Why didn't the Department for Transport Act?

The recent consultation below resulted in amendments to various definitions at Regulation 4 of TSRGD 2002.
The Department for Transport was fully aware that Local Authorities were not complying with the strict definition and were creating big, wide area CPZs which contained restrictions other than those defined strictly at Regulation 4.

They were fully aware that this matter was before the courts and had required clarification since Scarborough in 2004.

The simple question is why didn't they take the opportunity with this consultation to expand the definition of a CPZ to include other parking prohibitions such as zig zags and Bus Stop Clearways ... or were they quite happy with the definition, especially since it was reinforced at Annex E of the Operational Guidance.

They took the trouble to amend the definitions listed below but not the one defining a CPZ.

Traffic Signs (Amendment) Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD) 2010

3) Amendment of regulation 4 – Interpretation - general

• The definition of a "designated lane" has been added in order to permit broader use of the solid white line marking to diagram 1049 which currently indicates the boundary of a priority lane for buses or cycles. This allows for the implementation of other priority lanes such as High Occupancy Vehicle lanes.

• The definition of "enforcement agency" has been added to cover any future change of name for the ‘Vehicle Inspectorate’. The name has already changed to the "Vehicle and Operator Services Agency" (VOSA), and could change again in the future.

• The definition of "equestrian crossing" has been amended to include the permitted use of the new nearside repeater signal.

• The definition of "maximum laden weight" of a vehicle has been amended as the reference to the "construction and use requirements" in section 41(8) of the Road Traffic Act 1988 was incorrect and should have stated section 41(7).

• The definition of "portable signal-controlled pedestrian facility" has been added. The required signs and signals are stated as are the optional carriageway markings.

• The definition of "signal-controlled pedestrian facility" has been amended to include the permitted use of the new nearside repeater signal.

• The definition of "Toucan crossing" has been amended to include the permitted use of the new nearside repeater signal.

• A definition of "traffic officer" has been added to take account of the role played by the Highways Agency’s traffic officers in maintaining traffic flows on all-purpose trunk roads, where they are required to give instructions to the public which may infringe traffic prohibitions or directions.

Neil Herron and Parking Appeals Ltd. v The Parking Adjudicator

Neutral Citation Number: [2010] EWHC 1161 (Admin)
Case No: CO/9104/2008
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUSTICE QUEEN'S BENCH DIVISION ADMINISTRATIVE COURT
Royal Courts of Justice
Strand, London, WC2A 2LL
25/05/2010
B e f o r e :
MR. JUSTICE BEAN

Between:
NEIL HERRON

PARKING APPEALS LIMITED
1st Claimant
2nd Claimant
- and -
THE PARKING ADJUDICATOR
Defendant

SUNDERLAND CITY COUNCIL (1)
PARKING AND TRAFFIC APPEALS (2)
TRAFFIC PENALTY TRIBUNAL (3)
NCP SERVICE LIMITED (4)
SECRETARY OF STATE FOR TRANSPORT (5)
Interested Parties
____________________
Alun Jones QC and Rupert Bowers (instructed by Jeffrey Green Russell) for the Claimant
Ian Rogers (instructed on behalf of the Traffic Penalty Tribunal) for the Defendant
Stephen Sauvain QC and Jonathan Easton (instructed by the Solicitor, Sunderland City Council) for the City Council
Jessica Simor (instructed by the Treasury Solicitor) for the Secretary of State

Hearing date: 18 May 2010 ____________________
HTML VERSION OF JUDGMENT____________________
Crown Copyright ©

Mr. Justice Bean :

1. Neil Herron is a director of Parking Appeals Ltd, an organisation which in its own words, "advises, assists and campaigns on behalf of motorists". In 2006 one vehicle of which Mr. Herron was the registered keeper and another (whose registration number was changed to F1NED) of which the company was the registered keeper were parked on a total of 39 occasions on single yellow lines in Frederick St or St. Thomas St within the Sunderland city centre Controlled Parking Zone ("CPZ"). Penalty Charge Notices ("PCNs"), better known as parking tickets, were issued in each case alleging that the vehicle concerned had been involved in a parking contravention, namely that it had been "parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours".

