Find Key Cases

This case clarifies that the relevant traffic regulations apply to the motorist, even if they cannot read or understand English. It is incumbent on the motorist to observe and comply with lawfully marked restrictions. A failure to understand them, or a lack of knowledge, cannot amount to a ground of appeal.

This case clarifies that there is no concept of a ‘near miss’ in public law. That the motorist entered a bus lane shortly before time restrictions were lifted is mitigation, not a ground of appeal.

This case clarifies the issue of ‘ostensible authority’, concerning situations where motorists may seek to establish that a third party impacted their case. In this specific case, the motorist claimed that a third party was acting on behalf of the council (by directing traffic).

The adjudicator’s decision makes clear that a motorist must not only prove that specific permission had been given (in this case permission to use a bus lane), but also that the principal (i.e. the council) had in some way indicated that the third party had such authority to direct the motorist as such.

Without these elements, a legitimate expectation that a penalty charge notice will not be issued/enforced cannot arise.

Paragraph 13 of the decision references the issue of ‘ostensible authority’, specifically.

Further, de minimis or ‘near misses’ cannot apply under the regulatory scheme – compliance is binary (as covered in Paragraph 8 of the decision).

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 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.