Bulled, R (on the application of) v Parking and Traffic Appeals Service

Judicial review is not a means of appealing a parking adjudicator’s factual assessment. Where an adjudicator has considered the evidence and decided that a motorist failed to prove the purchase or display of a ticket, a challenge based only on disputed facts does not raise an arguable public-law issue. Complaints about signage, ticket machines or the conduct of parking attendants do not alter that conclusion without an identifiable error of law or other proper basis for judicial review. A general duty to act fairly does not convert such a factual dispute into a judicial-review claim. Fairness authorities must be considered in their legal and factual context.

Mr Bulled, a blue-badge holder, challenged a penalty charge issued after he parked in the Royal Borough of Kensington and Chelsea without displaying a valid pay-and-display ticket. The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service rejected his appeal after allowing opportunities to produce the ticket. A second adjudicator found no grounds to review that decision.

Sullivan J refused permission for judicial review on the papers. Bean J later refused the renewed application. Mr Bulled sought permission to appeal, relying on the blue-badge scheme, alleged defects in signage and a ticket machine, the conduct of the parking attendant, and procedural fairness. The central issue was whether those matters disclosed any arguable legal or public-law basis for judicial review.

Application refused. Lord Justice May held that there was no real prospect of successfully appealing Bean J’s refusal of permission.

1. The substance of the dispute was whether Mr Bulled had bought and displayed a pay-and-display ticket on the relevant occasion. He had been given ample opportunities to produce the ticket. The first adjudicator rejected his evidence on the facts, and the second adjudicator found no basis for reviewing that decision.
2. A decision of an adjudicator which is purely factual is not amenable to judicial review merely because the applicant disputes the assessment of the evidence. The proposed grounds raised no point of law and no proper alternative basis for judicial review.
3. The validity of Mr Bulled’s blue badge did not establish that the penalty charge was unlawful, since the local authority operated a scheme under which blue-badge holders were required to buy a pay-and-display ticket but received additional free time. His previous practice of paying for parking, alleged police reports, and the parking attendant’s instructions did not affect the adjudicator’s factual conclusion.
4. The judge rejected the contention that the adjudicator had ignored the photograph of the allegedly defaced ticket machine. The adjudicator had considered that evidence. A general duty on the local authority to act fairly did not create an arguable judicial-review claim. The decision in R v The Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Doody [1994] App Cases 531 concerned prison services and had no particular relevance to this dispute. Davis v Kensington & Chelsea principally concerned the timely enforcement of a parking penalty and likewise did not assist.

Permission to appeal was refused. Order: application refused.

• Court of Appeal (Civil Division): On 14 November 2006, May LJ refused permission to appeal, holding that the proposed grounds disclosed no arguable point of law or proper basis for judicial review. [2006] EWCA Civ 1632
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Bean J refused the application for permission to bring judicial review proceedings on 31 March 2006.
• High Court of Justice, Queen’s Bench Division, Administrative Court: Sullivan J had previously refused permission on the papers on 14 September 2005.
• Parking and Traffic Appeals Service: The first adjudicator refused the parking appeal on 8 February 2005. A second adjudicator later found no grounds to review that decision.