Find Key Cases

A procedural error that does not resulting in unfairness does not amount to a procedural impropriety. The intention of Parliament could not have been that an inconsequential error would defeat the substantive purpose of the legislative scheme. This decision applies the judgment in Glasgow City Council v The Upper Tribunal of Scotland [2025].

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 scheme is self declaratory and an honest mistake is not a ground of appeal. The responsibility rests with the motorist to establish whether a payment is due and to make that payment. When a payment is made for the wrong date in error, a contravention still occurs.

This case underscores that the responsibility rests with the motorist to purchase parking time for the correct vehicle  A contravention occurs when parking time purchased does not correctly identify the vehicle parked.  This applies even when the incorrect registration mark was entered in error. That a payment was still made is not relevant. The payment must be made for the correct vehicle, identified by the vehicle registration mark provided by the motorist.

The Scottish Upper Tribunal decision is binding on the Scottish First Tier Tribunal for Scotland (General Regulatory Chamber) and is a persuasive decision in other UK jurisdictions.

The case makes clear that a penalty charge notice (PCN) should be read as a whole to assess whether it conveys the requirements of the relevant regulations.