Find Key Cases

This case makes clear that a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) is to be treated as valid unless it can be said that in substance, because of the failure to adequately inform the road user, it could not be considered as such. Crucially, signs need only substantially comply with regulations and some irregularities may be deemed trivial, not misleading a motorist.

This case clarifies that tribunal adjudicators are independent office holders with no financial or other incentive to act in any way other than impartially, as evidenced by appeal outcome statistics.

This case clarifies that a penalty charge notice (PCN) is a civil penalty, therefore there is no right to criminal proceedings, and that tribunal adjudicators are independent, with the High Court in place should an error of law arise. The case also makes clear that arguing a contravention of the Bill of Rights is incorrect.

This case clarifies that an error made by a motorist in entering their vehicle registration number in order to purchase an entry to the congestion zone amounted to a contravention, whether intentional or not.

An adjudicator’s powers are limited to the statutory provisions. Discretion falls outside an adjudicator’s powers and extenuating factors are for the authority, not the adjudicator, to consider.

This case clarifies that an adjudicator has no discretion or power to take mitigation into account when determining the amount of any payment payable by a person adjudged to be in breach of a parking regulation.