2. Mr. Herron and the company did not pay the penalty charges. The traffic authority, Sunderland City Council, therefore issued in each case a Notice To Owner requiring the registered keeper either to pay the penalty charge of £60 or to make representations. Mr. Herron made representations asking for the PCNs to be cancelled. The Council refused to cancel them. Mr. Herron further challenged the PCNs by lodging appeals with the National Parking Adjudication Service ("NPAS", now known as the Traffic Penalty Tribunal).

3. The hearing before an adjudicator, Mr. Andrew Keenan, began on 12th September 2007. Mr. Herron produced 11 lever arch files of documents in support of his case. He also called an expert witness, a Mr. Bentley, who presented a report consisting of 156 pages. A large number of points were raised, including an attack on the independence of the NPAS and its adjudicators. The hearing continued on 20th November 2007. By a 45 page judgment dated 26 February 2008 Mr Keenan dismissed the appeals, save in one case where he directed the Council to cancel the PCN. Mr. Herron applied for a review and on 30 June 2008 another adjudicator, Ms. Kennedy, directed that Mr. Keenan's decision should stand and that the appeals should therefore remain dismissed.

4. This claim was issued on 25th September 2008. The Claimants sought judicial review of the decisions of Mr. Keenan and Ms. Kennedy on a number of grounds, one of which was that the NPAS infringed the Claimant's Convention right to a fair hearing by an independent and impartial tribunal, in breach of Article 6 of the ECHR. They also sought a declaration that "the Sunderland Controlled Parking Zone does not comply with Regulation 4 and Direction 25 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 (TSRGD)", and that "all single yellow line waiting restrictions contained with it are unenforceable". By an amendment to the Claim Form they further alleged lack of adequate reasoning in relation to Regulation 4 of the TSRGD.

5. At an oral hearing on 15th June 2009 Keith J refused permission for judicial review on the Article 6 and "lack of reasoning" grounds but granted permission on the question of statutory interpretation of Regulation 4 and Direction 25. He said:

"Although I am very sceptical about the correctness of the approach to the legislation which the Claimants advance, I cannot say that it is so unarguable that a full hearing to consider it is unwarranted."

The statutory regime

6. By section 1(1)(c) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 the traffic authority for a road outside Greater London may make a traffic regulation order where it appears to the authority expedient for facilitating the passage on the road of traffic. By section 2(2)(c) such a traffic regulation order may include a provision prohibiting or restricting the waiting of vehicles or the loading and unloading of vehicles. There is no dispute that many years ago Sunderland City Council made traffic regulation orders which restricted parking in Frederick St and St. Thomas St, among other locations, and designated a substantial area of the city centre as a CPZ. The CPZ appears to have been established in about 1969.

7. Section 5(1) of the 1984 Act provided that contravention of a traffic regulation order was an offence. The Road Traffic Act 1991 provided for a decriminalised parking regime, with penalty charge notices of the kind used in the present case, where an order has been made extending the decriminalised regime to the area in question. A PCN may then be issued where a vehicle has been parked in the relevant area in circumstances such that a criminal offence would have been committed but for the decriminalisation order. Again, there is no dispute that a valid order has been made (SI 2002/3266) bringing the decriminalised regime into force in Sunderland city centre. (I was told that the relevant provisions of the 1991 Act have been repealed by the Traffic Management Act 2004 in respect of PCNs issued on or after 31 March 2008. This amendment does not affect the present case.)

8. Regulation 18(1)(a) of the Local Authorities Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 requires the traffic authority to take such steps as are necessary to secure that, where a traffic regulation order has been made relating to any road, traffic signs are placed and maintained "on or near the road… in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road."

9. The definition of "traffic sign" in section 64 of the 1984 Act includes not only objects such as traffic lights, but also lines or marks on a road conveying a prohibition. Section 64(2) requires that traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulations. Section 65(1) says that the traffic authority "may cause or permit traffic signs to be placed on or near a road, subject to and in conformity with such general directions as may be given" by the appropriate Ministers.

