||All England Reporter
|| All ER (D) 238 (Nov)
||Court of Appeal, Civil Division
Chadwick, Sedley and Keene LJJ
||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.
||17 November 2005
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).
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.
- The All England Law Reports comprises judgments with headnotes and catchwords indicating the area of law and key issues of the case prepared by legally qualified editorsFind AllER Reports
- Cases related to this particular case that are related to, or discuss this caseView related cases
- Commentary discussing this particular case from LexisLibrary's comprehensive range of titles including Butterworths, Halsbury's and TolleyView related commentary