so.
#Post#: 113333--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol, Code 17J, Clear Air Zone camera enforcement, penalt
y charge + outstanding fee
By: fraser.mitchell Date: March 15, 2026, 3:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Case in front of Caroline Shephard, Chief Adjudicator, Traffic
Penalty Tribunal
----------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------
Case number:IA01249-1803 dated 22nd March 2018
Decision : 13th June 2018
[quote]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.[/quote]
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.
#Post#: 113590--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol, Code 17J, Clear Air Zone camera enforcement, penalt
y charge + outstanding fee
By: croatoan Date: March 18, 2026, 5:02 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Thanks for both of you. Here is a draft I put together based on
this and the other posts and some googling, could you please
check if this is sound:
I make representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice
BS66298164 on the ground that there has been a procedural
impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority.
1. The PCN unlawfully demands payment exceeding the penalty
charge, where the PCN states:
* “The amount due is the PCN charge plus the CAZ daily charge”
* “The amount due is currently £69”
* Payment options of £69 (discounted) and £129 (full amount)
These statements demonstrate that the PCN **requires payment of
a sum comprising both the penalty charge and the Clean Air Zone
(CAZ) daily charge**.
Under the **Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges,
Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013**, a
Penalty Charge Notice may require payment of a **penalty charge
only**. There is no provision within the Regulations that
permits the enforcement authority to demand payment of the
underlying road user charge within the PCN itself.
The CAZ daily charge is a **separate liability**, arising under
the charging scheme, and is not part of the statutory penalty.
By stating that “the amount due” includes both elements, and by
presenting combined figures (£69 / £129), the PCN:
* Purports to require payment exceeding the penalty charge;
* Misstates the legal basis of liability;
* Fails to correctly convey the recipient’s obligations under
the statutory scheme.
This renders the PCN **non-compliant with the requirements of
Regulation 7** and amounts to a procedural impropriety.
In addition, I direct the authority to Case number IA01249-1803
dated 22nd March 2018 in front of Caroline Shephard, Chief
Adjudicator, Traffic Penalty Tribunal, where the decision
highlights:
"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."
2. The PCN was served outside the statutory period
The PCN states:
* Date of contravention: 07/02/2026
* Deemed date of service: 11/03/2026
This represents a period of 33 days between the date of
contravention and the date of service.
Regulation 10 requires that a PCN be served within 28 days
beginning with the date of the contravention.
For the reasons set out in grounds 1 and 2 above, the PCN is not
compliant with the statutory requirements and cannot be
enforced.
I therefore request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
#Post#: 113664--------------------------------------------------
Re: Bristol, Code 17J, Clear Air Zone camera enforcement, penalt
y charge + outstanding fee
By: fraser.mitchell Date: March 18, 2026, 7:46 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Looks OK, so ram it up them.
*****************************************************