New Parking Laws UK New Parking Laws in England and Wales since 31st March 2008

How to fight a congestion charge, ULEZ or clean air zone penalty

Road charging and policeLaw checked 25 October 2026

A road charging penalty is a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) for not paying a road charge on time: London's congestion charge, Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ), Low Emission Zone or Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels charge, a clean air zone, Oxford's zero emission zone, the Dart Charge, the Mersey Gateway bridges or Durham's road user charge. It comes by post to the vehicle's registered keeper, and it is a civil penalty, not a criminal offence. Road charging has its own grounds of challenge, and in London the adjudicator cannot take your circumstances into account. This guide explains what the charging authority has to prove, the arguments that have won and lost at the tribunals, and how to make your challenge. How the tribunals work is on appealing to the adjudicator. For other tickets, start at fight your ticket.

The rule

You must pay the charge for the right vehicle and the right day, through the scheme's official payment service, by the deadline. If you do not, the charging authority can send a PCN to the registered keeper, who is liable even if someone else was driving (regulation 6 of the Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013, "the 2013 Regulations"; in London, regulation 6 of the Road User Charging (Charges and Penalty Charges) (London) Regulations 2001). The deadlines and penalties:

  • London's congestion charge, ULEZ and Blackwall and Silvertown tunnels (Transport for London, TfL): pay by midnight on the third day after you drive. Penalty £180, or £90 if paid within 14 days (TfL).
  • London's Low Emission Zone (lorries, vans, buses, coaches and other larger vehicles): the same deadline. Penalty £500, £1,000 or £2,000 depending on the vehicle, halved within 14 days (TfL).
  • Clean air zones in Bath, Birmingham, Bradford, Bristol, Portsmouth, Sheffield and Newcastle and Gateshead: each charges only vehicles that do not meet its emission standards, and only Birmingham's and Bristol's include private cars. Pay by 11.59pm on the sixth day after (GOV.UK). Penalty £120, or £60 within 14 days, plus the unpaid daily charge everywhere except Birmingham (Traffic Penalty Tribunal).
  • Oxford's zero emission zone: pay within six days after. Penalty £60, or £30 (Oxfordshire County Council).
  • The Dart Charge at the Dartford Crossing: pay by midnight the day after you cross. Penalty £70, or £35, plus the crossing charge (GOV.UK).
  • The Mersey Gateway and Silver Jubilee bridges (Merseyflow, for Halton Borough Council): pay by 11.59pm the day after. Penalty £50, or £25, plus the crossing charge (Merseyflow).
  • Durham's road user charge zone: pay in advance or within 24 hours of entering. Penalty £50, or £25 within 14 days (Durham County Council; Traffic Penalty Tribunal).
  • Oxford's temporary congestion charge ended on 27 September 2026. A penalty for an earlier journey is £70, or £35 within 14 days (Oxfordshire County Council).

Appeals against TfL go to the Road User Charging Adjudicators at London Tribunals, and all the others to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. None of these schemes is in Wales, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, which also hears appeals from Welsh councils, lists road charging schemes in England only.

What the charging authority has to prove

The authority has to prove that your vehicle was used in the zone, or made the crossing, when a charge applied; that you were its registered keeper; and that it received no valid payment for that vehicle and day (London Tribunals' annual report 2025-26). It is then for you to show, more likely than not, that a legal ground applies:

  • you never were the keeper, had stopped being liable before the journey, or became liable after it;
  • the charge was paid on time and in the way the scheme requires;
  • no penalty charge is payable, for example because the vehicle was exempt or was not yours;
  • the vehicle was used without your consent;
  • the penalty is more than the scheme allows;
  • you are a hire firm and the hirer signed a statement accepting liability.

These six are the only grounds in London (regulation 13 of the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001, and for the tunnels Schedule 8 to the Silvertown Tunnel Order 2018). The 2013 Regulations, which cover every other scheme except Durham's, add procedural impropriety and let you ask the authority to cancel for compelling reasons (regulation 8); Durham's PCN sets out its own rules.

