London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) (18 February 2011)

London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) (18 February 2011)

The imposition of a 1.3% administration charge for credit card payments by Camden Council resulted in a demand for payment exceeding the statutory penalty charge, contrary to the statutory scheme. This justified the Parking Adjudicators' decisions to allow the appeals on the ground that the penalty charge exceeded...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2011] EWHC 295 (Admin)
Parties
Claimant: London Borough of Camden; Defendant: The Parking Adjudicator; Interested Party: BFS Group 03568 t/a First for Food Service; Interested Party: Lee Sugden; Interested Party: Aidan Brady
Jurisdiction
England and Wales
Judgment Date
18 February 2011
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing
Outcome
Application for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Parking Enforcement, Judicial Review of Tribunal Decisions, Ultra Vires Acts, Procedural Impropriety, Statutory Interpretation
Administrative Law Local Government Law Transport Law Parking Enforcement Judicial Review of Tribunal Decisions Ultra Vires Acts Procedural Impropriety Statutory Interpretation

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 3
Sign in to unlock

Parties

London Borough of Camden

Claimant

The Parking Adjudicator

Defendant

BFS Group 03568 t/a First for Food Service

Interested Party

Lee Sugden

Interested Party

Aidan Brady

Interested Party

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Final Judgment After Substantive Hearing

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the imposition of a 1.3% administration charge for credit card payment by Camden Council caused the penalty charge to exceed the amount applicable under the statutory scheme
  2. 2 Whether such imposition amounted to procedural impropriety under the relevant regulations
  3. 3 Whether the Parking Adjudicators exceeded their powers in allowing appeals on these grounds

Ratio Decidendi

The imposition of a 1.3% administration charge for credit card payments by Camden Council resulted in a demand for payment exceeding the statutory penalty charge, contrary to the statutory scheme. This justified the Parking Adjudicators' decisions to allow the appeals on the ground that the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable. Where the surcharge was referenced in statutory notices, this also constituted procedural impropriety. The Parking Adjudicators did not exceed their powers in allowing the appeals on these grounds.

Court Disposition

Application for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • The decisions of the Parking Adjudicators are upheld
  • The part of the earlier order granting costs protection to the defendant is set aside