Baker, R (on the application of) v Traffic Penalty Tribunal

A disabled-persons’ parking exemption applies only where the badge and parking clock are displayed in the manner required by law. A motorist relying on the exemption bears the evidential burden of showing, on the balance of probabilities, that it applied. A tribunal does not act unfairly merely because photographs were not separately discussed, where the motorist knew of the photographs, had an opportunity to address them, and they could not have determined the outcome. A reviewing adjudicator may uphold a factual finding where it was open on the evidence and the alleged procedural defect was immaterial.

The claimant sought judicial review of two decisions of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal concerning a £70 penalty charge for parking on double yellow lines. He maintained that a disabled person’s badge and parking clock had been displayed in the passenger-side window and that a civil enforcement officer had permitted the short stay. The tribunal rejected his appeal and later refused a review based on alleged procedural unfairness, failure to consider photographs, and reliance on GPS information. The central issue was whether the tribunal’s decisions were unlawful for denying a fair hearing or failing properly to assess the evidence.

1. Claim dismissed. The claimant established no denial of natural justice, procedural unfairness, or error of law in either tribunal decision.
2. The applicable parking exemption required both the disabled person’s badge and parking clock to be displayed on the vehicle dashboard. The claimant accepted that they were not on the dashboard. A defective dashboard and the asserted display in another location did not displace the legal requirement.
3. The burden rested on the motorist claiming the exemption to satisfy the adjudicator, on the balance of probabilities, that the badge and clock had been correctly displayed. The adjudicator was entitled to find that the exemption had not been established.
4. The complaint about photographs failed. The claimant knew that photographs formed part of the council’s material, had an opportunity to address them, and had not shown that he was misled about their existence. The photographs established the absence of a badge and clock on the dashboard and did not support the asserted display in the passenger window. The adjudicator was not required to refer expressly to a self-serving photograph produced by the claimant.
5. The reference by the council representative to GPS information did not vitiate the decision. The claimant challenged the reference, but it was not relied on by the adjudicator as a reason for decision. An adjudicator’s decision cannot be quashed merely because material mentioned by a party was not in evidence when that material did not form part of the adjudicator’s reasoning.
6. The court also considered that the claimant’s account was internally inconsistent and strongly suggested that the proceedings might be fraudulent. The tribunal remained willing to reopen its decision to investigate related matters, including whether the badge had been obtained fraudulently. The judicial review claim was nevertheless dismissed.