Councils can't use parking to raise revenues, after landmark ruling by judge in Barnet

 
Legal battle: David Attfield, a member of Barnet CPZ Action group

Campaigners today won a landmark High Court victory which could save drivers millions of pounds in parking charges in residential streets.

A judge ruled Barnet council acted unlawfully when it increased the cost of residents’ parking permits and visitor vouchers in controlled parking zones (CPZs) to raise revenue.

The additional income was intended to pay for road works and improvements, concessionary fares and other road transport costs.

The policy sparked outrage by making, in some cases, parking outside a home in Barnet more expensive than parking outside Harrods.

As a result around 10% of Barnet residents who lived in CPZs were heavily subsidising transport services for the whole borough.

Had Barnet won, local councils all over the country would have found themselves with sweeping powers to use parking as a revenue-raising service.

But now thousands of Barnet residents could apply to reclaim millions of pounds in unlawfully collected charges.

Mrs Justice Lang ruled that the council did not have the power under the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation Act “to charge local residents for parking in order to raise surplus revenue for other transport purposes”.

It is thought to be the first successful legal challenge against the level of parking charges set by a local authority.

The ruling is a victory for the Barnet CPZ Action group, made up of parents and residents from the borough, and David Attfield, who brought the lead case.

Mr Attfield, a solicitor who lives in a CPZ at East Finchley, had campaigned against the council’s decision in February 2011 to dramatically increase the charges with effect from April 2011.

There had been no parking charges in Mr Attfield’s quiet residential road until the CPZ was first introduced in 2001 to prevent tube commuters parking in local streets.

The cost of a permit for a first car was initially £20 and visitor vouchers cost 35p each. The charges were increased in 2006. But it was in 2011 that they leapt for a first car from £40 to £100 and visitors’ vouchers from £1 to £4 - among the highest CPZ charges in London.

Outside court Mr Attfield said : “Barnet Council has been caught picking the pockets of CPZ residents.

“Despite making up less than 10% of the borough, they were being made to contribute disproportionately to a range of services such as road repairs and the provision of bus passes across the borough.

“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.

“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.

“It is regrettable that Barnet has spent over two years, and tens of thousands of pounds, standing by their charges which they should have known were legally and morally wrong.”

Barnet council leader, Richard Cornelius, conceded that the increase in charges had been carried out “too abruptly and rather charmlessly”, but said there would be an appeal.

The judge ordered the council to repay the parking charges unlawfully obtained from Mr Attfield, plus his legal costs.

This opens the way for other residents to seek their money back.

The judge formally rejected Barnet’s application to appeal against her ruling, but the council can still ask the Court of Appeal itself to hear the ground-breaking case.

Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, said of today’s ruling quashing the increases: “This is fantastic news for drivers.”

The High Court decision could have a major impact on other councils across the capital which raise significant revenue from their parking charges.

Westminster Council raises around £40 million a year from parking while Camden raises around £20 million. The surplus is currently spent on related projects including road maintenance and transport services.

However, council insiders suggested that because those boroughs did not put up their charges excessively to pay for specific transport projects they may not be in breach of the law.

Create a FREE account to continue reading

eros

Registration is a free and easy way to support our journalism.

Join our community where you can: comment on stories; sign up to newsletters; enter competitions and access content on our app.

Your email address

Must be at least 6 characters, include an upper and lower case character and a number

You must be at least 18 years old to create an account

* Required fields

Already have an account? SIGN IN

By clicking Create Account you confirm that your data has been entered correctly and you have read and agree to our Terms of use , Cookie policy and Privacy policy .

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

Thank you for registering

Please refresh the page or navigate to another page on the site to be automatically logged in