Dolatabadi, R (on the application of) v Transport for London

A public authority may be required to depart from ordinary enforcement procedures where its misinformation and conduct create a legitimate expectation that enforcement will not proceed. Judicial review remains available despite an alternative statutory appeal route where requiring the claimant to pursue that route would be pointless because the only proper outcome is clear. A failure to address material representations can contribute to the creation of a legitimate expectation. Where that expectation is frustrated and the claimant acts to his detriment, the court may quash the resulting enforcement notices and prevent further enforcement.

The claimant sought judicial review of Transport for London’s enforcement of congestion-charge penalty notices. His car had been used to assist a disabled Blue Badge holder. Following an error in a renewal form, and misleading information from a Transport for London employee, the claimant believed that the vehicle remained eligible for the discount.

Transport for London continued issuing notices despite the claimant’s representations and later enforcement proceedings led to the seizure of his car and removal of money from his account. Transport for London argued that the claimant should have used the statutory representations and appeal procedure within the prescribed period. The central issues were whether judicial review was available despite that alternative procedure and whether Transport for London had created a legitimate expectation that the notices would not be enforced.

1. Claim succeeded. The court quashed the penalty charge notices and directed that no enforcement proceedings should follow from them. Transport for London was required to return the claimant’s car forthwith and repay the money taken from him, with interest. The claimant was awarded £500 costs.
2. Transport for London should have recognised that the incorrect form was the product of an understandable mistake and that the claimant qualified for the discount. The authority failed properly to address the claimant’s clear representations and instead issued standard responses which did not engage with the substance of his case [18], [24].
3. The information given by the authority’s employee, together with the authority’s subsequent conduct and its agreement to cancel the charges specifically raised, led the claimant reasonably to believe that he would not be penalised and that no further individual challenge was required. That amounted, in public law terms, to a legitimate expectation. The claimant acted to his detriment in reliance on it [25].
4. Although judicial review is a remedy of last resort, the alternative statutory procedure did not prevent relief. Requiring applications out of time to challenge every notice would have been pointless because, on the history found by the court, the only proper outcome would have been cancellation of the notices. The court had ample jurisdiction to grant effective relief [26].
5. The finding by an adjudicator in relation to one notice, accepting that the claimant had been misled and reasonably believed that he was entitled to the discount, was also a matter on which the claimant was entitled to rely. Transport for London’s failure to attend that hearing did not justify disregarding the finding [20]-[22].

The judgment was a first-instance decision on a judicial review claim. The claimant had previously obtained an adjudicator’s decision favourable to him in relation to one penalty notice. The Administrative Court granted relief against Transport for London.