Find Key Cases

This case confirms that a civil enforcement officer is entitled to observe a vehicle within the ten-minute period of grace provided to motorists who have paid to park. The penalty can, however, only be imposed after the grace period has expired.

Additionally, the case clarifies that paying for a virtual parking session through an app is equivalent to displaying a pay-and-display ticket. A penalty charge notice issued for failing to pay and display, therefore, adequately describes the contravention.

Other points addressed in this case include:

• the possibility that more than one contravention code can apply (in this instance, parking after the expiry of paid for time could also apply)
• the principle that other previously determined appeals may be persuasive, but are not binding on an adjudicator
• a caution that case names and appeal numbers sourced on the web should not be relied upon to support an appeal, without providing the full written decision to the Tribunal.

This case makes clear that there is no time limit for issuing the road user charging penalty charge notice under the regulations and that – on receipt of representations against the penalty charge notice – the authority seeking to reject those representations must issue a Notice of Rejection within 56 days. That notice must include the required information detailed under the regulations.

If a Notice of Rejection is not served, the authority is deemed to have accepted the representations. Re-issuing the penalty charge notice to allow for a further period of discount does not remove the authority’s obligation to issue a valid Notice of Rejection in response to representations.

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 that a motorist seeking to take advantage of the statutory discount (50%) period must make a payment within 14 days of service of the penalty charge notice, and that making representations to the authority within the initial 14-day discount period does not cause an extension of that discount to arise.

The charging authority is not obliged to extend the discount or respond to the representations within the 14-day period. The Notice of Rejection of Representations must be issued within 56 days of receiving formal representations. By this time the motorist’s option of making a reduced payment will have expired.