Barnet residents win high court fight against parking permit price-hike
22 Jul 2013:
Court rules that councils must not charge residents for parking in
order to raise surplus revenue for other transport purposes
Court rules that councils must not charge residents for parking in order to raise surplus revenue for other transport purposes
David Attfield, a
member of Barnet CPZ Action Group, which has won a landmark high court
victory against increased parking charges. Photograph: Apollo Public
Relations/PA
A high court victory by residents of a north London borough who
rebelled against a steep rise in charges for parking permits will force
all councils to stop using parking charges as a means to raise revenue.
Residents in Barnet began legal action against the council in 2011 after it increased the cost of parking permits from £40 to £100 and vouchers for visitors from £1 to £4.
On Monday at the high court Mrs Justice Lang declared that the legislation under which Barnet had increased the charges, the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation 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".
The campaign was led by East Finchley resident and solicitor David Attfield. "The increase to £100 was steep enough, but what really enraged people and was the £4 flat charge for visitors. It meant it was more expensive for a friend to drop in on you at your home in outer London than to park outside Harrods," he said.
The Automobile Association said it had long suspected that councils had been using parking charges for revenue purposes other than the administration of the schemes. "This ruling is clearly a warning to other councils. With the way budgets are going in local authorities, there has been a lot of temptation to raise revenues from CPZs [controlled parking zones]," it said.
But Barnet council, which stands to lose more than £750,000 in revenue, said it would seek to challenge the judgment, despite the judge formally rejecting the council's application to appeal.
The council leader, Richard Cornelius, 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."
Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, said it was unclear how Barnet could appeal against the ruling. "This decision should never have been in any doubt. The law is explicit - parking charges are about managing congestion, not raising revenue.
"If there is a surplus collected then there are strict rules on what it can be used for. The question is: why did Barnet ever think it had an arguable case to pick on one group of residents to shoulder an additional tax?"
Deborah Linton, a lecturer who lives in Barnet and who joined the Barnet CPZ Action Group said she was "absolutely jubilant"
"When the CPZ was brought in, it was perfectly legitimate. But it was the subsequent charges that outraged people. Plenty of the roads are small terraced houses of not particularly affluent people. We had to raise a few thousand pounds to fight this, but Barnet will now have to pay our costs."
But Attfield said other action groups around the country may have a tough time proving that the council is using the revenue raised for measures other than administering the system.
"No other council would admit this. Our council was unique because it did. Barnet Council were very open. They simply wanted to raise £1.5m and had to reverse-engineer the charges to raise that."
One indicator, he said, was the free availability of visitor vouchers. "Other councils in London really limit the number of visitor vouchers you can buy because they really want to control parking in areas of genuine pressure. But that was not the case with Barnet."
COPY http://www.guardian.co.uk
Residents in Barnet began legal action against the council in 2011 after it increased the cost of parking permits from £40 to £100 and vouchers for visitors from £1 to £4.
On Monday at the high court Mrs Justice Lang declared that the legislation under which Barnet had increased the charges, the 1984 Road Traffic Regulation 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".
The campaign was led by East Finchley resident and solicitor David Attfield. "The increase to £100 was steep enough, but what really enraged people and was the £4 flat charge for visitors. It meant it was more expensive for a friend to drop in on you at your home in outer London than to park outside Harrods," he said.
The Automobile Association said it had long suspected that councils had been using parking charges for revenue purposes other than the administration of the schemes. "This ruling is clearly a warning to other councils. With the way budgets are going in local authorities, there has been a lot of temptation to raise revenues from CPZs [controlled parking zones]," it said.
But Barnet council, which stands to lose more than £750,000 in revenue, said it would seek to challenge the judgment, despite the judge formally rejecting the council's application to appeal.
The council leader, Richard Cornelius, 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."
Professor Stephen Glaister, director of the RAC Foundation, said it was unclear how Barnet could appeal against the ruling. "This decision should never have been in any doubt. The law is explicit - parking charges are about managing congestion, not raising revenue.
"If there is a surplus collected then there are strict rules on what it can be used for. The question is: why did Barnet ever think it had an arguable case to pick on one group of residents to shoulder an additional tax?"
Deborah Linton, a lecturer who lives in Barnet and who joined the Barnet CPZ Action Group said she was "absolutely jubilant"
"When the CPZ was brought in, it was perfectly legitimate. But it was the subsequent charges that outraged people. Plenty of the roads are small terraced houses of not particularly affluent people. We had to raise a few thousand pounds to fight this, but Barnet will now have to pay our costs."
But Attfield said other action groups around the country may have a tough time proving that the council is using the revenue raised for measures other than administering the system.
"No other council would admit this. Our council was unique because it did. Barnet Council were very open. They simply wanted to raise £1.5m and had to reverse-engineer the charges to raise that."
One indicator, he said, was the free availability of visitor vouchers. "Other councils in London really limit the number of visitor vouchers you can buy because they really want to control parking in areas of genuine pressure. But that was not the case with Barnet."
COPY http://www.guardian.co.uk
Nenhum comentário:
Postar um comentário