A man has been given court permission to challenge a €125 clamping charge imposed on him after he parked on a section of road with a continuous white line in Dublin 4.
The High Court had last April refused the man leave to take judicial review proceedings against the National Transport Authority (NTA) on foot of the principle that the law does not concern itself with “trifling matters” and the “wholly technical nature” of his complaints.
Representing himself, the man appealed to the Court of Appeal (CoA) which, by a two-to-one majority, allowed the appeal and returned the matter to the High Court.
In the recently published CoA majority judgment, Ms Justice Niamh Hyland, with whom Ms Justice Mary Faherty agreed, said the man accepted his car was parked on Beach Road, Sandymount, Dublin 4, which was marked with a single white line, at 10am on July 13th, 2024.
READ MORE
The man had said his car was not parked on double yellow lines, was not obstructing traffic, and there was no signage to indicate parking was prohibited in the relevant space, she said.
He said, at 10.20am, the Dublin Street Parking Services (DSPS), acting on authority of Dublin City Council, placed an immobilisation notice on his car and, less than five minutes later, towed it away. He arrived as the tow truck was leaving, paid the €125 immobilisation fee, and the clamp was removed after the car was taken off the tow truck.
After unsuccessful appeals to the DSPS and the NTA, he sought leave from the High Court for judicial review.
Ms Justice Hyland found five of the six grounds advanced were either not arguable or he lacked the necessary legal standing to advance them. Those grounds included that the case was a legitimate use of the court’s time and resources and to decide otherwise would provide the NTA with no judicial oversight of its role as a regulator of clamping and towing activities by private and public bodies here.
Ms Justice Hyland held that one ground of challenge, that the applicable road traffic regulation was not identified in the immobilisation notice, is arguable. The principle that the law should not concern itself with trifling matters should not prevent leave for judicial review being granted on that ground, he said.
There is an arguable case that the law permitting immobilisation of the man’s vehicle in the circumstances of this case ought to be “clear”, she said.
While non-payment of a clamping charge is not an offence, the consequences of non-payment are “undeniably serious” because a vehicle is withheld until the charge is paid, creating a significant deprivation of use and control over personal property, she said.
In his dissenting judgment, Mr Justice Charles Meenan said the relevant road traffic and parking regulation states a vehicle shall not be parked on a section of roadway with less than three lanes and where there is a continuous white line. The reason why is that parking a vehicle in such a place creates a potential hazard to other road users who, in order to safely pass, may have to cross the continuous white line on to the wrong side of the road, he said.
The applicant had argued there was no signage indicating the prohibition of parking in the relevant space but a continuous white line on the roadway is signage, the judge said. The respondent, he said, was “perfectly entitled” to tow away the car as that removed a potential risk to the safety of other road users and it was not the applicant’s “call” to make whether or not he was obstructing any traffic.
While agreeing the notice should have been more specific, the man was only being informed of something he was obliged to know as a road user, the judge said. His view was that the principle that the law does not concern itself with trifling matters applies.
The High Court’s judicial review list includes important matters and a challenge to a clamping fee of €125 had no place on such a list, he said. A clamping charge is not a fine, there is no conviction, no penalty points and no reputational damage suffered. Another factor influencing his view that leave should not be granted was the fact that the legal costs for the NTA would be “a multiple of €125″.
