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.

Clear filters

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.

R (On the application of Mr H & Parking Appeals Ltd, ) – v – The Parking Adjudicator and others
[2011] EWCA Civ 905

Court of Appeal

Decision Date: 2011-07-27

Outcome: Judicial Review

This case makes clear that a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) is to be treated as valid unless it can be said that in substance, because of the failure to adequately inform the road user, it could not be considered as such. Crucially, signs need only substantially comply with regulations and some irregularities may be deemed trivial, not misleading a motorist.

Mr S – v – Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea
(2050448466)

London: Environment and Traffic

Decision Date: 2006-07-31

Outcome: Dismissed

This case makes clear that a motorist cannot reserve their right to pay the 50% discounted penalty amount pending the outcome of an appeal. Paying the reduced penalty amount closes the case. The reduced penalty amount is a discount in place to reflect prompt payment and the settlement of a case.

R (On The Application Of Roger De Crittenden) – v – National Parking Adjudication Service
[2006] EWHC 2170 (Admin)

High Court

Decision Date: 2006-07-05

Outcome: Judicial Review

This case clarifies that a penalty charge notice (PCN) is a civil penalty, therefore there is no right to criminal proceedings, and that tribunal adjudicators are independent, with the High Court in place should an error of law arise. The case also makes clear that arguing a contravention of the Bill of Rights is incorrect.