I accordingly conclude that the fact that the Council has subsequently abandoned the administration fee does not allow it to pursue enforcement of the penalty in this case in which the Council concedes the documentation does include the offending statement. I will therefore allow this appeal. As to the ground for allowing the appeal, the statement says that the fee "will be added to the amount that is being paid". However one seeks to analyse this, the substance of what it is saying is that to discharge the penalty the motorist will have to pay a sum greater than the penalty prescribed by law. It seems to me to be an entirely legitimate conclusion in the context that this amounts to increasing the penalty charge itself, as Mr Greenslade concluded. I will therefore in this respect follow Mr Greenslade's decision and allow this appeal on that ground. It may also well be that the circumstances amount to a procedural impropriety, a ground that is available in this case as the enforcement is under the 2007 regulations referred to above. But whether and whichever of these grounds applies, the appeal is in any event one that the Adjudicator could allow as a collateral challenge: see R v Parking Adjudicator, Ex Lengthy consideration of the application of the grounds is p. Bexley [1998] RTR 128. therefore an unnecessary exercise. I should record that I have considered the three authorities to which Mr Coppel referred me: In re Charge Card Services Ltd [1088] 1 Ch 497, Customs and Excise Commissioners v Diners Club Ltd [1989] 2 BTC 5084 and Scottish Exhibition Centre 42, all of which Ltd v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2006] CSIH concern in one way or another the minutiae of how credit card transactions operate. However, given that it will be apparent from my above reasons that I have concluded that such minutiae are ultimately immaterial, I have not considered it necessary to refer to these authorities in any detail.
I accordingly conclude that the fact that the Council has subsequently abandoned the administration fee does not allow it to pursue enforcement of the penalty in this case in which the Council concedes the documentation does include the offending statement. I will therefore allow this appeal. As to the ground for allowing the appeal, the statement says that the fee "will be added to the amount that is being paid". However one seeks to analyse this, the substance of what it is saying is that to discharge the penalty the motorist will have to pay a sum greater than the penalty prescribed by law. It seems to me to be an entirely legitimate conclusion in the context that this amounts to increasing the penalty charge itself, as Mr Greenslade concluded. I will therefore in this respect follow Mr Greenslade's decision and allow this appeal on that ground. It may also well be that the circumstances amount to a procedural impropriety, a ground that is available in this case as the enforcement is under the 2007 regulations referred to above. But whether and whichever of these grounds applies, the appeal is in any event one that the Adjudicator could allow as a collateral challenge: see R v Parking Adjudicator, Ex p. Bexley [1998] RTR 128. Lengthy consideration of the application of the grounds is therefore an unnecessary exercise. I should record that I have considered the three authorities to which Mr Coppel referred me: In re Charge Card Services Ltd [1088] 1 Ch 497, Customs and Excise Commissioners v Diners Club Ltd [1989] 2 BTC 5084 and Scottish Exhibition Centre Ltd v Commissioners for HM Revenue and Customs [2006] CSIH 42, all of which concern in one way or another the minutiae of how credit card transactions operate. However, given that it will be apparent from my above reasons that I have concluded that such minutiae are ultimately immaterial, I have not considered it necessary to refer to these authorities in any detail.
3663%20v%20LB%20Camden.docx