Find Key Cases

This case clarifies that running out of petrol is not a circumstance beyond the driver’s control and is not a mechanical failure.

Such circumstances do not cause the suspension of parking restrictions and are mitigation that the adjudicator cannot consider.

The case also makes clear that the adjudicator cannot adjust the fixed penalty amount on the basis of mitigation or financial hardship.

While boarding and alighting may be permitted on double yellow lines even when waiting and loading restrictions are in force, this case clarifies that it is for the motorist to prove that they were entitled to the benefit of the exemption – stopping only so long as necessary to allow a passenger to board or alight the vehicle. Picking up a passenger does not extend to waiting for a passenger (who is not there) to arrive.

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 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.