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

Judicial review of a parking adjudication is concerned with the lawfulness and reasonableness of the review decision, not with reopening the underlying merits. A review may properly be refused where the proposed evidence could and should have been produced at the original appeal and granting a review would not be in the interests of justice. A claimant cannot use a renewed permission application to introduce a new substantive challenge which was not the issue before the reviewing adjudicator. The court may award reduced costs having regard to the circumstances of the claimant and the costs incurred by the parties.

The claimant received a penalty charge notice after parking in a residents-only bay operated by the London Borough of Camden. He maintained that the signage was confusing and appealed to the Parking Appeals Service. The parking adjudicator dismissed the appeal, finding that the bay was residents-only and that the relevant sign was clearly displayed.

The claimant sought a review based on further evidence. The second adjudicator refused the review, concluding that the evidence could and should have been produced at the original appeal and that a review was not in the interests of justice. On renewal of his application for permission to seek judicial review, the claimant also raised a new challenge alleging that the signs and bays were illegal. The central issues were whether the review decision was lawful and whether the new issue justified permission.

1. Permission dismissed. The court’s task was to decide whether the second adjudicator’s decision was lawful and fell within the range of reasonable responses open to him. It was not to determine the newly raised challenge concerning the legality of the parking signs and bays.
2. The original adjudicator had made findings that the claimant parked in a residents-only bay and that the sign was clearly displayed. The second adjudicator was entitled to conclude that the further evidence could reasonably have been produced at the original appeal. It was also open to him to conclude that it was not in the interests of justice to grant a review.
3. The claimant’s new argument concerning the legality of the signs and bays did not justify reopening the permission decision. The issue had not been advanced before the second adjudicator. The material placed before the court did not warrant revisiting the refusal of permission.
4. The court ordered the claimant to pay the defendant’s costs, reduced to £1,600 inclusive, having regard to the costs claimed, the interested party’s lower costs, and the claimant’s circumstances.

• Parking Appeals Service: The parking adjudicator dismissed the claimant’s appeal on 10 June 2005. A second adjudicator refused a review on 10 August 2005.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Forbes J refused permission on the papers. Mrs Justice Dobbs dismissed the renewed application and confirmed the refusal after hearing the claimant’s further submissions.