Oxford congestion charge dispute stalls at courtroom crossroads

A court has ruled Oxfordshire County Council’s congestion charging scheme lawful, dismissing a campaign group’s claims over consultation and equality impact assessments. 

A judge has rejected a legal challenge against Oxfordshire County Council’s congestion charging scheme. He ruled the local authority’s consultation was fair and its equality impact assessment met legal requirements. 

The case was brought by Open Roads for Oxford Ltd, a campaign group opposing the scheme, which was introduced in October 2025. 

Under the temporary plan, drivers using six key routes in the city must pay £5 a day unless exempt or holding a permit. The scheme is an interim measure while Botley Road remains closed for railway works, delaying traffic filter trials until around August 2026. 

The campaign group argued the council failed to give the public a genuine chance to oppose the scheme. They also said the equality impact assessment was a ‘box-ticking exercise’ that ignored effects on lower-income drivers and disabled people. 

However, Mr Justice Fordham rejected both arguments in open court. He said the consultation survey included an option stating ‘there should be no charges at all’ and allowed people to comment freely through text boxes and FAQs.

Justice Fordham said: ‘The consultation documents, read fairly and as a whole, gave consultees a full and fair opportunity to have their voices heard.’

On the equality impact assessment, the judge said the updated document still had some wording from a 2022 report on a different scheme. But he added it addressed key issues, including the impact on lower-income drivers, and cabinet members received a detailed officer report on equality. 

‘Viewed fairly and as a whole, there is no realistic prospect of this court concluding that any weaknesses in the EqIA report place the council in breach of the statutory duty,’ Justice Fordham continued.

The judge praised the council for making legal materials publicly available during the hearing, calling it a ‘welcome agreed step’ supporting open justice. 

Permission for judicial review was refused, and the previous costs order was allowed to stand.

Image: Nika Qufarashvili/UnSplash 

In related news:

Large firms to face new ethnicity and disability pay gap rules

Consultation opens on change to corporate re-domicilation rules