R Humphreys v Parking and Traffic Appeals Service
| Jurisdiction | England & Wales |
| Judge | Her Honour Judge Coe |
| Judgment Date | 18 February 2015 |
| Neutral Citation | [2015] EWHC 713 (Admin) |
| Court | Queen's Bench Division (Administrative Court) |
| Docket Number | CO/1069/2014 |
| Date | 18 February 2015 |
[2015] EWHC 713 (Admin)
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE
QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION
THE ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand
London WC2A 2LL
Her Honour Judge Coe QC
(Sitting as a Judge of the High Court)
CO/1069/2014
Mrs E Tremayne (instructed by Direct Access, acting on a Pro Bono basis) appeared on behalf of the Appellant
The Respondent did not attend and was not represented
This is an application for judicial review on behalf of the claimant, Mr Robert Humphreys, brought against the parking adjudicator in respect of a Penalty Charge Notice dated 27 August 2013. I should say that the decision was made on 12 December 2013, the decision maker being Teresa Brennan.
This was the ultimate outcome of an appeal by the claimant against the parking charge notice and permission for these judicial review proceedings was granted on 20 May 2014 by HHJ Thornton QC.
I should say at the beginning that the permission given referred to it being arguable that there were inadequate reasons given by the parking adjudicator, the decision maker, and that the permission sets out various points which would be arguable on behalf of the claimant in the view of the learned Judge.
I accept, having raised the issue with counsel for the claimant that if I find as I am urged to, that the reasons were so inadequate as to conclude that the decision was not reasonably made at all, then it is open to me to approach this, as I am invited to, on two limbs: first of all, asking myself whether or not the parking offence itself was committed, and secondly, whether there were compelling reasons as to why the Notice should be cancelled.
The facts are clearly set out and I do not intend to repeat them. At the time that the claimant parked his moped it was in a bay. The bay was for unlimited parking, there were no suspension notices on it and it was not subject to any suspension warnings. He left it there, I think, or intended to leave it there, for 3 weeks.
On his return, he found the Penalty Charge Notice and it became apparent that with only one working day's warning, the bay had been suspended, and the claimant received the penalty charge because shortly after the suspension notice was in place, a parking officer identified that he was parked in what was then a suspended bay.
The concessions and disputed facts set out first of all that the claimant parked legally in the first place. Secondly, that he had no warning of the suspension. Thirdly, that the bay was not under suspension, and fourthly, and importantly, (as was accepted on at least one occasion by the Local Authority), it is now clear that a driver is under no obligation to make any sort of checks as to whether or not a bay in which they have parked in these circumstances is under a suspension warning, or becomes suspended.
The matter under review is the decision, as I have said, of Teresa Brennan. The decision is set out at page 28/29 of the bundle. I have considered this letter, and in the context of the code and the authorities to which I have been referred, the charge is set out as being a Code 42 violation. The claimant's representations made it clear that he said that he had committed no offence, because the bay was not suspended when he parked in it.
The decision maker sets out:
i. "The facts in this case are not in disputed [sic]. At the time that the penalty charge notice was issued to the appellant's motorbike the bay was suspended. The photograph taken by the civil enforcement officer showed that there was a suspension sign in the bay. The Local Authority has provided evidence that the suspension sign was erected on 24th August. I am satisfied that adequate notice of the suspension was given. I find that the contravention occurred."
This gives no consideration at all to the claimant's representations, in which he set out, as I have said, that it was not suspended when he parked there. Although the decision maker goes on to say, outlining the facts which I have referred to:
i. "Mr Humphreys lives in Shropshire. He regularly travels to London by train to Euston Station. He uses the bike to travel in London. The bike was parked in the nearest motor-cycle bay to Euston. Mr Humphreys usually visits London about once a week. However, on this occasion he parked the bike on 15th August and did not return to London until 3rd September, when he found that the Penalty Charge Notice on his bike. Therefore it is quite clear that Mr Humphrey's [sic] was unaware that the bay was suspended."
In earlier correspondence with the Local Authority, and their response from Mr Glenister, the summary of the Traffic Management Order and Case Summary, it sets out (at page 25 in the bundle):
i. "The Council acknowledges that appellants [sic] statement that they parked their vehicle before the erection of the AWS and the Council records do confirm that to be the case. The Council would also acknowledge that there is no legal requirement for a driver to regularly check their vehicle to ensure a parking bay has not been subsequently suspended."
That is inconsistent with the reasons for rejecting the recommendation, which was that motorists have an obligation to park correctly and ensure they remain parked correctly.
The decision maker, going back to the letter at page 29, seemed to take into account some suggestion that there was an obligation to check:
i. "In correspondence the Local Authority suggests that the appellant should have made some arrangement to check on the status of the bay in case it was suspended. It is quite usual for a resident's bay to be suspended. Motorists issued with permits are advised of their responsibility to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Camden London Borough Council v Robert Gordon Humphreys and Another
...IN THE COURT OF APPEAL (CIVIL DIVISION) ON APPEAL FROM THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION (ADMINISTRATIVE COURT) [2015] EWHC 713 (Admin) HHJ Coe QC Royal Courts of Justice Strand, London, WC2A 2LL Clive Sheldon QC (instructed by Legal Services, London Borough of Camden) for th......