Resident wins High Court battle over increases to parking charges

A local resident has won a High Court challenge over his council’s bid to increase the charges for residents’ parking permits and visitor vouchers in controlled parking zones (CPZ).

The ruling in Attfield, R (on the application of) v London Borough of Barnet [2013] EWHC 2089 (Admin) is claimed to be the first successful challenge against the level of parking charges set by a local authority.

Barnet has already confirmed it plans to appeal the ruling, which the claimant, solicitor David Attfield, said could allow residents to reclaim millions of pounds in unlawfully collected charges.

The local authority had decided on 14 February 2011 to bring in the increased charges. The changes, which came into effect on 18 April 2011, saw an increase in the visitor parking charge from £1 to £4 and a hike in a household’s first parking permit from £40 to £100.

Under section 45 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, a local authority has power to designate parking places on the highway, to charge for use of them, and to issue parking permits for a charge.

The claimant argued that on this occasion Barnet’s increase in charges was unlawful because its purpose was to generate a surplus, beyond the monies needed to operate the parking scheme, to fund other transport expenditure, such as road repair and concessionary fares.

Barnet suggested that it was entitled to exercise its powers under s. 45 of the 1984 Act for the purpose of raising a surplus to use for any transport functions, provided that they came within the scope of s. 122 of the Act.

Attfield was initially refused permission to bring his case on the papers. He renewed his application in the High Court, but was only given permission on further renewing his application to the Court of Appeal in April 2012.

The claimant was granted permission on the one ground related to the council’s use of its statutory powers, but was refused permission on the other grounds advanced of inadequacy/irrationality of reasons and irrationality of the decision.

Mrs Justice Lang has now found in Attfield’s favour. She said: “In conclusion, I accept the claimant's submission that the 1984 Act is not a fiscal measure and does not authorise the authority to use its powers to charge local residents for parking in order to raise surplus revenue for other transport purposes funded by the General Fund.

“I have already concluded that the defendant's purpose in increasing the charges for resident parking permits and visitor vouchers on 14th February 2011 was to generate additional income to meet projected expenditure for road maintenance and improvement, concessionary fares and other road transport costs.

“The intention was to transfer the surplus on the Special Parking Account to the General Fund at year end, to defray other road transport expenditure and reduce the need to raise income from other sources, such as fines, charges and council tax. This purpose was not authorised under the [1984 Act] and therefore the decision was unlawful.”

Attfield, who lives within a CPZ in East Finchley, said: “Despite making up less than 10% of the borough, CPZ residents were being made to contribute disproportionately to a range of services such as road repairs and the provision of bus passes across the borough. 

“I brought this action because the absurd cost of visitor parking was impacting on how residents were able to enjoy their homes. Simply holding a summer BBQ or a children's party could cost £40 in parking charges. An elderly person enjoying regular visits from a relative could face an annual cost of £800.”

He added: “Today's judgment confirms what I have maintained all along: That Parliament never intended local authorities to take a large cut every time a book club meets, mums get together for coffee or a washing machine is repaired.”

Cllr Richard Cornelius, Barnet’s Leader, said: “Both our pricing and spending are very much in line with other London boroughs and I very much believe that our spending of the income from our parking account on items such as road maintenance and transport services is entirely within the scope of the special parking account under the Road Traffic Act. With that in mind I don’t think we have any alternative but to look to appeal this decision.

“That said it is fairly clear that the council raised the price of parking permits, after five years of a price freeze, too abruptly and rather charmlessly. I will make sure that doesn’t happen again.”

Philip Hoult