Find Key Cases

This case clarifies that a motorist is expected to be aware of the prohibition against parking adjacent to a dropped footway (which applies at all times), even without the presence of signs or road markings. The dropped footway prohibition also applies when the carriageway has been raised to meet the footway.

Also made clear is that the discount period for payment of a parking PCN applies for 14 days, though the council has a discretion to extend the discount period.

This case clarifies that the review process is limited and the unsuccessful party is not necessarily entitled to a review. Whether the interests of justice require a review depends on the circumstances of any specific case, but even if a ground is proved the adjudicator is not bound to engage in a review; it may not be proportionate to do so.

The case also covers how the principle of de minimis cannot be applied because there is no ‘near miss’ principle in public law. A limited entry into a bus lane is mitigation, which is not a matter for the adjudicator. Only the council can consider mitigating circumstances.

Finally, that an adjudicator decision may appear inconsistent from another does not mean it is necessarily incorrect. Decisions of another adjudicator or jurisdiction are persuasive, they are not binding, unless made by a higher court.

This case highlights and clarifies a number of issues:

• Signs and lines must adequately advise the motorist of the restriction, but do not need to be in pristine condition. Substantial compliance with the regulations is sufficient, but signs must not mislead or fail to inform.
• There is no requirement on the civil enforcement officer to record the model of the vehicle.
• The blue badge concession does not apply when waiting restrictions are in force. When no waiting restrictions are in force, the clock must be set to the time of arrival and three hours parking time is permitted.
• There is no right to an observation period or period of grace.
• The 50% discount is offered to the penalty charge notice only – any further discount is at the council’s discretion.
• The authority has a period of six months to serve the Notice to Owner.

This case clarifies that a review is not an opportunity to bolster a case and that the statement of truth is sufficient to demonstrate that an enforcement camera holds the correct certificate, demonstrating that it meets the requirements of Schedule 1 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions)(England) Regulations 2022.  Further evidence underpinning the certificate or the statement, or any kind of evidential chain, is not required to meet the civil standard of proof. Appeal and review proceedings are public hearings.

This case clarifies that it is the owner of the vehicle who is liable for a bus lane contravention, even if not the driver at the time. The registered keeper listed at the Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) (opens in new tab) is the starting point for establishing ownership of a vehicle.