Transport for London, R (on the application of) v London Tribunals (Environment and Traffic Adjudicators)

A road may satisfy the statutory definition of a red route even where it contains parking bays marked under the same traffic-sign scheme as the required single or double red lines. Where statutory requirements are expressed cumulatively, they must be read together; they are not alternatives merely because the drafting permits more than one diagram. A supposed drafting error may be corrected only where the error is obvious in the sense explained in Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution [2000] 1 WLR 586. Practical doubts about whether camera evidence proves a contravention concern the enforcement authority’s required reason to believe, and are ordinarily determined case by case. A statutory review power based on the interests of justice is not a substitute for an appeal or judicial review of an error of law.

Transport for London sought judicial review of two decisions concerning penalty charge notices issued by post on the basis of fixed-camera evidence. The Environment and Traffic Adjudicators had allowed four appeals, holding that parking contraventions in marked bays on red routes were not regulation 11 parking contraventions unless the vehicle was stationary on single or double red-line markings. The Chief Adjudicator refused TfL’s application to review that decision under the interests of justice ground in paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the Appeals Regulations.

The central issues were the meaning of the red-route definition in regulation 11(2) of the 2022 Regulations, whether parking bays were compatible with that definition, and the scope of the statutory review jurisdiction.

1. The challenge to the adjudicators’ decision succeeded. The requirements in regulation 11(2)(a) and (b) of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices Charging Guidelines and General Provisions)(England) Regulations 2022 are cumulative. A red route must be marked in accordance with both the specified road markings and the required upright sign. The adjudicators were wrong to treat those requirements as alternatives.
2. The definition in regulation 11(2) did not contain an obvious drafting error. The predecessor definition in regulation 9A(7) of the 2007 Regulations was to be understood as enacted. The court could correct drafting only where an obvious error was established in the manner explained by Lord Nicholls in Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution [2000] 1 WLR 586; that threshold was not met.
3. A road marked with single or double red lines may also contain parking bays marked in accordance with Diagram 1028.4 in Part 4 of Schedule 7 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. Such a road remains marked in accordance with the red-route requirements. The inclusion of parking bays does not exclude parking contraventions from the category of regulation 11 parking contraventions.
4. The practical concern that camera evidence may not reveal loading, unloading or an exemption does not determine the meaning of regulation 11(2). It bears instead on whether the enforcement authority has the required reason to believe under regulation 10(2)(a), which must be assessed case by case.
5. The challenge to the Chief Adjudicator’s decision failed. Paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals)(England) Regulations 2022 does not permit review merely because an adjudicator’s decision was wrong in law. The principle of finality prevents the interests of justice ground being used as a substitute for an appeal. The proper route for an alleged error of law was judicial review, consistently with the distinction discussed in R (Malik) v Manchester Crown Court [2008] EMLR 19 and the review principles in Trimble v Super Travel Ltd [1982] ICR 440.
6. The adjudicators’ decision was quashed and replaced by decisions dismissing the four appeals. The application concerning the Chief Adjudicator’s review decision was refused.

• Environment and Traffic Adjudicators: On 26 May 2023, allowed four appeals concerning camera-issued penalty charge notices and the meaning of regulation 11(2) of the 2022 Regulations.
• Chief Adjudicator: On 21 July 2023, refused TfL’s application to review the adjudicators’ decision under the interests of justice ground.
• High Court (Administrative Court): Allowed the judicial review of the adjudicators’ decision, quashed it and ordered that the four appeals be dismissed. The judicial review concerning the Chief Adjudicator’s decision was refused.