Maitland, R (on the application of) v Parking Appeals Service & Anor

MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: This claimant seeks permission to challenge the decision of the Parking and Traffic Appeals Service of 10th August 2005, refusing his application for a review of the decision of the parking adjudicator.

On 29th December 2004 the claimant was issued with a penalty charge notice by the London Borough of Camden for parking in a "Residents Only" parking bay in Whitfield Street. He bought and was displaying a Pay and Display ticket in the belief that the parking bay in which he was parked was subject to such a regime. However, it transpired that the bay was a "Residents Only" bay. It was the claimant's case that he did not see the "Residents Only" sign, only the Pay and Display sign.

The claimant appealed to the defendant against the issue of the penalty charge notice, contending that the signage at the location was confusing. In a determination dated 10th June 2005 the adjudicator dismissed his appeal, finding, firstly, that the claimant had parked in the "Residents Only" parking bay and, secondly, that the "Residents Only" sign was clearly displayed and that this claimant's car was very close to the sign.

The claimant sought a review of the adjudicator's decision. The second adjudicator heard the application on 10th August 2005 and rejected it, finding that the evidence upon which the claimant then sought to rely for the review could and should have been produced at the time of his initial appeal, and that it was not in the interests of justice to grant the application. The claimant contends that the adjudicator was wrong to conclude that it was not in the interests of justice to grant the review, and that the adjudicator erred in concluding that the evidence upon which he sought to rely could reasonably have been known of at the time of the first hearing.

The acknowledgement of service and the defendant's submissions in relation to the grounds are that neither ground is sustainable. The first was a finding of fact which was open to the adjudicator to make; there is no arguable error of law, and therefore this matter is not amenable to judicial review; additionally that it was open to the adjudicator to find that it was not in the interests of justice to grant the review. Again, it is said that no error of law has been detected and that the decision is neither irrational nor perverse.

When dismissing the application for permission to apply on the papers, Forbes J noted that the decision of the adjudicator on 10th June was plainly correct for the reasons that he gave. In his view the fresh evidence would have made no difference to the outcome, and that the second adjudicator was right to refuse a review.

The claimant has, in his notice of renewal, advanced further and new grounds in support of his challenge on the basis that the parking signs on Whitfield Street were incorrect and illegal. It is interesting to note that the gentleman on whose evidence he relied from the RAC made no such observation in the material that was presented to the second adjudicator.

We are not here to decide the new issue which has now been raised, but to consider whether the decision of the second adjudicator was lawful and within the grounds of reasonable responses open to him. In my view it was. This renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review is therefore dismissed.

I deal with the question of costs. There will be a costs order in favour of the defendant to this extent. They have been requested in the sum of £2,100 odd, £975 being put down to administrative costs. I note that the interested party, the London Borough of Camden, who also had to prepare submissions in relation to this matter, have put in their costs which come out at just over half what the defendant is requesting. Taking that into account and also taking account of Mr Maitland's situation, I order costs in favour of the defendant in the sum of £1,600 inclusive.

Thank you very much.

MS SMITH: My Lady, I am grateful.

MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: I have already made a ruling and dismissed this application for permission to apply for judicial review, Mr Maitland not being present in court this morning when the case was called on.

The claimant has now made himself known and has come armed with a report prepared by Mr Bentley dated 11th June 2006 on the new issue of the illegality of the parking signs and bays in Whitfield Street. I have given Mr Maitland the opportunity to address me. It is argued that this evidence could not have been obtained earlier and that it is in the interests of justice that Mr Maitland be given permission to apply for judicial review.

On behalf of the defendant (counsel had still remained and was therefore here to deal with this new issue raised), the following points are made. The issue was a live one in the adjudicator's determination of June 2005, and the adjudicator makes it quite clear and makes a finding in relation to it, namely that the bays were in compliance with the directions; he did this with the regulations in mind, and the photographs of the bays and the signage; that this evidence could have been submitted then, or indeed, once the adjudicator had made a finding about the bay, could have been obtained in time for the appeal against the original adjudicator's review. The matter was not advanced before the second adjudicator. Indeed, as I have already noted to Mr Maitland, there was a report from the RAC, the RAC being, one would have thought, experts in matters of road traffic. There is no suggestion by the gentleman in his report from the RAC that there is anything illegal with the parking bays and the signage.

In my view, the material that I have seen is not such that I should revisit and change the original decision I made to refuse permission to seek judicial review. Therefore, I confirm my original decision. No doubt, if it is of concern to Mr Bentley, he can discuss the matter with Camden, the local authority concerned.

Yes, thank you very much Mr Maitland.

MS SMITH: My Lady, I have drawn to Mr Maitland's attention your order for costs.

MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: Yes, that also remains. There was an application for nearly £2,200 by way of costs. I made a substantial reduction to I think it was £1,500, was it, or £1,600?

MS SMITH: £1,600.

MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: £1,600.

MR MAITLAND: That is very generous of you my Lady, thank you.

MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: Any further representations you want to make?

MR MAITLAND: Well, the referee's blown her whistle now really.

MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: In relation to costs, I am allowing you the opportunity to address me on the issue.

MR MAITLAND: Lawyers are not cheap, are they?

MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: I am afraid not, but I have knocked it down.

MR MAITLAND: That is very generous of you, thank you. I appreciate that.

MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: If you want to make further submissions in terms of affordability. If you can afford an expert's report it seems to me you may be able to afford the costs.

MR MAITLAND: I am reminded of the old saying that a lawyer is like a rhino: they are thick skinned and they charge at the first opportunity.

MRS JUSTICE DOBBS: I will remember that one. Anyway, thank you.