Transport for London, R (on the application of) v London Tribunals (Environment and Traffic Adjudicators)
[2023] EWHC 2889 (Admin)
Halton Borough Council, R (on the application of) v Road User Charging Adjudicators
14 February 2023
[2023] EWHC 303 (Admin)
High Court
A council was challenged for how it handled parking ticket appeals. A judge said the council could legally outsource some of the work, but they did things wrong in how they processed appeals and made misleading statements about appeal costs.
Key Facts
- •The case concerns penalty charges for vehicles crossing the River Mersey without paying a road user charge (RUC).
- •The claimant, Halton Borough Council (the Council), is the charging authority.
- •The defendant is the Road User Charging Adjudicators.
- •The interested party is Damian Curzon, who successfully appealed 17 penalty charge notices (PCNs).
- •The appeals were consolidated and treated as test cases.
- •The key issues are whether the adjudicators acted lawfully in allowing the appeals based on procedural impropriety due to unlawful delegation, unlawful fettering, and misleading notices.
- •Emovis Operations Mersey Ltd (Emovis) acted as a third-party contractor for the Council, handling PCN reviews and representations.
- •The Council's use of 'Business Rules' to determine representations was challenged.
Legal Principles
Procedural impropriety
Regulation 8(3)(g) and 8(4) of the Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013
Unlawful delegation
Common law principles of public law
Unlawful fettering of discretion
Common law principles of public law
Duty to consider representations
Regulation 8(9)
Power to delegate
Article 43 of the River Mersey (Mersey Gateway Bridge) Order 2011, as amended; Section 192 of the Transport Act 2000
Deemed acceptance of representations
Regulation 8(10)
Outcomes
The claim is allowed in part.
The adjudicators' decision was found to be partially unlawful due to errors in their analysis of procedural impropriety.
The Joint Determination and Review Decision quashed in Cases 2-11.
The adjudicators incorrectly applied the legal principles of procedural impropriety, unlawful delegation, and unlawful fettering.
Quashing order refused in Case 1.
The decision in Case 1 was based on an unchallenged narrow ground.
No order as to costs in respect of Mr Curzon.
Agreed between the parties.
No order as to costs.
The Adjudicators' role was deemed to be primarily assisting the court, not actively resisting the claim.
Similar Cases
Pamela Wesson v Cambridgeshire County Council
[2024] EWHC 1068 (Admin)
Halton Borough Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Levelling Up, Housing and Communities
[2024] EWHC 705 (Admin)
Birmingham City Council, R (on the application of) v Secretary of State for Transport
[2024] EWHC 1487 (Admin)
Michael James Daw & Ors, R (on the application of) v Staffordshire County Council
[2024] EWHC 963 (Admin)