Walmsley, Regina (on the Application Of) v Lane and Another: Admn 18 May 2005

The applicant had paid the congestion charge to allow her to drive into London, but had given the incorrect registration mark.
Held: The mistake was not a mistke which would establish a ground to challenge the penalty, but the adjudicator had been wrong to consider that he had no discretion to accept the circumstance as mitigation. He did have that discretion, and should have exercised it. The scheme was not clear, and its meaning could only be derived by anticipating what might have been wanted. The case did not give grounds for saying that the same result would always obtain, particularly in the case of repeated errors. If Transport for London had a policy for the exercise of the discretion, it was right that those who might be affected by it should know of it.


Burnton J


[2005] EWHC 896 (Admin), Times 25-May-2005, [2005] RTR 370




Greater London (Central Zone) Congestion Charging Order 2001


England and Wales

Cited by:

CitedWalmsley, Regina (on the Application of) v Lane and Another CA 17-Nov-2005
The defendant had successfully appealed her fine after giving the wrong car number to the congestion charge system.
Held: When the driver appealed to the adjudicator’s discretion, she could submit anything which might be relevant. Where the . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.

Road Traffic, Local Government

Updated: 30 June 2022; Ref: scu.224949