The High Court Ruled These LTN Fines Were Unlawful. Now Drivers Want Their £7 Million Back

Croydon Council generated £7,210,328.18 from six low traffic neighbourhoods over a two-year period that the High Court has since ruled were kept in place primarily to raise money. The schemes have been scrapped, the judgement was damning, and thousands of drivers who were fined are now asking the same question: where is the refund?

The ruling, handed down by Mr Justice Pepperall in March 2026, found that the dominant purpose for making the six LTN schemes permanent was not to reduce traffic or improve air quality, but to protect the revenue they were generating. The judge described the entire process as a “procedural dog’s breakfast” and concluded: “I am satisfied on the balance of probabilities that the dominant purpose for these orders making the schemes permanent was the need to safeguard the revenue raised by enforcement.”

It is a judgement that resonates far beyond Croydon. Low traffic neighbourhoods operate in dozens of boroughs and cities across the UK, and the total value of LTN fines issued across England since their introduction is estimated at close to £230 million. The Croydon ruling is the most significant legal challenge to date, and it raises uncomfortable questions about whether other councils are operating their LTN schemes for the same reason.

How The LTNs Worked

Low traffic neighbourhoods use cameras, bollards, planters, or lockable barriers to prevent motor vehicles from passing through residential streets. The stated purpose is to reduce rat-running, improve air quality, and make roads safer for pedestrians and cyclists. Drivers who enter a restricted zone without an exemption are issued a penalty charge notice of £130, reduced to £65 if paid within 14 days.

Croydon introduced its six LTN schemes on a trial basis in 2020, the same year the council effectively declared bankruptcy for the first time. The schemes were made permanent in 2024 under experimental traffic orders. Between March 2024 and February 2026, the six zones generated an average of roughly £300,000 per month in fine revenue, a figure that the council itself had projected when proposing to make the schemes permanent. Its own estimates at the time suggested the LTNs would raise £10.7 million over four years.

That projection proved to be part of the problem. If the primary purpose of a traffic order is to manage traffic flow and improve road safety, the revenue it generates should ideally decrease over time as drivers learn the restrictions and change their routes. A scheme that continues to generate six-figure monthly income from fines suggests that drivers are either unable to avoid the restrictions or that the restrictions have been designed to catch as many people as possible.

The Court’s Findings

The legal challenge was brought by local residents, led by Karen Lawrence, who argued that the LTNs were unlawful because their true purpose was revenue generation rather than traffic management. The High Court agreed.

Lawrence told reporters after the ruling: “These closures had such a big impact on my movement around Croydon. I am so glad the courts vindicated what we all thought these were truly about money.”

The judgement was particularly critical of Croydon’s Conservative mayor, Jason Perry. While in opposition, Perry had spoken out against the LTNs and indicated he would like to remove them on his first day in office. However, after being elected in May 2022, he changed course. The court found that Perry “didn’t think he was in a position to remove the schemes because the previous administration had predicated their budgets on assumed income from the schemes.”

Perry later acknowledged the contradiction in his position. “I did not at any point say that I would remove all the LTNs because I just knew it was not a pledge that I could uphold,” he said. “Any future schemes coming forward should not be based on fining residents in order to achieve it.”

The council, which has effectively declared bankruptcy three times since 2020, was relying on LTN fine income to plug gaps in its budget. The court found that this financial dependence had become the driving factor behind the decision to make the schemes permanent, which is not a lawful basis for a traffic management order.

The Refund Question

Following the ruling, Croydon Council stated that motorists were able to claim refunds through its website. Fines paid for penalty charge notices issued between 30 March 2024 and 4 March 2026 are eligible, and the council has said it aims to verify and process payments within 14 to 28 days of a successful claim.

However, the council has not guaranteed that the full £7.2 million in revenue will be returned. The refund process requires individual drivers to submit claims rather than issuing automatic repayments, which means that anyone who paid a fine but does not see the announcement, no longer has the paperwork, or simply does not have the time to navigate the claims process may never get their money back. Reports have also surfaced that the council’s refund portal has experienced technical issues since launch.

The resident group Open Our Roads, which supported the legal challenge, said it was “shocked” by the scale of revenue the LTNs had generated. A spokesperson said: “The figures quoted suggest they were not performing their stated objectives, given the high level of enforcement revenue, but we are pleased the current administration has swiftly put processes in place to refund the fines wrongfully taken.”

The group added that it had received over a thousand messages of thanks from the community, but warned that “eye-watering sums” continued to be raised by councils in other boroughs through their own LTN schemes.

The Wider Picture

Croydon is not the only council to face questions about LTN revenue. Across London and other English cities, LTN fines have generated substantial income for local authorities. Southwark Council has taken in £2.5 million from cameras in a single LTN. Lambeth Council generated over £1 million in just six months from one scheme, averaging more than £180,000 per month before that LTN was also ruled unlawful in a separate case.

The standard penalty of £130 per offence, or £65 if paid promptly, may sound modest on its own. But when multiplied across thousands of drivers passing through multiple camera-enforced zones every month, the sums accumulate rapidly. Councils are legally required to ringfence revenue from traffic enforcement and spend it on transport-related purposes, but the Croydon case demonstrates that the line between legitimate enforcement and revenue generation can become blurred when a council is under severe financial pressure.

A Department for Transport spokesperson responded to the ruling by stating: “The law is clear that money raised from enforcement is strictly ringfenced, and councils must make sure any Low Traffic Neighbourhoods are lawful and shaped with local communities.”

That statement places the responsibility squarely on councils to ensure their schemes are legally sound. But for the thousands of drivers in Croydon who were fined for driving through their own neighbourhoods under schemes that a High Court judge has now declared unlawful, the reassurance comes too late. Their immediate concern is whether they will actually see their money returned, and how many drivers in other boroughs may be paying fines under schemes that could face similar legal challenges.

There are no active LTNs remaining in Croydon. The council has confirmed it will not appeal the ruling. But across the rest of the country, the cameras are still running, the fines are still being issued, and the question raised by this case remains unanswered: how many other LTN schemes would survive the same legal scrutiny?

Sources

High Court Judge Orders End to Croydon’s Unlawful LTNs (Inside Croydon) London Council Made £7 Million From Unlawful LTNs (LBC) Croydon Low Traffic Neighbourhoods Penalty Refund Request (Croydon Council) Drivers Fined £200m From Low Traffic Neighbourhoods (GB News) Low Traffic Neighbourhoods Continue to Make Money Despite Controversies (Auto Express)