10. The TSRGD is a 447 page book containing regulations, directions and a large number of diagrams. Direction 25(1) provides that, subject to direction 25(2), certain road markings may be used only in conjunction with, and on the same side of road as, certain upright signs. The all too familiar single yellow line, diagram number 1017, may only be used in conjunction with one of five upright signs, the one relevant to the present case being that shown in number 639 which has the prohibited hours (for example 8am to 6pm) shown in black against a yellow background with a no waiting sign and an arrow. Direction 25(2), however, provides:

"Paragraph (1) shall not apply to a road marking placed on a road within a controlled parking zone if signs shown in diagram 663 or 663.1 [upright signs saying "controlled zone" or "voucher parking zone" with a no waiting sign and indicating the prohibited hours] have been placed at the entrances for vehicular traffic into the zone, except where the road marking is placed to indicate restrictions different from the restrictions indicated on those signs."

11. It can be seen that the effect of Direction 25 is to create a general rule that a yellow line restricting parking must be accompanied by an upright sign, but to allow an exception in a CPZ. The question I have to decide is whether the area including Frederick St and St. Thomas St was a lawful and effective CPZ. This turns on Regulation 4 of the TSRGD, the interpretation section, which defines a CPZ as follows:

"….an area (i) in which, except where parking places have been provided, every road has been marked with one or more of the road markings shown in diagrams 1017 [single yellow line], 1018.1 [double yellow line, indicating no waiting at any time], 1019 [no loading or unloading at certain times] and 1020.1 [no loading or unloading at any time]; and (ii) into which each entrance for vehicular traffic has been indicated by the sign shown in diagram 663 or 663.1…)." [There is an alternative definition which does not apply.]

12. Nothing turns on the entrance signs requirement in subparagraph (ii) since there is no suggestion of failure to comply with it; nor on diagrams 1019 and 1020.1 relating to loading and unloading, since these are not in practice used independently of single or double yellow lines. The Claimant's case is that the prohibitions in a controlled parking zone can only be enforced if every part of every road has been marked with either parking places, a single yellow line or a double yellow line.

13. There is no dispute that there were single yellow lines on the road at the locations in which Mr. Herron parked in Frederick St and St. Thomas St. The Claimant's case, however, is that a departure from the strict terms of Regulation 4 anywhere in the CPZ means that the area ceases to be a CPZ as defined by that regulation.

14. In the skeleton argument on behalf of the Claimant settled by Michael Caplan QC the main example relied on was the approaches to pedestrian crossings, where (as required by the TSRGD) there are white zig-zags which prohibit not only waiting and stopping, but also overtaking. In oral argument Mr. Alun Jones QC relied not only on this, but also on defects, for example in relation to the delineation of specific parking and loading bays, elsewhere in the CPZ. Mr. Jones was prepared to concede that a de minimis exception might apply where a yellow line had faded over a very short stretch of road some distance from the relevant location, and perhaps also where a yellow line had not been repainted for a very short time after the completion of road works; but otherwise, he submitted, the rule is an absolute one. If the CPZ includes any part of any road which has no single or double yellow line and which is not a parking bay, the entire CPZ is invalidated.

15. Mr. Jones sought to bolster what might otherwise seem a surprising submission by reference to an operational guidance document issued by the Department of Transport in March 2008. This says at Annex E, paragraph E5:

"The Secretary of State's view is that motorists cannot reasonably be expected to read, understand and remember the parking restrictions at the entrance to a Controlled Parking Zone that covers an area of more than a dozen streets. CPZs rely solely on zone entry signs to give times of operation and to remove the need for time plates within the zone, except on lengths of road where the restrictions apply at different times to the rest of the zone. The area of a CPZ should, therefore, be restricted to, for example, a town centre shopping area. A single zone covering a whole town, or suburb of a conurbation would be much too large. Conventional time plate signing, without zone entry signs should accompany the yellow sign markings where large areas have waiting restrictions. Time plates are not necessary where there are double yellow lines."

Mr. Jones submitted that the larger the CPZ, the greater the risk of confusion. If traffic authorities designate large areas as CPZs and in consequence fall foul of the technical interpretation of Regulation 4 for which he contends, he argued, they have only themselves to blame.

