Find Key Cases

This case clarifies that the relevant traffic regulations apply to the motorist, even if they cannot read or understand English. It is incumbent on the motorist to observe and comply with lawfully marked restrictions. A failure to understand them, or a lack of knowledge, cannot amount to a ground of appeal.

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 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 the blue badge concession can only apply when the badge is clearly displayed in the vehicle. A badge that has fallen from view is not clearly displayed.

More generally, the council does not have to prove that a motorist intended to park in contravention, only that a contravention occurred, and adjudicators have no power to take mitigating circumstances into account.