ULEZ

OVER 50% OF APPEALS SUCCEED!

Since April 2019, motorists have been forced to pay £12.50/day to use older cars and motorcycles in central London, after the ultra low emission zone (ULEZ) was introduced – a measure environmental groups and transport chiefs said was crucial to tackle dangerous levels of air pollution. If you fail to pay the charge you face a fine of £160 to be paid within 28 days, though this is cut to £80 if you pay within 14. 

Some successful appeals have been because a vehicle was being rented out, and the hire firm appealed as an administrative measure to ensure the renter was fined instead. But appeals are being upheld for a range of other reasons – for example, because vehicles were mistakenly deemed not ULEZ-compliant, or because the vehicle had been sold shortly before it was driven in the ULEZ and the wrong driver was fined. 

But being unaware of the scheme is not a valid excuse – and is the most common reason appeals were rejected.

Who has to pay the ULEZ charge?

The ULEZ covers central London, as shown in the Transport for London (TfL) graphic below, though it will be expanded much wider to the North and South Circular roads from October 2021.

Vehicles that don't meet minimum emission standards incur the charge for each day they travel within the ULEZ, though some drivers such as residents can get exemptions. The following vehicles are affected: 

You can check whether you need to pay using TfL's tool. Your vehicle's emissions standards may also be listed on your V5C vehicle registration certificate, under section D – otherwise you may need to contact your vehicle manufacturer to check.

If you drive within the zone:

You can pay the charge via TfL's website.

What are the grounds for successful appeals?

The Freedom of Information Act data shows the most common reasons appeals are upheld or rejected – though not exact numbers for each category.

The most common reason for appeals being upheld was because a rental firm had hired out the vehicle. ULEZ fines are typically sent to a vehicle's registered keeper, ie, the hire firm for rented cars or motorbikes. Yet hire firms able to supply evidence of a valid hire agreement can appeal and the fine is sent to the renter instead – so this kind of appeal is essentially an administrative process to ensure the driver's held responsible. 

Although TfL says this is the most common reason for successful appeals, it's been unable to tell us what proportion it accounts for despite us repeatedly asking – so it's unclear exactly what proportion of successful appeals are by motorists who have been wrongly fined. However, we do know those who have been wrongly penalised are among those who have successfully appealed.

Here are the four next most common reasons appeals are upheld, in order of frequency:

1. The vehicle was wrongly deemed not ULEZ-compliant, when it was. This is when TfL believed the vehicle was not compliant, but the motorist can prove it was and so no charge was due.

2. The vehicle had been sold before it entered the ULEZ – and the wrong motorist was fined. If the motorist can prove they sold their vehicle before it entered the ULEZ, they will not have to pay the fine. 

3. The vehicle owner made a mistake trying to use the ULEZ Auto Pay Service. This service records the number of days a vehicle travels in the ULEZ and then bills you each month. Some who have made an error trying to activate it for their vehicle have been able to appeal successfully.  

4. The vehicle owner is a blue badge holder and it was their first ULEZ fine. Blue badge holders aren't automatically exempt from paying the ULEZ charge – they must pay it unless their vehicle meets the ULEZ emission standards or is registered with the DVLA with a 'disabled' or 'disabled passenger vehicle' tax class. Yet some first-time contraventions have resulted in appeals being successful.


TfL said the most common reasons for appeals being rejected were motorists claiming they were unaware of the scheme or how it operates, or motorists claiming they had tried to pay. 

How do I appeal a ULEZ fine?

If you receive a PCN, you have to pay £160 within 28 days of it being issued (though this is reduced to £80 if you pay within 14 days).

If you want to challenge a PCN because you believe it's been issued unfairly, you have 28 days from the date of issue to appeal it. However, if you can, act quickly – if your appeal is received by TfL within 14 days, ie, within the reduced payment period, the clock is essentially stopped while your appeal is considered. If your appeal is then rejected, you'll still have the chance to pay £80 rather than £160.

You can appeal:

When submitting an appeal, indicate on which grounds you wish to challenge the fine. And make sure you include all relevant details and any supporting evidence to make your case as strong as possible.

If TfL rejects your appeal, you have the option of appealing to an independent adjudicator at London Tribunals. London Tribunals is independent of TfL and will consider the appeal and make a decision – see more on the process here. We've asked London Tribunals whether appealing to it will also stop the clock on your fine – ie, whether you may still be able to pay the reduced £80 rate if London Tribunals eventually rejects your appeal – and we will update this story when we hear back.

Simply not being aware you had to pay the ULEZ charge, or having wrongly believed you were exempt, is unlikely to win an appeal against a ULEZ fine. 

Make sure when appealing that you're as specific as possible about why you've been wrongly fined, and ensure you include all relevant evidence to give yourself the best possible chance.