16. But this is not a challenge to the designation of a substantial part of central Sunderland as one CPZ. We are about 40 years too late for that. Moreover, there is no evidence of confusion, either individual or general. Mr. Herron knew perfectly well that on each of the occasions in question he was parking on a single yellow line during restricted parking hours. There is no evidence of more general confusion either. I accept that there is a risk in the case of a large CPZ of a motorist forgetting the exact hours indicated at the entry point by the time he reaches his parking place. But that risk is neither increased nor decreased by the presence in the zone, otherwise than at the location where he parks, of pedestrian crossings with white zig-zags on the approaches, or parking bays with defective delineation.

17. Mr. Keenan had his attention drawn to a number of such features or defects in places within the CPZ other than where Mr. Herron had parked. He found that they "should be considered trivialities which could not mislead a driver who parked on a clearly marked restriction." That is a finding of fact with which I cannot interfere, and which seems to me in any event plainly correct.

Authorities

18. In Davies v Heatley [1971] RTR 145 the appellant motorist had been convicted of crossing continuous double white lines in the middle of the carriageway at a bend in the road. Contrary to the diagram set out in the Regulations the double white lines had an intermittent white line between them, and the distance between the two continuous white lines was also incorrect. Lord Parker CJ said:

"One asks, therefore, here, whether this was the prescribed sign. I thought at one point that it might be said that the older intermittent line on a sensible approach forms no part of the double white line sign, that it is old and it is just not completely rubbed out, but, as was pointed out, even if one assumed that it was subtracted and formed no part of the line itself, the distance between the two continuous white lines is a long way different from that prescribed by the Regulations. Accordingly, as it seems to me, and apart from authority, much as one sympathises with the approach of the Justices it is impossible to say that an offence was committed."

19. In that case the defect was more than trivial and was at the very spot where the alleged offence was committed. Similarly, in O'Halloran v DPP [1990] RTR 62, another double white lines case, the mandatory warning arrow at the beginning of the sequence had been omitted. Again, the motorist's appeal to the Divisional Court succeeded; but the defect was in or very close to the relevant location. In French v Dover District Council, Case no. DD05005E, 8 January 2007, by contrast, the Chief Parking Adjudicator, Caroline Sheppard, held that where the defect was in a different location from the one where the motorist had parked it could be treated as immaterial. I agree with that decision.

20. In the Claimant's Grounds annexed to the Claim Form, Mr. Caplan QC cited some observations of the late Professor Glanville Williams:

"The ancient rule was that penal statutes are to be construed strictly… on the theory that the legislature must make its intention clear if it proposes to have people punished. The rule was important at a time when many crimes were punishable by death, but it has not necessarily lost all its value in these more lenient days."

21. I am prepared to assume that a statute, regulation or direction which permits the issue of a penalty charge notice must be construed strictly, in the sense that where there is a genuine ambiguity in the language used the motorist is entitled to the benefit of the doubt in interpreting it. But that does not mean that it has to be construed so literally as to produce an absurd result. The question "did the draftsman of the Regulations and Directions intend that the presence of a pedestrian crossing within a CPZ should render the zone wholly ineffective?" only has to be asked for the answer "of course not" to be obvious.

22. Mr Sauvain QC, for the City Council, pointed out that if one is going to adopt a truly literal construction of the definition of a CPZ in Regulation 4, it does not support the Claimant's case. The requirement is that every road must be marked with a single yellow line, double yellow line or parking bays. It is not that every part of every road has to be so marked. That is a possible construction of the regulation, but Mr Sauvain did not advance it as his primary case, and I do not accept it.

23. In my judgment regulation 4 on its proper construction means that every part of every road in a CPZ, other than a parking bay, must be marked with a single or double yellow line (with or without the "loading and unloading" equivalents), except where an alternative parking prohibition is marked out such as that imposed by the zig-zags on the approach to a pedestrian crossing. Furthermore, I consider that any non-compliance, whether accidental or (if I am wrong on the previous point) arising from the presence of an alternative parking prohibition, is immaterial if it is too far from the location of the particular motorist's contravention to have led him or her into error.

24. In Canadine v DPP [2007] EWHC 383 (Admin) Sir Igor Judge P, as he then was, said:

"It is something of a relief to be able to conclude that an appeal, so entirely based on technicality, and so utterly devoid of merit should be dismissed."

25. Despite Mr Jones' elegant presentation of the Claimant's case I conclude that it, too, is entirely based on technicality and utterly devoid of merit. The application for judicial review is dismissed.

Press Reports High Court CPZ Case ... BBC Wear

Neil Herron loses Sunderland parking battle at High Court
BBC Wear
25th May 2010

CPZ signs - at each end of a zone - are said to reduce street clutter
If you want to understand the significance of Neil Herron's defeat in the High Court you need to understand Controlled Parking Zones.

Don't all run away at once - you might be grateful next time you park in one.
Here is BBC Wear's handy guide to what they are, how they work and whether it's worth arguing about getting a ticket.
It all revolves around technicalities - technicalities that the judge called "trivialities".
Neil Herron, a former market trader from Sunderland, first came to public attention late in 2000 over the issue of metric measurement.
He helped his friend, Steven Thoburn, challenge a prosecution for selling fruit and vegetables in pounds and ounces, the offence being that he didn't have the metric scales required.
Technicalities or trivialities?
Since 2000 Mr Herron has transformed into something of a parking campaigner.
His current challenge - to Controlled Parking Zones, or CPZs - went all the way to the High Court.
Again, the issue revolved around a technicality.
An important technicality, said Mr Herron, since the result of infringement is "penal" and, he claimed, councils rely on the confusion to make money out of parking fines.
His over-strict interpretation of the rules, said Sunderland City Council and the Department of Transport, flew in the face of common sense.
On May 25 2010 Neil Herron lost his case and was told by the judge that it was "entirely based on technicality and utterly devoid of merit".

Neil Herron took his case to the High Court in London
What Mr Herron claimed:
The zone in Sunderland city centre is so large that it confuses drivers with its signs and is unlawful
The council relies on this confusion to make money out of parking fines
Penalty charge notices issued against him for parking on single yellow lines in the zone are unenforceable because, technically, there should be no road markings at all within a CPZ
In law, CPZs don't even exist but are "creatures of statute" and, in order to be enforceable, should comply with rigidly laid down road marking regulations
In order to meet the definition of a CPZ, there must be no road marking whatsoever within them, except signs indicating parking spaces and yellow lines
The presence of any other road markings at any point in the CPZ - including zig-zag lines or yellow bus stop clearways - render the entire CPZ invalid
Controlled Parking Zone rules
Entrance and exit signs show the hours during which all on-street parking is controlled
Parking is only permitted in designated parking spaces, the remainder of the kerbside is subject to yellow line restrictions
Single yellow lines prohibit parking during the hours of control, double yellow lines prohibit parking at any time
Some single yellow lines have signs showing different, usually longer, operation times
Parking during the permitted hours may be free or charged
What Sunderland City Council claimed:
Mr Herron's interpretation of road signage rules flies in the face of common sense
Legislators could not have intended the rules to be read thus
If this strict interpretation of the regulations was right a single pedestrian crossing marked on the road could invalidate a vast CPZ
The case could affect the legitimacy of parking tickets issued across the country in other "over-sized" CPZs and lead to thousands of motorists applying to have parking fines quashed
They vehemently dispute the accusation that local authorities rely on the confusion generated by the zones to make money out of parking fines
Their CPZ is being operated lawfully and drivers are being given the necessary information over where and when they can park

Technicalities or Trivialities?

The law is based on technicalities ... that is why the DfT spent so much effort drafting the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions in 2002 and the various Chapters of the Traffic Signs Manual.

Did the draftsmen of the Operational Guidance to Local Authorities on Parking Policy and Enforcement state that CPZs should be 12 streets or less just for the fun of it? Here is Annex E of that Guidance and it sets out the DfT's position explicitly.

So why is it that councils would wish to ensure that motorists didn't have adequate information as to the times of operation of single yellow lines in a CPZ (bearing in mind that the majority of single yellow lines in the country are 'out of force' for the majority of time in a 24 hour period)?

Could it be that there is more chance of a motorist being confused in a large CPZ and therefore issued with a PCN?

Could it be that greater confusion leads to more PCNs and a greater income?

It would be a brave Judge to publicly slap every council for 'giving it large' when it comes to CPZs. So, ask yourself what the DfT are prepared to do to ensure councils comply with their Guidance?

