Find Key Cases

This case highlights that if a motorist makes a clean air zone payment to an unofficial website, they remain responsible to the charging authority for the penalty and charge. While in this case the motorist did not intend to avoid the charge, the circumstances described amount to mitigation that the adjudicator does not have the power to take into account. The authority is entitled to enforce the full penalty amount.

This case clarifies that a clean air zone charge applies from midnight to midnight. A vehicle remaining in a zone after 11.59pm becomes liable for the following day’s charge, even if the vehicle only remains in the zone for a limited period after midnight, and only due to heavy traffic. The circumstances described in this and such a case do not provide a ground of appeal under the statutory fixed penalty scheme. They amount to mitigation that the adjudicator does not have the power to consider.

This case clarifies that once service of the penalty charge notice is correctly executed, the loss of the penalty charge notice (even if unlawfully removed by a third party) does not undermine the validity of it, or limit its enforcement.

The motorist’s non-receipt of the penalty does not cause an extension of the statutory discount to arise as of right and the adjudicator has no power to extend a discount or alter the penalty amount.

This case clarifies that the blue badge concession can only apply when the badge is clearly displayed in the vehicle. A badge that has fallen from view is not clearly displayed.

More generally, the council does not have to prove that a motorist intended to park in contravention, only that a contravention occurred, and adjudicators have no power to take mitigating circumstances into account.

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.