Can the Bill of Rights 1689 Get You Out of a Congestion Charge PCN? One Tribunal Says No

Every so often, a driver tries a legal argument that sounds like it came from a constitutional law exam rather than a parking appeal. One London motorist went back more than 300 years, to the Bill of Rights 1689, to argue that a Congestion Charge penalty was unlawful. It is a fascinating idea. It also failed.

The case shows two things at once. Big, ambitious legal arguments rarely rescue a penalty charge notice (PCN). The boring basics, such as proving you actually paid, usually decide the outcome.

The case: what happened

The contravention was "failure to pay the Congestion Charge", and the penalty charge was incurred on 25 May 2010. The driver was the registered keeper of the vehicle concerned, and Transport for London (TfL) pursued her for the penalty.

The Congestion Charge is a daily charge for driving within the central London zone during charging hours. If you do not pay by the deadline, TfL can issue a PCN to the registered keeper. The case ended at an independent adjudicator, who dismissed her appeal.

The arguments

What the driver said

The appeal rested on two strands, and the first was rather more dramatic than the second.

1. The Bill of Rights argument. The driver argued that "no penalty charge is payable under the law". Her case was that the Congestion Charge scheme offends the Bill of Rights 1689 because it purports to impose a fine without recourse to the courts. In other words, only a court should be able to fine you, and TfL is not a court.

2. The "I paid" argument. In her original representations to TfL, she had stated that the charge had been paid.

What TfL said

TfL answered both points.

• It had no record of any payment by the driver for the date of the contravention.
• The receipt number she supplied related to a different vehicle on a different date.
• It argued that the Bill of Rights had no relevance to whether the charging scheme was valid.

The decision

The adjudicator refused the appeal. Two findings sat behind that.

1. The Bill of Rights argument had no validity.
2. The adjudicator was satisfied that the appellant was the registered keeper and that no charge had been paid for the date of the contravention.

The PCN therefore stood.

The legal reasoning in plain English

The Bill of Rights point

The Bill of Rights 1689 is one of the foundation stones of the UK's constitution. It was passed after the upheavals of the 17th century to limit the power of the Crown. Among other things, it was aimed at the abuse of fines and forfeitures imposed arbitrarily, without proper legal process. The adjudicator accepted the general principle the driver relied on. The Bill enshrines the idea that only a court has the power to enforce financial penalties.

So why did she lose?

Because of a basic rule of UK law called implied repeal. Parliament is sovereign, which means it can change the law, and a later Act of Parliament can override an earlier one. Sometimes the later Act does this expressly. Sometimes it does so by implication, because the two cannot sensibly sit side by side. The adjudicator held that the old Bill of Rights principle had been "impliedly repealed" by many later statutes, including the Greater London Authority Act 1999.

That 1999 Act is the legislation that allows London's road user charging schemes. It sets up a system where the charge is imposed and enforced by the authority, backed by penalty charges and an independent appeal process. If Parliament deliberately creates such a system, an old general principle cannot be used to knock it down.

Think of it like this. Your gym has a rule from 1995 that members must pay by cheque. In 2015 it introduces a new rule saying everyone pays by direct debit. You cannot rely on the old rule to argue that the new one is invalid. The newer, specific rule governs.

Is it fair that there is no court?

The driver's underlying concern was not frivolous, and it is worth saying why the system is still defensible. A Congestion Charge PCN is not a criminal fine. It is a civil penalty under a statutory scheme. If you disagree with it, you can make representations to TfL and, if those are rejected, appeal to an independent adjudicator. That adjudicator is not part of TfL. So the process does include independent review, just not in a traditional court.

Beyond the adjudicator, challenges to the legality of the scheme itself generally belong in the higher courts, through judicial review. An adjudicator's role is to decide whether the penalty is payable under the scheme as Parliament created it. That is why the adjudicator would not entertain an attack on the whole legal basis of the system.

The payment point

The "I paid" argument might have been the stronger of the two, but it failed on evidence. Appeals of this kind are decided on the balance of probabilities, which means what is more likely than not. TfL's records showed no payment for that vehicle on that date. The only supporting evidence the driver offered was a receipt number, and that number matched a different vehicle on a different day.

A receipt for the wrong vehicle or wrong date does not prove you paid for the right one. The adjudicator was satisfied no charge had been paid.

Lessons for drivers

This is case commentary, not legal advice. With that in mind, here are some practical points the case highlights.

1. Treat "I paid" as an evidence claim, not a belief

Saying you paid is not the same as showing you paid. The adjudicator will look at what the records and documents actually show. If you believe you paid, the supporting proof needs to match the vehicle registration, the date of travel and the amount. TfL's explanation here, that the receipt related to a different vehicle on another date, is a good example of how evidence can unravel on a detail.

2. Check your confirmations at the time

Payment confirmations, whether emails, text messages or app screens, are easy to ignore. Checking the details when you receive them, particularly the registration and the date, is far easier than reconstructing events months later. Typos in registrations happen, and they can leave you in a very different position from the one you believed you were in. Our guide on PayByPhone and app errors explores how to keep proof of payment, and the same thinking applies to charging schemes.

3. Pick your strongest point and back it with evidence

The driver here led with a constitutional argument and offered thin evidence on the factual question. Adjudicators decide cases on the grounds that the scheme's regulations allow, such as whether the charge was in fact paid, whether the keeper was liable, or whether there was a procedural failing by the authority. If you are weighing an appeal, official guidance from the Traffic Penalty Tribunal and TfL explains what can and cannot be argued. Our overview of how the Traffic Penalty Tribunal process works is a useful starting point.

4. Make your representations to TfL count

The first stage of an appeal, your formal representations to the authority, matters. The reasons you give and the evidence you attach at this stage shape everything that follows. If you need help structuring them, see our guide to formal representations for PCNs.

5. Know what an adjudicator cannot do

Arguments that Parliament was wrong to create a scheme, or that the scheme's legal basis is invalid, are not generally for an adjudicator to resolve. Where someone genuinely wants to challenge the legality of a scheme, that raises questions of public law. Anyone considering that route, where the stakes are real, would be wise to take professional legal advice rather than rely on a hunch.

Contrast with a successful case

Not every Congestion Charge appeal fails. When drivers win, it is typically on facts and procedure, not on sweeping constitutional claims. For a comparison, read our write-up of a Congestion Charge appeal that was allowed.

What this case does not tell us

A few cautions are worth noting.

• It is a single adjudicator's decision on the facts in front of them, so it is not a rule that decides every future case.
• We only know what the written reasons record. We do not know, for example, what further evidence either side may have had.
• Rules, charges and penalty levels change over time. This penalty dates from 2010, so anyone facing a current PCN should check TfL's current rules and the official appeal guidance rather than rely on a decade-old decision.

If you are dealing with a Congestion Charge penalty and think something has gone wrong, such as paying and still receiving a notice, our piece on what to do when you have paid but TfL is still chasing you covers similar ground for the ULEZ.

Key takeaway

A clever legal argument will not rescue a penalty you cannot disprove on the facts. In this case, the Bill of Rights 1689 could not override a later Act of Parliament, and a receipt for the wrong vehicle on the wrong date could not prove payment for the right one. If you believe you have paid, make sure your proof matches your registration, your date and your charge.

This article is general information and commentary on a published tribunal decision. It is not legal advice. If your case involves significant sums or complex legal questions, consider speaking to a qualified professional or consulting official guidance from TfL and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal.