Parking Ticket Challenge Against Sunderland Council

This is the latest letter to Sunderland City Council against the unlawful issuing of Parking Tickets.
A telephone conversation with the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court reveals that the debt has not yet been registered.
If and when it is, you then have the right to complete a Statutory Declaration that you did not receive the Notice to Owner. The Council then have to re-issue another NTO and go through the whole process again. If, and when the 'debt' is finally registered it then goes back to the Local Authority to issue an Execution Warrant, which is handed over to Bailiffs. You can deny the Bailiffs access. They cannot remove your vehicle. The debt is not registered as a County Court Judgment as there has been no court case.
It appears as though the decriminalised regime has created a fierce dog with a very loud bark...but not a tooth in sight!

Latest reply to Sunderland Council's Solicitor...

Neil Herron
48 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR2 7DN
22nd February 2005

Mr Rayner
City Solicitor
Sunderland City Council
PO Box 100 Civic Centre
Sunderland
SR2 7DN
Your ref. RCR/AGH/64568


Dear Mr Rayner,

I am grateful to you for your letter of 18th February 2005 but far from satisfied with your response.
Also, could you please amend your records to show the fact that Herron is spelt with two and not one ‘r.’ I am sure it was simply a typo error on your behalf. It would be unfortunate if, after your other mail problems, further communications went missing.

The original ticket, PCN SX06021491 was issued on 21st April 2005. At that point I began to take legal advice because, being made aware of the Bill of Rights 1689 and its relevance to the Metric Martyrs Judgment there appeared to be a conflict between the two positions.

On 1st July 2004, a response to the ticket was sent to the Chief Executive, Mr. Ged Fitzgerald, with my address on the correspondence noted as 48 Frederick Street, Sunderland, SR1 1NF.

An acknowledgement, dated 8th July,2004, from Mr. Fitzgerald, was received at the above address stating that my letter had been forwarded to the City Solicitor for consideration.

You state in your correspondence, 18th February 2005 that on 25th May 2004 a Notice to Owner was issued, but I did not receive this communication..
Was this sent recorded delivery, and if so, to what address?
What procedure does your system, or that of Transport and Engineering, or that of NCP have in place should the person suspected of having contravened the parking regulations move house?
Are you allowed to access the records of other departments to attempt to locate an individual?

It would be safe to assume therefore, the reason why you received no communication from me was because I had not received the Notice to Owner, either because it wasn’t delivered or was delivered to a previous address.

However, you then issued a Charge Certificate on 16th July 2004 indicating that the charge had now increased to £90, presumably to the same address that you had previously received no reply.
Why was this not queried and matched with the communication you received from me dated 1st July 2004 indicating a different address?

You state you sent this Charge Notice out recorded delivery.
At what point were you aware that this was not served?

You state that upon checking the history of the recorded delivery via the Royal Mail it had been returned to the Council.
I would be grateful if you could provide the date it was returned to the Council and copies of the correspondence between yourselves and the Royal Mail, including the request from the Head of Transport for an explanation from the Royal Mail and their response.
It appears that there appears to be a very serious case of maladministration, or incompetence to say the least.

You state that the Council considers all correspondence posted is duly served. Are you aware of how many pieces of mail go missing every year, or the fact that mail is not always forwarded on should someone move house?
Therefore, please advise me who informed you that the other notices sent to me which were returned by the Royal Mail as ‘not called for.’ ‘Not called for’ implies they were sent out recorded delivery. Is it not usual practice for undelivered ordinary post to be returned to sender? Have they been lying unaccounted for at Sunderland Civic Centre? Could you please advise me as to whether these pieces of ‘not called for’ correspondence’ were sent out recorded delivery or simply by ordinary post?


I do not accept the Council’s view, having read the Metric Martyrs Judgement and the Bill of Rights Act 1689 that you may exercise powers under the Road Traffic Act 1991. I do believe you are attempting to claim powers you do not have and are attempting to extort money from me, not only in an unlawful manner, but also in a manner which appears to be administratively incompetent to say the least.

It is also unclear as to whether you have registered the alleged ‘debt’ at the Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court.
Can you please advise whether you have done so, and if so, please provide copies of all relevant documentation including the address you have given for my correspondence to be sent?
If you have not done so, can you please advise if, and when you intend to do so?

