where a charging authority serve notice under regulation 13(6) that they do not accept that a ground on which representations were made under that regulation has been established, the person making those representations may appeal to an adjudicator against the charging authoritys decision before .- .
Held: that regulation 16(2) permitted an adjudicator to direct the cancellation of a penalty charge notice where the recipient had failed to establish one of the grounds specified in regulation 13(3)(a) to (f) but there were other reasons for mitigating the penalty or totally relieving the recipient of the penalty.
1. Under the Road User Charging (Enforcement and Adjudication) (London) Regulations 2001,while applying the relevant grounds under reg. 13 Mr. Vere may be able to plead that due to his extenuating circumstances (daughter’s ill health etc) no penalty charge should be payable by him (reg.13(c)) or that the amount that he has been charged exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case( reg. 13 (e).However it seems that he has a better chance of making this a case of mitigating circumstances under reg.13(c). Nevertheless as the facts of the case indicate he has infact done this without any success and the TFL has already rejected his representations as to his mitigating circumstances.
2. In such a case Regulation 16 will preside and allow his appeal to be heard by an adjudicator. This provision provides a flexible way out from the stringent TFL Regulations and case law suggests that the office of the adjudicator has used his authority in the past to direct the cancellation of a penalty charge notice even where the appellant failed to establish any of the grounds under 13(3).