Find Key Cases

This case clarifies that a vehicle is parked even if the motorist remains in the vehicle with the engine running, and that stopping, waiting or parking on double yellow lines in order to receive a telephone call is not permitted.

The original adjudicator’s decision is accessible from the button below.

The subsequent review is available here. This review references Schwarz – vs – The London Borough of Camden (2010000692), accessible on this site here.

A further application for judicial review to the High Court was rejected on the same issues.

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 it is the owner of the vehicle who is liable for a bus lane contravention, even if not the driver at the time. The registered keeper listed at the Driving and Vehicle Licensing Agency (DVLA) (opens in new tab) is the starting point for establishing ownership of a vehicle.

This case clarifies that pay and display includes the virtual display of payment. It is the responsibility of the motorist to enter and select the correct location when using a pay-by-phone or parking mobile application, and an adjudicator cannot consider mitigation.

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.