As for wishing to take further action I wish to put you on notice that the law is quite clear and I was actually present in the court and heard the clarity of Lord Justice Laws statement. Therefore, I am clear of my position and the fact the relevant section of the Bill of Rights 1689, has not been explicitly repealed by the Road Traffic Act 1991. Therefore, you have no authority and I repeat that if you wish to pursue me for any ‘alleged’ offence you refer the matter to trial before a court of law in a proper and orderly manner.
You may wish to seek advice from the Attorney General or seek Judicial Review to clarify the fact that you do not have lawful authority, but then that would expose the Metric Martyrs Judgment to critical scrutiny, perhaps something you do not wish to do.

You are probably aware therefore, that there is a great degree of public interest in the issue, not only in Sunderland but across the rest of the country and that there are many people aware of the Bill of Rights Act 1689 and its position as the foundation stone of our constitution. If the position that you maintain is correct, then the Metric Martyrs Judgment was wrongly decided

Therefore, finally with regard to the request for a copy of counsels’ advice, I find it remarkable that the advice you have received comes from Eleanor Sharpston QC, the prosecuting counsel in the above-mentioned Metric Martyrs case. She will therefore be fully cognisant with Lord Justice Laws deliberations, and appears that there must be a contradiction in the advice you received, because she was fully aware of the decision and the fact that there can be no implied repeal of ‘constitutional statutes.’ The argument that the ‘charge’ is not a fine and is civil not penal is not recognised by the Bill of Rights 1689 which mentions all fines or forfeitures and therefore falls, but I have included copies of previous correspondence for your reference (just in case any more communications go missing).

I do not accept your reasons for refusal to disclose copy of her advise on a number of points: -

The ‘legal professional privilege’ is there to protect the client and not the barrister. The information requested is not advice that affects any individuals, nor are there private matters discussed. The client can waive the legal professional privilege as the privilege belongs to the client and not the lawyer
What is at stake here are matters of great constitutional importance and it is therefore in the public interest especially as the legal argument that is used in my defence is the one Eleanor Sharpston QC actually agreed with when delivered by Lord Justice Laws in the Supreme Court of Judicature on 18th February, 2002.
The summary of the legal arguments provided contradicts the arguments relied on in court by the very same QC. Therefore I do not accept the point that, it is
sufficient for me to understand its reasoning.

The ‘public interest’ is of national consequence and currently potentially involves members of the public in over 100 authority areas and outweighs that of the interests of the council. A potential breach of the Bill of Rights 1689 is fundamental and thereby affecting every citizen in the country, therefore it is most certainly in the public interest.

Should the information be disclosed it will be made freely available and therefore prevent other local authorities incurring expenditure replicating the advice received.

However, finally, and most importantly Mr. Rayner, may I draw your attention to the fact that ‘information ceases to be privileged if it is copied and shared with third parties.’ I understand that you have shared the information with Sandwell Council who used it in a press release on 17th February 2005 (a copy of which is enclosed) in relation to the case of Mr. Robin De Crittenden who is challenging a Parking Ticket in both authority areas thereby negating your ‘point 3’ argument. Therefore, I would like a copy of the advice provided by Ms Eleanor Sharpston QC by return.

I also wish to inform you that I have copied this letter detailing my dissatisfaction with your response to the Chief Executive, Leader of the Council and the Leader of the Opposition and will be asking for a review under the Council’s Customer Services Procedure. Should the matter not be resolved to my satisfaction I will most certainly take the matter to the Information Commissioner. However, I hope that this will not be necessary.

Yours sincerely


Neil Herron

ENCLOSURES: COPIES

Notice Number SX06021491
Letter from Neil Herron to Ged Fitzgerald 1st July 2004
Acknowledgement from Ged Fitzgerald 8th July 2004
Response from Elaine Waugh, City Solicitor, 13th August
Response from Neil Herron to Elaine Waugh 24th January 2005-02-22
Response from City Solicitor, Bob Rayner to Neil Herron 18th February,2005
Press Release from Sandwell Council


cc. Ged Fitzgerald, Chief Executive, Sunderland City Council
cc. Bob Symonds, Leader, Sunderland Councilcc. Peter Wood, Leader of the Opposition, Sunderland Council