Hackney Drivers Association Ltd, R (on the application of) v Parking Adjudicator & Anor

A penalty charge notice complies with regulation 3(2)(b) where, read as a whole, it fairly conveys that informal representations made before a notice to owner will be considered and that any subsequent representations must comply with the notice to owner. The statutory wording need not be reproduced verbatim. References to 14-day and 28-day payment periods do not create an impermissible time limit for informal challenges where the document, read cumulatively, makes clear that such challenges may be made before service of the notice to owner.

The claimant sought judicial review of a parking adjudicator’s dismissal of its appeal against a penalty charge notice issued by Lancashire County Council. Permission was limited to whether the notice complied with regulation 3(2)(b)(i) of the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007.

The claimant argued that the notice failed to state that pre-notice-to-owner representations would be considered and misleadingly suggested that informal challenges had to be made within 14 or 28 days.

1. The claim was dismissed.
2. Regulation 3(2)(b) requires cumulative information: representations received before service of a notice to owner will be considered, but if a notice to owner is nevertheless served, formal representations must be made in the form, manner and time specified in that notice.
3. Compliance is assessed by reading the penalty charge notice as a whole. The prescribed words need not be used verbatim if the required information is fairly conveyed. The notice’s references to written challenges concerning why the penalty should not be paid, and to all cases being considered on their individual circumstances, conveyed that pre-notice-to-owner representations would be considered.
4. The notice did not impose or suggest a 14-day or 28-day limit for informal challenges. The 14-day reference concerned only preservation of the payment discount, while the 28-day reference concerned payment of the penalty charge. The document made clear that representations could be made both before and after service of the notice to owner, subject after service to the notice’s instructions.
5. The court did not need to decide whether the statutory provision required literal or substantial compliance, because the notice conveyed the prescribed information.

The claim was a first-instance application for judicial review of the parking adjudicator’s decision dated 17 February 2012. The claim was dismissed.