A returned payment did not defeat credible evidence of timely payment (2026)

Case 9250064874 / 2025-03-26 / Adjudicator Michael Range

Hertford Road

“He cannot be liable for the reason it was returned to him.”

Michael Range

The ULEZ allegation concerned a journey on 18 October 2024. The appellant said he paid in the usual way, but the transaction remained pending and was returned after the payment window expired. He supplied a screenshot showing a pending payment to TfL of £12.50 on 21 October 2024. TfL relied on its payment history, which showed no payment received for the journey.

Michael Range found the appellant credible. He considered the screenshot alongside TfL's own evidence that the appellant had paid the daily charge for other dates. On the balance of probabilities, he found that payment had been made at the time and in the manner required by the scheme.

The appeal was allowed and TfL was directed to cancel the penalty and return any money paid towards it. The decision resolved the disputed payment evidence; it did not find that the vehicle was ULEZ compliant. It also does not establish that every pending bank transaction proves payment: the finding rested on the evidence accepted in this appeal.

Source and case reference

Use case reference 9250064874 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.