See v Royal Borough Of Kensington & Chelsea

A statutory parking-enforcement scheme is compatible with the fair-trial guarantee where it provides a procedure for contesting the charge and an appeal to an independent parking adjudicator. A motorist who says that a parking sign was not visible, and therefore that no contravention occurred, must pursue that statutory appeal. Recovery of earlier unpaid penalty charges is not barred merely because the vehicle was later removed and the charges and removal costs for the removal day were paid.

The applicant challenged the striking out of his claim against the respondent borough. He had left his car in a pay-and-display bay without displaying a ticket. It was later removed, and he paid the sums required to recover it, but two earlier parking notices remained unpaid.

He alleged that the sign was not visible and argued that enforcement of the notices breached his rights under Article 6(1) and Article 10. The High Court had adjourned the matter to allow him to use the statutory appeal route to a parking adjudicator, with the borough indicating that it would take no point on lateness. The central issues were whether the statutory regime supplied an adequate means of contesting the charges and whether the borough could recover the two earlier notices.

1. Application refused. The claim had been rightly struck out and there was no arguable human-rights claim.
2. The statutory regime under the Road Traffic Act 1991 provided a means of determining whether parking charges were properly imposed and an appeal to a parking adjudicator. The applicant had therefore failed to show incompatibility with Article 6.
3. The allegation that the sign was invisible could be advanced on the statutory ground that the alleged contravention did not occur. The proper forum for deciding that factual issue was the parking adjudicator, not the Court of Appeal on an application for permission.
4. Payment required to recover a vehicle from a pound covered the notice for the removal day, the removal fee and storage charges. It did not discharge two separate earlier penalty charges which had not then been claimed. The borough was entitled to recover those charges.
5. The applicant appeared to have an opportunity to pursue an out-of-time appeal to the parking adjudicator. The court expressed doubt about the factual strength of his case on visibility but left that issue to the adjudicator if the appeal proceeded.

Application for permission to appeal refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): Application for permission to appeal from the order of Miss E Slade QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge, dated 30 April 2002, refused.
• High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division: The claim was struck out by order dated 30 April 2002.
• High Court of Justice, Queen's Bench Division: On 29 January 2001 His Honour Judge Geddes adjourned the strike-out issue to allow pursuit of the statutory appeal to the parking adjudicator.