Jump to content

Judge rules Using parking for revenue is illegal


Recommended Posts

A judge has ruled that increasing parking as a revenue stream for the council is illegal. Deos this mean that council will have to stop fleecing us. I know Sheffield has a bad reputation for this, so will they review it or as usual will it be a head in the sand approach.

 

I know Hillsborough parking has gone up by about 150% over a couple of years.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23406427

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well that's interesting since on the other thread Planner1 has stated that the introduction of charges for evening and Sunday parking have been done to raise revenue.

 

One might also like to look at the surplusses made by the various parking permit schemes and ask whether there was any need to double the prices at the meters not long ago.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It all depends if they've frozen charge increases for a few years and they are much lower than they should.

 

There was a bit of outrage when Mersey Tunnels upped their prices beyond inflation last year, but they hadn't increased prices for a number of years.

 

It doesn't excuse it though, they should increase by inflation every year if that's the case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well Hillsborough went from 20p and hour to 50p and hour in about 2 years. I know its a small amount but unless we have inflation like Zibabwe then thats never going to justify 150%.

 

What imagine will happen is that the council say "it doesn't apply to us" until someone challenges it in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

A judge has ruled that increasing parking as a revenue stream for the council is illegal. Deos this mean that council will have to stop fleecing us. I know Sheffield has a bad reputation for this, so will they review it or as usual will it be a head in the sand approach.

 

I know Hillsborough parking has gone up by about 150% over a couple of years.

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23406427

 

That case was about parking permits specifically not parking charges generally. It might have implications for the parking permit schemes in Sheffield, maybe limiting the costs to cover the expenses of running them, but I doubt it will have an effect on general parking charges. Even if it did they could just spend any surplus on extra traffic wardens.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

...

 

What imagine will happen is that the council say "it doesn't apply to us" until someone challenges it in court.

 

And they would be quite right. 'ONE Judge has ruled...' - Not 'The Court of Appeal has ruled' or 'The House of Lords has ruled.'

 

'One Judge has ruled'. And another Judge could rule differently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And they would be quite right. 'ONE Judge has ruled...' - Not 'The Court of Appeal has ruled' or 'The House of Lords has ruled.'

 

'One Judge has ruled'. And another Judge could rule differently.

 

Absolutely. But we have also seen the council fight cases they had no realistic chance of winning. But i take you point that it is a single ruling. It still sets an interesting precedent for those that view parking as a convenient cash cow. I would imagine and good council is now getting advice and looking very closely as the way they have milked parking charges.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

No. It takes a majority ruling by the Court of Appeal or by a court of the House of Lords to form legal precedent.

 

Another judge could mention that (s)he had 'born the ruling in mind' when coming to a decision, but the original ruling is binding only on the original parties.

 

---------- Post added 22-07-2013 at 13:56 ----------

 

Absolutely. But we have also seen the council fight cases they had no realistic chance of winning. But i take you point that it is a single ruling. It still sets an interesting precedent for those that view parking as a convenient cash cow. I would imagine and good council is now getting advice and looking very closely as the way they have milked parking charges.

 

No it does not! The whole point is that a ruling by a single judge does NOT set a precedent!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.