Find Key Cases

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.

This case highlights and clarifies a number of issues:

• Signs and lines must adequately advise the motorist of the restriction, but do not need to be in pristine condition. Substantial compliance with the regulations is sufficient, but signs must not mislead or fail to inform.
• There is no requirement on the civil enforcement officer to record the model of the vehicle.
• The blue badge concession does not apply when waiting restrictions are in force. When no waiting restrictions are in force, the clock must be set to the time of arrival and three hours parking time is permitted.
• There is no right to an observation period or period of grace.
• The 50% discount is offered to the penalty charge notice only – any further discount is at the council’s discretion.
• The authority has a period of six months to serve the Notice to Owner.

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 highlights that proving an element of intention is not required under the fixed penalty scheme, and that an adjudicator cannot take mitigation into account.

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.