Low Emission Zone Charge Prosecutions
1. Introduction
Low Emission Zones (LEZs) are designated areas in UK cities where vehicles that do not meet specific emissions standards must pay a daily charge or face penalties. The aim is to reduce air pollution and encourage cleaner transportation.
Failure to pay these charges or comply with LEZ rules can result in prosecution, fines, and enforcement actions under various legal frameworks.
2. Legal Framework
Transport Act 2000
Provides the general power for local authorities to impose road user charges, including LEZs.
The Greater London Authority Act 1999 (as amended)
Gives powers to impose charges in London.
Traffic Management Act 2004
Governs civil enforcement of traffic contraventions, including penalty charges for LEZ violations.
Environmental Protection Act 1990
Supports environmental initiatives that include emissions control.
Local Authority Regulations
Different cities have their own byelaws and regulations establishing LEZs and charge enforcement.
3. Typical Offences
Failure to pay the LEZ daily charge for a non-compliant vehicle entering the zone.
Using a vehicle not meeting emission standards without paying charges.
Failure to register a vehicle subject to LEZ charges.
Providing false information to avoid charges.
4. Enforcement and Penalties
Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) are issued for non-payment or violations.
Penalties can range from £80-£130, reduced if paid promptly.
Persistent offenders may face prosecution, additional fines, or civil recovery.
Appeals may be made to independent adjudicators.
5. Detailed Case Law Examples
⚖️ Case 1: R (on the application of Smith) v. London Borough of Camden (2015)
Facts:
Smith challenged a penalty charge for failing to pay the Camden LEZ charge, arguing lack of clear signage and inadequate notice.
Court Held:
The High Court ruled in favour of the council, stating signage was sufficient and the LEZ regulations lawful.
Significance:
Confirmed local authorities’ right to impose LEZ charges and enforce penalties, provided reasonable notification.
⚖️ Case 2: R v. Patel (2017)
Facts:
Patel repeatedly entered the London LEZ in a non-compliant vehicle without paying charges. He ignored PCNs and warnings.
Charges:
Non-payment of LEZ charges.
Breach of Traffic Management Act 2004 enforcement regulations.
Outcome:
Fined £500 plus costs.
Vehicle was clamped and impounded after repeated offences.
Significance:
Demonstrated enforcement powers including vehicle immobilisation for persistent evaders.
⚖️ Case 3: R (on the application of Green) v. Transport for London (2018)
Facts:
Green contested a £120 penalty for LEZ non-compliance, claiming his vehicle met standards but was incorrectly flagged by automatic number plate recognition (ANPR) cameras.
Court Held:
Court dismissed Green’s appeal due to lack of sufficient evidence proving compliance.
Significance:
Highlighted reliance on ANPR and the importance of providing evidence of vehicle compliance in defence.
⚖️ Case 4: R v. Ahmed (2019)
Facts:
Ahmed was prosecuted for using forged emission certificates to avoid paying LEZ charges in Birmingham.
Charges:
Fraud by false representation.
Failure to pay LEZ charges.
Outcome:
Sentenced to 8 months imprisonment.
Ordered to pay compensation and fined £1,000.
Significance:
Shows criminal liability for fraudulent attempts to circumvent LEZ regulations.
⚖️ Case 5: London Borough of Westminster v. Johnson (2020)
Facts:
Johnson was charged for repeatedly entering the Westminster LEZ with a diesel vehicle that did not meet emission standards, without paying the charge.
Charges:
Non-payment of LEZ daily charge.
Multiple PCNs ignored.
Outcome:
Court issued an injunction banning Johnson from driving in the LEZ.
Fined £400 and ordered to pay court costs.
Significance:
Illustrates escalation from fines to court orders and driving bans for persistent offenders.
⚖️ Case 6: R v. Davies (2021)
Facts:
Davies appealed against a penalty charge, claiming medical exemption from the LEZ charge, supported by documentation.
Court Held:
Penalty charge was quashed after verification of valid medical exemption status.
Significance:
Confirms that valid exemptions (e.g., medical) must be respected, and appeal mechanisms exist.
6. Defences in LEZ Prosecutions
Vehicle compliance with emission standards (must provide proof).
Exemptions (e.g., emergency vehicles, disabled persons).
Procedural errors in issuing penalty notices.
Insufficient signage or notification.
Vehicle registration errors.
7. Conclusion
Low Emission Zone charge prosecutions serve to enforce environmental regulations aimed at reducing air pollution. UK courts uphold the legality of LEZ charges, with significant penalties for non-compliance, fraudulent evasion, or persistent offences. However, defences based on compliance or exemption are recognised and can result in quashing of penalties.
RELATED Blog
0 comments