City fails in High Court challenge over adjudicator rulings on bus lane signs

Nottingham City Council has failed in a High Court challenge to the Bus Lane Adjudicator’s decision that the local authority’s road signs for a pedestrian zone failed to provide adequate information to road users of a bus lane.

In Nottingham City Council, R (on the application of) v Bus Lane Adjudicator & Ors [2017] EWHC 430 (Admin) the Bus Lane Adjudicator (“the Adjudicator”) had in a decision issued on 31 May 2016 dismissed Nottingham’s application for a review of the decision of Bus Lane Adjudicator Garbett, dated 8 April 2016.

Adjudicator Garbett had allowed an appeal by Mohammed Sattar against a penalty charge notice for driving in a bus lane in the Shakespeare Street Pedestrian Zone, issued by the council on 26 November 2015.

Both adjudicators had found that the "Pedestrian Zone" road signs, based on diagram 618.3 in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, prohibiting vehicles "Except buses at any time and for permit holders U1 7 pm to M'night and M'night to 7 am" did not provide adequate information, as required by regulation 18 of the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 ("LATOR 1996").

Nottingham City Council applied for judicial review. Its grounds of challenge were that the signage used was permissible under the regulatory framework and did make it reasonably clear to any road users what action was expected of them, as required by regulation 18 of LATOR 1996.

The council contended that the Adjudicator had applied the wrong tests under regulation 18, and reached a decision that was Wednesbury unreasonable i.e. no reasonable adjudicator could ever have reached such a decision.

However, Mrs Justice Lang rejected the claim. She said: “Adjudicator Garbett found as a fact that the signage was unclear and did not provide adequate information as to the bus gate restriction, which was the basis of the PCN. As Stanley Burnton LJ said in Herron; ‘the enforceability of a TRO requires that adequate notice of the applicable restriction is given to the road user’. The Adjudicator reviewed her findings, and upheld them.

“The Council has to overcome a high threshold in establishing that the findings of fact by Adjudicator Garbett, confirmed by the Adjudicator, were Wednesbury unreasonable. The Council has not succeeded in doing so."

Kings Chambers barrister Ruth Stockley, who appeared for the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, said the High Court's ruling would be an important decision to all local traffic authorities on the adequacy of traffic signs for the enforcement of traffic regulation orders.

She said: "The Administrative Court found that the contravention of a pedestrian zone restriction is not currently subject to civil enforcement in England outside London, and that a bus lane restriction must be signed as a bus lane in order to be enforceable."

Stockley added: "The oft-cited decision of Beatson J. in R. (Oxfordshire County Council) v. Bus Lane Adjudicator [2010] EWHC 894 (Admin) was found to turn on its particular facts, whilst the Court of Appeal's approach in Herron v. The Parking Adjudicator and Ors [2011] EWCA Civ 905 was endorsed and applied, namely that the enforceability of a traffic regulation order requires adequate notice of the applicable restriction to be given to the road user."

A Nottingham City Council spokesperson said: “This is a case which we brought ourselves because we are seeking clarification on whether or not our signs comply with the law. We believe they do but as the adjudicator had upheld some appeals based on signage, we needed to understand whether we could continue as we are or needed to make any changes. The adjudicator agreed with us that it was in the public interest to seek clarification and so we had agreed with them that whatever the outcome, neither party would seek costs against the other. This outcome therefore does not mean we are facing heavy legal costs.”

The spokesperson added: “We used Mr Sattar’s case as an example to bring the issue to the High Court for a judge to provide clarification. It does not affect him or the fact his fine remains overturned.

“We now need to look at the details of the judgment and decide how to proceed. However, the judgment will not alter those cases where people have accepted a fine on Shakespeare Street.”