Judge overturns tribunal’s suspended bay decision

Adjudicator failed to properly consider motorbike bay appeal, says High Court judge

The motorcycle bay at the heart of the dispute

The motorcycle bay at the heart of the dispute

A parking adjudicator was wrong to reject an appeal relating to a suspended bay, a High Court judge has decided. The case was taken to Judicial Review by Robert Humphreys after his appeal against a fine issued by the London Borough of Camden was refused at the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS).

Humphreys parked his moped in a motorcycle bay near Euston station on 15 August 2013 for three weeks until 3 September. During that period a suspension notice was posted on the bay on 24 August, with a penalty charge notice (PCN) issued to the moped on 27 August.

To read a transcript of the High Court hearing click here

In her decision, dated 12 December 2013, PATAS adjudicator Teresa Brennan stated that the PCN was issued while the bay was suspended, so the contravention had occurred. But she noted that the suspension was not in place when Humphreys parked in the bay.

Parking tribunals do not have the power to consider mitigating circumstances. In such cases  adjudicators can refer cases back to the local authority for reconsideration. 

When she refused the appeal, PATAS’s Brennan recommended that Camden should cancel the PCN. But the authority chose not to follow her recommendation, which prompted Humphreys to take the case to High Court.

Judge Coe said the adjudicator had failed to provide adequate reasons why a contravention had occurred.  There were mitigating circumstance that related to the contravention, the judge said. 

Camden had argued that Humphreys should have checked if the bay would become suspended. But, noted Judge Coe, the council had also acknowledged there was no legal requirement for a driver to regularly check their vehicle in case a bay was subsequently suspended.  

PATAS had heard that Robert Humphreys lives in Shropshire, regularly travels by train to Euston Station, and uses his moped to travel in the capital. 

PATAS’s Teresa Brennan stated: “Mr Humphreys usually visits London about once a week. However, on this occasion he parked the bike on 15 August and did not return to London until 3 September when he found the penalty charge notice on his bike. Therefore, it is quite clear that Mr Humphreys was unaware that the bay was suspended.”  

Brennan added: “It is quite usual for a resident’s bay to be suspended. Motorists issued with permits are advised of their responsibility to check status of bays and to make arrangements if they are away from home for an extended period. As the appellant’s bike was parked near to a mainline station whilst he travelled outside London, it seems to me to be unlikely that he could have arranged for anyone to check the status of the bay on a regular basis.” ??

The adjudicator’s reference to a resident permit did not apply to the Humphrey case, said Judge Coe. She added that Brennan did not “understand the law as it applied to the decision that she was making”. 

The judge said: “The claimant [Humphreys] is not able to assess why she reached the conclusion that she did and, in any event, she failed to consider compelling reasons. In that respect, the adjudicator decision maker manifestly failed to consider first of all properly, or at all, whether or not the contravention had occurred.”

The original PATAS hearing was Robert Gordon Humphreys v London Borough of Camden (PATAS 2130558649). However, the Judicial Review was named as Humphreys v Parking and Traffic Appeals Service, with Camden council not mentioned. 

The judge quashed the PCN and ordered costs of  £1,444 against PATAS. However, Parking Review understands that a costs order cannot be made against a tribunal, and the court has since acknowledged this and has re-directed the claim to Camden. 

Parking Review asked Camden  why it had not attended the hearing, but it declined to comment. However, Camden did confirm that it was seeking permission to appeal the judgment.

PATAS chief adjudicator Caroline Hamilton said: “The adjudicators welcome analysis of the law and direction from the higher courts. The relevant law not having been put before the Court on this occasion, the judgment in this case would appear to be per incuriam, meaning that  it can have no impact on future cases. This does, however, remain to be determined pending the outcome of London Borough of Camden’s appeal.”