Their response was to throw all their resources at defeating the challenge by bringing in the Treasury Solicitors to argue that 'common sense' should be applied.

Is the British motorist afforded the same luxury of 'common sense' when a minute late back to a meter or an inch over a yellow line? Of course not and until the law is applied equally the fight for a fair deal for the motorist will go on.

Neil Herron loses Sunderland parking battle at High Court
BBC Wear
25th May 2010

CPZ signs - at each end of a zone - are said to reduce street clutter
If you want to understand the significance of Neil Herron's defeat in the High Court you need to understand Controlled Parking Zones.

Don't all run away at once - you might be grateful next time you park in one.

Here is BBC Wear's handy guide to what they are, how they work and whether it's worth arguing about getting a ticket.

It all revolves around technicalities - technicalities that the judge called "trivialities".

Neil Herron, a former market trader from Sunderland, first came to public attention late in 2000 over the issue of metric measurement.
He helped his friend, Steven Thoburn, challenge a prosecution for selling fruit and vegetables in pounds and ounces, the offence being that he didn't have the metric scales required.

Technicalities or trivialities?
Since 2000 Mr Herron has transformed into something of a parking campaigner.
His current challenge - to Controlled Parking Zones, or CPZs - went all the way to the High Court.

Again, the issue revolved around a technicality.
An important technicality, said Mr Herron, since the result of infringement is "penal" and, he claimed, councils rely on the confusion to make money out of parking fines.
His over-strict interpretation of the rules, said Sunderland City Council and the Department of Transport, flew in the face of common sense.

On May 25 2010 Neil Herron lost his case and was told by the judge that it was "entirely based on technicality and utterly devoid of merit".

What Mr Herron claimed:
- The zone in Sunderland city centre is so large that it confuses drivers with its signs and is unlawful
- The council relies on this confusion to make money out of parking fines
- Penalty charge notices issued against him for parking on single yellow lines in the zone are unenforceable because, technically, there should be no road markings at all within a CPZ
- In law, CPZs don't even exist but are "creatures of statute" and, in order to be enforceable, should comply with rigidly laid down road marking regulations
- In order to meet the definition of a CPZ, there must be no road marking whatsoever within them, except signs indicating parking spaces and yellow lines
- The presence of any other road markings at any point in the CPZ - including zig-zag lines or yellow bus stop clearways - render the entire CPZ invalid

Controlled Parking Zone rules
- Entrance and exit signs show the hours during which all on-street parking is controlled
- Parking is only permitted in designated parking spaces, the remainder of the kerbside is subject to yellow line restrictions
- Single yellow lines prohibit parking during the hours of control, double yellow lines prohibit parking at any time
- Some single yellow lines have signs showing different, usually longer, operation times
- Parking during the permitted hours may be free or charged

What Sunderland City Council claimed:
- Mr Herron's interpretation of road signage rules flies in the face of common sense
- Legislators could not have intended the rules to be read thus
- If this strict interpretation of the regulations was right a single pedestrian crossing marked on the road could invalidate a vast CPZ
- The case could affect the legitimacy of parking tickets issued across the country in other "over-sized" CPZs and lead to thousands of motorists applying to have parking fines quashed
- They vehemently dispute the accusation that local authorities rely on the confusion generated by the zones to make money out of parking fines
Their CPZ is being operated lawfully and drivers are being given the necessary information over where and when they can park

Motorists Legal Challenge Fund Newsletter

Our Big Day In Court

Tuesday and Wednesday of this week (18th & 19th May) sees Neil Herron's case in the High Court. It has taken almost 3 years to get this case before a Judge, but we are finally there. What is at stake is the correct and legal definition of a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ).
CPZs were originally designed for small areas of 12 streets or less, but local councils have abused them so much that they can now cover areas of 12 square miles or more, encompassing hundreds of streets.

The entry signs in some places have become so large and complicated that they are impossible to read - let alone remember - when travelling past at 30 mph (or even 20 mph). As a result, motorists are often not adequately informed about when and where they can lawfully park, which increases the risk of their receiving a parking ticket.

