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 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.

This case clarifies that under the statutory civil enforcement scheme, the owner of the vehicle remains liable for penalty charge, even if the vehicle was in the care of a third party.

The adjudicator’s decision in this case was confirmed in the High Court in:
R v the Parking Adjudicator ex parte The Mayor and Burgesses of the London Borough of Wandsworth QBCOF 96/1153/D (opens in new tab).

This decision is therefore binding on adjudicators, meaning they must apply the principle to the facts of any relevant case.

This case makes clear that it is the owner of a vehicle (as registered with the DVLA) who is responsible for any penalty charge notices (PCNs), even if they have no knowledge of the contraventions or had no access to the vehicle at the time. In this case, the vehicle was entrusted to a third party for repairs.