London Borough of Barnet Council, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator

A penalty charge notice must state the date of the notice, separately from the date of the alleged contravention, so that the statutory payment periods can be calculated. Substantial compliance is sufficient, but a notice which omits the date of the notice does not comply with the statutory scheme. Prejudice need not be established: where the statutory conditions for civil liability are not met, no financial liability arises. An issue not raised before the Parking Adjudicator should not ordinarily be decided without giving the parties notice and an opportunity to provide evidence and submissions.

The Council sought judicial review of a Parking Adjudicator’s decision concerning two penalty charge notices issued on 31 March 2005. The notices stated the date of the alleged contraventions but did not state the date of issue or notice. They also used wording which potentially allowed an additional day for payment.

The first Parking Adjudicator allowed the motorist’s appeals on factual grounds and additionally held that the notices were invalid for failing to state the date of the notice. A reviewing Adjudicator upheld the latter reasoning. The Council challenged the statutory construction and argued that any defects caused no prejudice.

1. The claim was dismissed. The two penalty charge notices were invalid because they did not comply with section 66(3)(c), (d) and (e) of the Road Traffic Act 1991.
2. Section 66(3)(c), (d) and (e), by construction or clear implication, required the date of the notice to appear on the notice. The date of the contravention and the date of the notice are distinct. They may coincide, but they need not do so, particularly where a notice is posted after a contravention or issued after midnight.
3. Literal compliance was unnecessary. Substantial compliance was sufficient, consistently with the reasoning in Al's Bar and Restaurant Ltd v London Borough of Wandsworth and McArthur v Bury MBC. Neither notice achieved substantial compliance because each showed only the contravention date.
4. Prejudice was irrelevant. The statutory scheme imposed financial liability only when its specified conditions were satisfied. Since the notices did not comply with section 66, neither the notices nor subsequent enforcement steps triggered liability.
5. The court declined to determine finally the effect of wording which potentially allowed one extra day for payment. That issue had not been raised or investigated before the Parking Adjudicators. If it were to affect the validity of otherwise compliant notices, the parties would need notice and an opportunity to make submissions and adduce evidence. The reviewing Adjudicator’s decision on that additional issue therefore could not stand, although no remittal was necessary because the notices were independently invalid.
6. There was no order as to costs. Permission to appeal was refused.

The judgment does not state a prior court decision in the same litigation. It concerned judicial review of a decision by a reviewing Parking Adjudicator dated 6 March 2006, which had upheld the invalidity of two penalty charge notices.