The Department for Transport has been concerned for some time about the misuse of CPZs by some councils, and the difficulties and unfairness it causes for drivers. Indeed, they even researched and fully understood the issues way back in 2005. More recently, the DfT along with the Institute of Highways Engineers have effectively declared CPZs as "not fit for purpose", but nothing has been done to clarify the situation.

Neil's case could do just that.

There is nothing private or secret about the courts, they are open to the public. If you want to witness the law in action and see how your donation money is being spent to try to bring justice for the motoring public, then turn up at the Royal Courts of Justice in the Strand on Tuesday or Wednesday.

Are We Doing the Right Thing?
Why should it have become necessary for a single member of the public to bring a case at great financial cost against a local authority? After all, we have just been through an election to choose national and local representatives who are supposed to be responsible for holding civil servants and council officers to account.

The present system is not perfect and, if we have reason to believe that local authorities are breaking the law, as a last resort they can be held to account through the process of judicial review in the High Court as Neil is now doing.
Support for this process comes from a group of academics at the University of Essex who recently wrote a report entitled "Judicial Review Litigation as an Incentive to Change in Local Authority Public Services in England & Wales". (click here)

Don't be put off by the long title; it confirms that we are doing the right thing in supporting Neil’s case in the High Court, and their "research indicated that judicial review may actually help authorities to improve." They also make the point that "there are strong associations between the values of public service and fidelity to law, and both are intimately connected with the responsibility of local authorities to serve the public interest."
Put into our context, if local authorities fail to comply with national law, as too many of them don’t, then what possible right do they have to punish motorists who do not comply with their own local law?

For more information and to support the Motorists Legal Challenge click here

Freedom of Information Request from DfT in relation to Scarborough's CPZ

This is the Freedom of Information request from former Police Officer Richard Bentley to the Department for Transport and the response from Ian Boddington.

In the public interest it has been reproduced in exactly the same format as it was provided by the DfT.

The only information 'missing' is believed to be the FIRST advice provided to Scarborough and North Yorkshire Councils from Stephen Sauvain QC. This advice was shared with Government officials and is understood to condemn councils who had not complied with the strict definition of a Controlled Parking Zone.

The DfT has refused to disclose this evidence to the High Court.


DfT FOI & Additional Evidence 1

More foI documents ... this one from Marilyn Waldron DfT

Phil Heyes GOYH to The Local Government Ombudsman ... released under FoI

CPZ Documents released under FoI ...

I will make no comment and let the content of these recently acquired documents speak for themselves.
More will follow.
What must be remembered is that there are documents relating to CPZs which the Department for Transport refused to disclose to Lord Lucas under the Freedom of Information Act.

Stephen Sauvain QC, mentioned below, also represented Sunderland City Council at my first parking ticket adjudication. The appeal was against a handful of £60 parking tickets and the Council brought in the country's 'expert' to handle a simple appeal (and then for further advice) at a cost to Sunderland ratepayers now believed to run into six figures.

Was the definition of a CPZ met? You decide ...

A CPZ is defined at Regulation 4 TSRGD 2002 as:
"controlled parking zone" means -
(a) an area -
(i) in which, except where parking places have been provided, every road has been marked with one or more of the road markings shown in diagrams 1017, 1018.1, 1019 and 1020.1; and
(ii) into which each entrance for vehicular traffic has been indicated by the sign shown in diagram 663 or 663.1;

The pictures below represent a sample of the evidence provided to NPAS Adjudicator Andrew Keenan at the hearings in Sunderland in 2007. They indicate areas of unrestricted highway, non-compliant bays and restrictions which are not contained in the Regulation 4 definition.

He considered these 'trivialities' in his decision.

Red Routes invalidate CPZs says Department for Transport

This document was released under the Freedom of Information Act and is self-explanatory.

In 2009 Westminster City Council finally took heed of the advice ... five years after being informed.

Other London Boroughs have yet to act.

Consultation between the DfT, Councils and the adjudication service

This document was obtained under FoI and relates to a meeting at the DfT HQ between officals, councils and the adjudication service in 2004 two years after the publication of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 ... which defines a CPZ at Regulation4.

The definition of a CPZ is at the centre of the Judicial Review currently before the High Court in a case which is being defended by the Parking Adjudicator, Sunderland City Council AND the Treasury Solicitors.

