Find Key Cases
Browse key cases using the filter for either ‘Contravention type’ OR ‘Issue’. Alternatively, use the ‘Search…’ box to find cases through a custom query.
Cases on the site currently cover parking, bus lane, moving traffic and road user charging, including the London Congestion Charge and Clean Air Zones (outside London). More cases and contravention types will be added in due course.






Please note: All adjudicator decisions included on this website are in the public domain. While they have been curated together here for the convenience and interest of users, any information contained within the decisions remains the responsibility of the original adjudicating body. Any questions relating to the content of cases should also be directed to the adjudicating body.
Mr M – v – East Hertfordshire District Council
(ET00005-2503)
Traffic Penalty Tribunal
Decision Date: 2025-04-23
Outcome: Dismissed
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].
Miss G – V – Glasgow City Council
(GP00290-2312)
First-tier Tribunal for Scotland
Decision Date: 2024-03-23
Outcome: Judicial Review
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.