Source: All England Reporter
Publisher Citation: [2005] All ER (D) 238 (Nov)
Court: Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Judge:

Chadwick, Sedley and Keene LJJ

Representation Andrew Thomas (instructed by Blades) for the claimant.
  John Hardy (instructed by the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service) for the defendants.
  Philip Vaughan of Simmons & Simmons for the interested party, Transport for London.
Judgment Dates: 17 November 2005

Catchwords

Road traffic - Road user charging - Charges and penalty charges - Error in specifying vehicle's registration number - Liability for penalty charge - Whether adjudicator having discretion on appeal against penalty charge - Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001, regs 13(3), 16(2).

The Case

On the proper construction of the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001, the only representations that an adjudicator could consider on an appeal in respect of a penalty notice issued under the Central London Congestion Charging Scheme under reg16 were: (i) representations already made to Transport for London (the operator of the scheme) under reg13(3); and (ii) 'any additional representations which are made by the appellant on any of the grounds mentioned in reg13(3)'. That was what reg16(2) required, and there was nothing in reg16(2) which conferred any wider power. In the instant case, the judge had been wrong to find that it had been open to the adjudicator to direct that the penalty charge notices served on the claimant be cancelled.

Practice Areas

If you are a LexisLibrary subscriber you can read more about this case here.