Missing Auto Pay correspondence left the driver's account unanswered (2026)

Case 9240533662 / 2025-01-15 / Adjudicator Michael Range

Tower Hill

“TfL had the opportunity to counter the Appellant’s evidence but have not done so.”

Michael Range

The appellant believed the vehicle was registered for Auto Pay and could not explain why the Congestion Charge had not been taken. TfL said it had removed the vehicle following a payment failure. It asserted that the appellant had been informed, but declined to supply the supporting evidence, citing GDPR.

Michael Range accepted that the vehicle had used the charging zone and that the daily charge was unpaid. The disputed question was whether TfL had led the appellant to believe payment would be collected automatically. In the absence of the notification evidence, he accepted the appellant's account of reliance on previous correspondence with TfL.

The appeal was allowed and cancellation directed. Range expressly described the circumstances as fact-specific: TfL had the opportunity to answer the appellant's evidence and did not do so. This was an adjudicated finding about the communications in this case, not a general exemption whenever an Auto Pay collection fails.

Source and case reference

Use case reference 9240533662 in the London Tribunals register to find the official decision. This commentary distinguishes the adjudicator's finding from a possible argument in a different case; previous tribunal decisions do not bind another adjudicator.