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

A parking adjudicator must give adequate reasons addressing the material representations, evidence and inconsistencies relevant to whether a contravention occurred. The adjudicator must also consider any statutory or otherwise applicable power to cancel a penalty notice for compelling reasons. Reasons which fail to address those issues, or which contain material internal inconsistencies, may render the decision unreasonable and unlawful. Where the reviewing court concludes that the decision was not properly made and that only one lawful outcome was reasonably open on the facts, it may quash the decision and substitute that outcome.

The claimant sought judicial review of a parking adjudicator’s decision concerning a penalty charge notice issued after a motorcycle bay was suspended. He had parked lawfully before the suspension, had received no warning, and was not under an obligation to check whether the bay was subsequently suspended. The adjudicator found that adequate notice had been given and that the contravention occurred, but did not address the claimant’s central representations or the inconsistencies in the evidence.

Permission had been granted on the basis that the adjudicator’s reasons might be inadequate. The central issues were whether the decision was lawfully reasoned, whether the adjudicator had considered whether a contravention occurred, and whether there were compelling reasons requiring cancellation of the notice.

1. The decision was quashed. The adjudicator gave no adequate consideration to the claimant’s case that the bay was not suspended when he parked. The reasons addressed only the position when the penalty notice was issued and failed to engage with the material chronology and representations.
2. The adjudicator also failed to address inconsistencies in the evidence. The local authority accepted that the vehicle had been parked before the suspension sign was erected and that there was no legal obligation to check whether a bay later became suspended. The adjudicator instead relied on an analogy with a resident’s permit bay and referred inconsistently to possible arrangements for checking the bay.
3. Those defects amounted to a failure to provide adequate reasons as required by statute and common law. They demonstrated that the adjudicator had not properly considered whether the contravention occurred and made the decision unreasonable.
4. The adjudicator further failed to consider whether there were compelling reasons for cancellation. Although she stated that she had no jurisdiction to consider mitigating circumstances, she proceeded to discuss them, producing reasons which were internally inconsistent and did not resolve the relevant issue.
5. The court substituted its own decision. On the facts and evidence, the only reasonable outcome was that either no contravention had occurred or, if there were ambiguity in the applicable rules, sufficiently compelling reasons existed to require cancellation of the penalty charge notice. The local authority was required to comply with that requirement.
6. Costs were awarded in the sum of £1,444.06, payable within 21 days. The claimant’s claimed £450 loss of earnings was excluded.

Permission for judicial review was granted on 20 May 2014 by HHJ Thornton QC. The High Court (Administrative Court) subsequently quashed the adjudicator’s decision and substituted the only reasonable outcome on the evidence.