Challenged based on inadequate Signage

The relevant legislation here is regulation 18 of The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 here https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18/made

An appeal can be made based on the fact that the signs used by TFL do not secure "that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road", because they don't tell you anything about having to pay a charge. 

EXAMPLE APPEAL

I've just received a PCN for the ULEZ zone on the 19th June, and I've just filed a "representation" online, using "Other Mitigating Circumstances" as the appeals process is clearly designed to put off the majority of people by making it appear that if you don't fall into one of the six "permitted" grounds for appeal - that there is nothing you can say!

I was completely unaware of the ULEZ coming into force, living a long way outside of London and coming into London rarely - once or twice a year at most. I was very aware of the Congestion Charging zone, and specifically ensured that I entered the CC zone well after 1800, to avoid any fine becoming due. In addition, I used to work in the City, and had an account with TFL to automatically pay for any fines or charges that might become due. I was not made aware by TFL, as an account holder, that I needed to do anything, or that any charges/fines would no longer be paid - as appears to be the case.

Anyway, I've just filed the attached text as my appeal online, and suspect that some sort of unreasonable or statutory failure to make drivers aware that any payment is due outside of Congestion Charge zone hours is the only area that may hold some truck with the independent adjudicator. I am fully expecting this PCN appeal to be rejected, and will take it to the adjudicator, but wondered if you wanted to share thoughts to try and fight our respective PCN's together?

I've just filed this as my mitigating circumstances:

I am the driver of the car.

We live 65 miles outside of London and was not aware of the existence of the ULEZ zone, nor have we been notified, as a registered account holder with TFL of the impending change that might affect our ability to drive in and around London.

I have an account with TFL, with which the vehicles I drive are registered. If any charge was due, the amount should have been debited from this account automatically - in the same way that I can rely on it to deduct charges from the Dartford Crossing, thus preventing receiving any penalty charge at all. However, I specifically waited until after 1800 hours on the 19th June 2019 to enter the Congestion Charging zone, so that no charge was to become due. I used to work in central London, and have held the account since then, to automatically pay Congestion Charge charges on my behalf. I have received no notification from TFL, that I need to do anything to amend or change my account since opened approximately 18 years ago when I was working in the city. I would submit that this is patently unfair, and unreasonable not to deduct the lower amount - £11.50 from the account, instead of issuing a penalty charge of £160. Indeed, from having researched this matter prior to completing this challenge, I am aware that this new charge only came into being with effect from 8/4/19 - two months ago. How do you reasonably expect people that live a long way outside of London to be aware of it, and be in a position of knowledge that there is actually anything to pay?

On this issue, I would argue that you have statutorily failed to bring my attention to the fact that any charge is payable, due to emissions. My journey from South to East London, brought me through Putney, Chelsea and Knightsbridge, and I entered the ULEZ at Hyde Park corner. I have just checked the signage on Google maps on these roads leading upto the border of the zone, and they correctly show my recollection, that I am still reminded, by signage, that I am approaching the Congestion Charging zone - with large Red C's on the green signs, and large white C's on the road surface. Some of these signs remind me that the Charging zone is in effect between 0700 - 1800, times which I was already aware of, and had sought to specifically avoid. I had avoided them.

If TFL retrieve the traffic camera footage from these roads, from the day and time in question, they will be able to see that I was in very heavy traffic, surrounded by double-decker buses and lorries at the time, and I was unable to see any signage in any event between the single carriageway (beside the bus lane) approaching Hyde Park Corner, and where I entered the CC zone at Constitutional Hill well after the expiry of the CC times at 1855. I believed, that I was safe from charges to enter the CC zone.

Therefore, if a driver is fundamentally unaware of new restrictions on a zone, who does not live within, or even near, the zone, and has reasonably entered the Congestion Charging zone (which is sign-posted), but outside of the times of operation, how can a driver reasonably be aware that any charge at all is due?

In summary, my appeal is based on the fact that the signs used by TFL do not secure; "that adequate information as to the effect of the order or ULEZ is made available to persons using the road", because you do not make it explicitly clear that any charge is due, as per the requirements of LATOR 1996.

Finally, it would appear that you are aware of the poor signage, and the many thousands of local (and other) drivers that were unaware of the requirement that any fine was due, and I refer to paperwork sent in relation to PCN: YJ00691944, where I have evidence that instead of issuing a PCN notice to this "offender", you issued a "Warning Notice" rather than a PCN, as it is clear that TFL accept that there is a wide-ranging amount of lack of knowledge on the introduction of this scheme. Please advise exactly what determines whether TFL have issued a "Warning Notice" (a reasonable step after the introduction of a brand new scheme) and a PCN in the past few weeks? 

BAILIFFS HAVE A WARRANT - APPEAL TO TEC with PE2 and PE3 forms

The COURT OFFICERS NOTES 

for dealing with 'out of time' applications