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

For the purposes of section 5 of the London Local Authorities Act 2000, issuing a penalty charge notice means fixing it to the vehicle or giving it to the person appearing to be in charge. Merely recording vehicle details is preparatory. An attempt begins when the attendant starts writing or inputting details to generate the notice, or approaches with a completed notice for service. The court also considered that a person may prevent service without knowing of, or intending, that consequence. However, a long-established understanding that a driver who leaves before service has avoided liability, together with settled administrative practice, made it inappropriate to grant a declaration reversing that position.

A parking attendant observed a vehicle stopped on double red lines and began recording details. Before the penalty charge notice was fixed to the vehicle or handed to the driver, the driver returned and drove away. Transport for London subsequently served a notice by post on the vehicle’s keeper under section 5 of the London Local Authorities Act 2000.

The Parking Adjudicator allowed the appeal, holding that the attendant had not been prevented from issuing the notice. A review application was refused. Transport for London sought judicial review, asking what constituted an attempt to issue a notice and what amounted to prevention of service.

1. Application dismissed. The court refused the declaration sought and formally dismissed the application for judicial review. No order for costs was made.
2. Section 5 of the London Local Authorities Act 2000 operates by reference to service under section 66(1) of the Road Traffic Act 1991. Issue therefore means fixing the notice to the vehicle or giving it to the person appearing to be in charge. Completion or printing of the notice alone is not the act of issue.
3. Merely jotting down vehicle details is a preparatory act. An attempt to issue begins either when the attendant starts entering details into a hand-held computer to generate the notice or begins writing the notice, or when a completed notice has been removed and the attendant starts approaching the vehicle or driver for service.
4. The court rejected the submission that the criminal law definition of attempt supplied a different approach. Preparatory acts, even when accompanied by the relevant intention, do not amount to an attempt.
5. The ordinary meaning of prevention could include a driver leaving before service. Knowledge that a notice was being issued, or an intention to avoid service, was not necessarily required. The court nevertheless declined to reverse the established understanding and practice of parking adjudicators and authorities that a driver who left before service had avoided postal enforcement, absent violence or threats of violence. Given the long-standing practice and the claimant’s own inconsistent position, a declaration changing that position was inappropriate.

The judgment describes the underlying decision of the Parking Adjudicator, who allowed the motorist’s appeal. A subsequent review application was refused by another adjudicator. The High Court dismissed Transport for London’s judicial review claim.