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 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 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.