Only TfL can cancel a London penalty because of your circumstances, such as illness or an honest mistake: the adjudicator can only decide whether a ground applies (Walmsley v Transport for London, 2005). Elsewhere an adjudicator cannot allow an appeal on mitigation either, but under the 2013 Regulations can recommend that the authority cancels for compelling reasons (regulation 11).

Arguments that have won

The vehicle in the photos was not yours

In London Tribunals case 9260478614 (2026) the adjudicator accepted that a ULEZ penalty was for a cloned car: the keeper had reported it to the police, and his photos showed a different front number plate and front-end damage missing from TfL's photos. In case 9260916937 (2026) stickers and a dealer's name on the number plate were enough at the Blackwall Tunnel.

You were no longer the keeper

You normally stay liable until you tell the DVLA you have sold the vehicle. But in case 9260528938 (2026) a finance company's letter saying it had collected the car two days before the journey was enough, although the DVLA still showed the driver as keeper. In case 9260920333 (2026) the buyer of a van won, because the seller had not told the DVLA about the sale and so remained liable.

Someone used it without your permission

In case 9260988734 (2026) a would-be buyer drove a car off the seller's drive against his instructions and brought it back soon after. The adjudicator accepted that it was used without consent, even without a police report, because it was returned quickly and the police would be unlikely to act. Outside London you must give a crime reference or similar evidence (regulation 8(7)).

TfL's own systems misled you

London adjudicators cancelled penalties in 2026 where a dated screenshot showed TfL's vehicle checker saying no ULEZ charge was due (case 9260976553); where a timed screenshot showed the car was already on someone else's Auto Pay account (case 9260428434); and where the keeper had paid a failed Auto Pay balance before TfL suspended the account (case 9260940931). Wrong advice from TfL staff can count too (R (Dolatabadi) v Transport for London, 2005).

The authority did not follow the procedure

TfL must reply to your representations with a notice of its decision. In case 926060316A (2026) it could not show that it had sent a Notice of Rejection, and the appeal was allowed. Under the 2013 Regulations the authority must reply within 56 days, or it is treated as accepting your representations: in Mr M v Secretary of State for Transport (2025) a Dart Charge penalty and the crossing charge were cancelled because the first reply did not say how to appeal and the Notice of Rejection came months later.

Other points to check

  • A diversion. If an accident or roadworks diverted you into the congestion charge zone, give TfL the place, the time and whether you spoke to a police officer (TfL). In case 9260866136 (2026) an adjudicator believed a driver whom police had diverted into the zone after an accident, and allowed her appeal.
  • Exemptions and discounts. Many have to be registered before you travel. Keep paying while you wait for one (Mr K v Birmingham City Council, 2023).
  • A hired vehicle. The hire firm can pass the penalty to you only if you signed a statement accepting liability for penalties. An agreement without the hirer's details or a statement of liability failed in Mr S v Birmingham City Council (2023).
  • The discount. TfL freezes the amount owed when it receives your representations, so a challenge made within 14 days keeps the £90 rate while TfL considers it. Outside London the authority need not offer the discount again after 14 days (Mr S v Birmingham City Council, 2024), though Merseyflow holds the amount while it considers a challenge.
  • A late PCN. The 2013 Regulations set no time limit for sending one (Mr R v Bristol City Council, 2023), although Merseyflow says it allows itself 6 months.
  • You never got the PCN. If the first you hear is a court order, you have 21 days to make a statutory declaration (London) or witness statement (elsewhere) that you did not receive it, or got no reply to your representations or appeal. That cancels the order and the charge certificate, but not the penalty: the authority can send the PCN again, or the case goes to the adjudicator.

