Key Facts
- •Transport for London (TfL) challenged two decisions by the Environment and Traffic Adjudicators concerning penalty charge notices (PCNs).
- •The first decision allowed 6 out of 8 appeals against PCNs, with 4 depending on the interpretation of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices Charging Guidelines and General Provisions)(England) Regulation 2022.
- •The second decision refused TfL's application for a review of the first decision.
- •The core issue was the interpretation of "red route" in Regulation 11(2) of the 2022 Regulations, specifically whether parking bays marked with Diagram 1028.4 met the definition.
- •The appellants argued that the absence of single or double red lines adjacent to the curb meant the bays weren't marked as a 'red route' under Regulation 11(2), thus invalidating PCNs issued by post.
Legal Principles
Interpretation of statutory regulations, specifically the cumulative nature of requirements in Regulation 11(2) defining 'red route'.
Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices Charging Guidelines and General Provisions)(England) Regulation 2022
Judicial review principles; the court can only quash a decision if there was an error of law. Review is not a substitute for appeal.
R(Malik) v Manchester Crown Court [2008] EMLR 19; Inco Europe Ltd v First Choice Distribution [2000] 1WLR 586
The 'interests of justice' ground for review of an adjudicator's decision does not permit review on the basis that the decision was wrong in law.
Trimble v Super Travel Ltd. [1982] ICR 440
Interpretation of 'in accordance with' in the context of road markings and regulations.
Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, section 64; Local Authority’s Traffic Orders (Procedure)(England and Wales) Regulations 1996, Regulation 18
Outcomes
TfL's challenge to the adjudicators' decision allowing the appeals was successful.
The adjudicators misinterpreted Regulation 11(2), incorrectly treating the requirements as alternative rather than cumulative. The court held that parking bays marked according to Diagram 1028.4 did not preclude the road from meeting the 'red route' definition.
TfL's challenge to the Chief Adjudicator's refusal of the review application was unsuccessful.
The Chief Adjudicator wrongly considered the legality of the adjudicators' decision under the 'interests of justice' review. The court confirmed that this ground is not a substitute for appeal; a challenge to the decision’s legality should be brought through judicial review.