Croydon (Parliament Politics Magazine) – Mayor Jason Perry’s remark on raising £20m has become a pivotal element in Croydon LTN legal battle, adding new political weight to the ongoing dispute.
Stephen Lawrence-Orumwense, the top legal officer of the council, and Jason Perry, the unsuccessful mayor of Croydon, will have to wait anxiously until Christmas. Not to check if Santa comes through the chimneys of the Town Hall, but for Judge Edward Pepperall’s thoughtful considerations.
The cash-strapped council’s use or alleged misuse of LTNs to generate extra revenue has put Croydon’s less-than-dynamic combination of Mayor Perry and Lawrence-Orumwense in the dock at the High Court for the second time.with Council taxpayers covering all of their legal costs, which are numerous.
The council was accused of utilizing the £160 fines from Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs, the council likes an acronym) as a “fat cash cow” to balance the books in a recent Judicial Review investigating Croydon’s usage of Low Traffic Neighbourhoods.
The complaint was filed by the mysterious Open Our Roads organization, which has not disclosed the identities of its main financial sources.
Early on, Open Our Roads accepted funds from the Association of Bad Drivers, a prominent member of ABD with headquarters in Chislehurst.
Additionally, a founding member of the Open Our Roads organization acknowledged his involvement in the 2021 illegal cyberattack against this website.
At first, Open Our Roads ran a campaign against LTNs in the South Norwood and Crystal Palace neighborhoods.
Karen Lawrence, a member of Open Our Roads, has filed a High Court action alleging that the council has abused its authority to generate income under the Road Traffic Regulation Act of 1984.
Six LTNs that were first introduced during the COVID lockdowns in 2020 were “dressed up” as having environmental benefits and were used “for the dominant purpose” of raising millions of pounds from fines, according to their case presented to the judge at the Royal Courts of Justice in The Strand. They also claim that Mayor Perry and the council acted illegally.
Even though the complainants did not present any concrete evidence to support their claim, the Trumpian road lobbyists’ argument has been strengthened by none other than Croydon Mayor Jason Perry.
The pro-pollution, anti-cycling Perry had promised to eliminate all LTNs “from Day One” of his tenure as mayor of Croydon prior to his election. However, a year or so later, drivers were still paying the high fines, and the LTNs remained steadfast in their commitment.
The Conservative Mayor Perry’s comments during a public appearance at a far-right ginger club, when he was questioned about yet another broken election promise, were the subject of the case filed with the High Court.
Perry acknowledged during the meeting that his financially stressed council needed the millions of pounds the schemes had been bringing in. Perry declared aloud that
“£20 million of future income… would have to be replaced.”
The issue with that, though, is that such road designs are not permitted by law for the purpose of generating revenue. Over a four-year period, Croydon’s roads department anticipated earning up to £10.7 million in fines from drivers who drive without licenses via school streets or LTNs.
Additionally, there is recent history that indicates that Perry’s big mouth will get him and the council in serious problems once more, with Croydon’s long-suffering Council Taxpayers footing the bill for the Mayor’s errors.
That LTN was found to be illegal at a Judicial Review on West Dulwich traffic-reduction plans, and Lambeth Council was mandated to remove it right away.
Lambeth was compelled to pay £35,000 towards the legal expenses of the West Dulwich Action Group, which initiated the case, after the High Court found that the council had improperly taken into account the complaints of the residents throughout the implementation of the LTN.
Kevin Leigh, the attorney for Open Our Roads in the Croydon case, informed the court that the adoption of LTNs was driven “clearly by the huge revenue that comes from enforcement.”
He said:
“It’s clearly about the money. That’s the driver here. It’s not coincidental that this happened at the same time the council was in dire financial straits. There’s an ulterior motive.”
The sums of fines anticipated from enforcement warnings delivered to drivers who enter the designated routes were confirmed by official council reports when the LTNs were made permanent in February 2024.
Leigh asserted that the traffic orders were having “Draconian effects” on the locals and that the council had “put these traffic orders in place expecting them to be breached regularly.”
“They can’t get to their homes, people can’t visit them, and all the traffic gets pushed out into the surrounding area,”
the lawyer said.
And the court heard that Perry’s public admission was of great significance.
“Even the Mayor has effectively acknowledged the importance behind the council not wanting to let go of this fat financial cow.
You can’t get better evidence than that.”
Saira Kabir Sheikh was the expensive KC hired to present the council’s case. She said:
“The decision was made following a statutory process and there’s no suggestion by the claimant that statutory processes were not followed or any steps in that process were missed out.
It doesn’t matter whether the claimant doesn’t agree with the decision, it’s about whether it was lawful.
There’s nothing in that report which suggests that the order was made, or recommended to be made, for any financial purposes.
It didn’t form any of the reasons for that decision.”
“Only lawful recommendations were made” to the Cabinet, she stated, and “that’s enough to dispose of this claim.”
Before Tory Perry was elected mayor, the council made this choice in the last days of the Labour government.
Judge Pepperall postponed rendering a decision at the end of the session, but he will do it in writing later this month.
How could the remark affect the council’s defence strategy?
Jason Perry’s £20m comment weakens Croydon Council’s defence by furnishing heirs with direct substantiation that fiscal motives told LTN retention, potentially violating the Road Traffic Regulation Act’s demand for business orders to serve genuine transport purposes.
The council must now prove LTNs were primarily for air quality or safety, not profit relief despite Perry’s quotation inferring the contrary; this shifts burden to detailed business data and twinkles showing non-financial motorists, but risks judicial dubitation
if contradicted.
Defence attorneys may pivot to arguing the comment was aspirational or contextual (e.g.,post-bankruptcy recovery talk), while emphasising fine income as incidental to scheme benefits; fallback includes settling or amending LTNs to neutralise the political security.