Arguments that usually fail

  • "I didn't know about the charge," or "I didn't see the signs." Not knowing is not a ground (London Tribunals' annual report 2025-26). ULEZ signs need not say that a charge applies (Robert Morris v Transport for London, 2019; R (Kleiber) v Secretary of State for Transport, 2024), and following a sat nav is no excuse (Mrs K v Birmingham City Council, 2023).
  • "I paid, but for the wrong registration or day." The payment must be for the vehicle and the day used (Walmsley, 2005; Mr P v Bristol City Council, 2023; case 9260941661, 2026, a friend's one-letter typing error).
  • "I paid on another website." Paying an unofficial website is not paying the charge (Mr M v Birmingham City Council, 2025).
  • "I was only in the zone a few minutes after midnight." In clean air zones and the ULEZ each day from midnight is a new charge (Mr A v Birmingham City Council, 2024).
  • "I have Auto Pay." Not if the account was suspended or closed after a failed payment and you ignored TfL's emails (case 9260969955, 2026).
  • "I wasn't driving," or "the garage had it." The keeper is liable, and leaving the vehicle with a garage is consent (Miss P v Bradford Council, 2023).
  • "I had sold it." Not if you had not told the DVLA before the journey (Mr P v Bradford Council, 2025).
  • "Please let me pay less." Adjudicators cannot reduce a penalty, restore the discount or accept just the daily charge (Mr M v Birmingham City Council, 2025).

Evidence to gather

  • The PCN and its photos. Check the registration, date and time, and compare the vehicle with yours.
  • Your payment receipt from the official website or app, showing the registration, date and reference number. A bank statement alone may not show which vehicle and day you paid for (case 9260564727, 2026).
  • Auto Pay records: account screens, payments and TfL's emails.
  • Proof of sale or transfer: the DVLA's confirmation, a bill of sale or the finance company's letter.
  • For cloned plates: photos of your vehicle from all sides, proof of where it was, and the police reference.
  • For an exempt or compliant vehicle: your registration confirmation, or a certificate of conformity from the manufacturer.
  • Dated screenshots of any vehicle checker or account page you relied on.

What to write

Keep it short and factual: what happened, which ground it fits, and what the evidence shows, one point per paragraph. Quote only decisions you have read. London's road charging adjudicators report growing use of AI in appeals, and long, legalistic representations that cite irrelevant cases; they limit further written representations to three A4 pages (Practice Direction 1).

Examples to adapt, with your own details in place of the brackets:

The vehicle in the PCN photos is not mine. My [car] has [a dealer's name on the number plate and a dent in the bonnet], which the vehicle in the photos does not, as my photos show. At [time] on [date] it was at [place], as [my tracker record] shows, and I have reported the cloning to the police (reference [number]). No penalty charge is payable.

I sold the vehicle on [date] to [name and address] and told the DVLA the same day, as the attached [confirmation] shows. I had ceased to be the person liable before [date of the journey].

Before driving into the zone on [date] I checked TfL's vehicle checker, which said no charge was due for my vehicle, as my dated screenshot shows. I relied on that information.

I made representations on [date] and received no Notice of Rejection within 56 days, so the authority is treated as having accepted them (regulation 8(10) of the Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013).

Next steps and your chances

  • Challenge first. Make representations to whoever sent the PCN within 28 days of it being served; the authority can ignore later ones. If it rejects them, appeal within 28 days of the Notice of Rejection: to the Road User Charging Adjudicators for a TfL penalty, or to the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for the others.
  • If you do nothing. After 28 days a charge certificate raises the penalty by half, for example from £180 to £270. Fourteen days later the authority can register the debt at the county court, which adds a fee, and later send enforcement agents (bailiffs).
  • Your chances. In 2025-26 London's Road User Charging Adjudicators received 22,420 appeals and allowed 38.5% of those they decided, most of them because TfL did not contest the appeal (30.2% of all those decided). Where TfL defended its decision, about 1 in 8 appeals succeeded (annual report 2025-26). At the Traffic Penalty Tribunal in 2025-26, 1,681 clean air zone appeals were allowed, 1,337 of them uncontested, and 1,856 refused (annual report 2025-26). Adjudicators treat earlier decisions as persuasive, not binding, so make your case on your own facts.

The London decisions quoted by number are on London Tribunals' register of appeals, where you can search by case reference, and Morris and Kleiber are on its key cases page. The Traffic Penalty Tribunal's decisions are on its Traff-iCase site, and the court judgments on Find Case Law.

This page was checked against the law in England and Wales on 25 October 2026. It is general guidance, not legal advice: see the legal disclaimer.