Sunderland City Council ... 'A Nice Little Earner ...'

'A nice little earner?'

'Entrapment?'

This is what passes for parking enforcement in the biggest city between Leeds and Edinburgh.

The people of Sunderland were disgusted at the negative portrayal of THEIR city in the BBC documentary which exposed fraud, bribery, corruption and incompetence.

As the High Court case approaches and the investigations by various agencies continue the penny may well start to drop that paranoid collective myopia is only a delusional, short-term, short-sighted solution.

Question to the elected members who bear FULL responsibility has to be ...'What price will YOU be prepared to pay?'

Check it out here as to what happens when elected members get it badly wrong. Remember that ALL the councillors in Sunderland cannot claim that they didn't know while collecting their allowances.

Parking Enforcement in Sunderland ...

To assist everyone with understanding why someone would risk everything to challenge a parking ticket ... this is how it started.

Controlled Parking Zones and the High Court case

Just to give a flavour of the importance of the case to be heard before the High Court on the left is a document obtained under the Freedom of Information Act of a meeting which took place between officials from the Department for Transport, the Government Office for the North East and Sunderland City Council.

A lot of information on the reasons for the draftsmen of the TSRGD 2002 being so strict with the definition of a CPZ is still being 'witheld' but the content relating to the meeting is is pretty clear.

The Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) in Huddersfield and Dewsbury are seriously flawed states Government Official

Had a parking ticket in Huddersfield or Dewsbury?
Are more refunds on the way?

Parking problems ‘known years ago’
Aug 20 2008 by Nick Lavigueur,

Huddersfield Daily Examiner

KIRKLEES Council was told its parking zones were “seriously flawed” by the Government more than two years ago, it has emerged.

Following last month’s exposé of the Kirklees-wide parking problem a letter leaked to the Examiner shows the issue had already been highlighted by Government parking officials.

The letter, from an officer of The Government Office for Yorkshire and Humberside’s integrated parking team to the Department for Transport (DfT) in February, 2006, discussed the council’s bid to take control of parking enforcement.

It was sent to the council’s road chiefs, along with a batch of pictures of defective road markings and signs.

The letter says: “The controlled parking zones (CPZ) in Huddersfield and Dewsbury are seriously flawed. This is due to the use of entry signs that do not conform to diagram 663 of the regulations and have not been placed in the correct manner as only one has been used where are two are required.
“There are also uncontrolled lengths of carriageway within CPZs, which is not allowed.”

The letter goes on: “A large number of parking bays have been marked incorrectly ... double end lines have been used, which is not permitted.”

The letter also slams Kirklees’s pay and display signs, its disabled bays, dual-purpose bays, loading bays, drop-off areas and taxi ranks.

Kirklees, like hundreds of councils across England and Wales, was granted decriminalised parking enforcement powers by the DfT in July, 2006.

But the Examiner has now learned that neither the DfT nor the Local Government Authority have been monitoring the situation or have any duty to make sure the council plays by the rules.
In fact, it seems there is no authority monitoring the council’s parking enforcement as the Government Office, the British Parking Association and the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) all said it wasn’t their job.

A spokeswoman for the Government Office said: “The Government Office can only advise transport authorities to use the correct signage as required by the regulations. We cannot force them to do so.
“The recourse for the public, if they believe they have received a parking ticket where the signing is defective, is to complain to the NPAS or, if they believe the council are not following correct procedures, they can complain to the Local Government Ombudsman, who will investigate claims of maladministration.”

A DfT spokesman said: “It is the responsibility of the council to place traffic signs and road markings in accordance with the regulations or apply to the department for special authorisation.
“Whether signs and lines are lawful are matters is for the courts or a parking adjudicator to determine.
“We are clear that councils need to make sure they operate reasonably and within the law. Every case is different, but we would expect councils to seriously consider contacting motorists who may have been wrongly issued with a penalty charge notice.”

This latest scandal comes after the Examiner printed a Kirklees list of almost 100 parking bays awaiting remedial work in order to comply with DfT rules.

Former Kirklees councillor Jeremy Fisher, who obtained the letters, said: “For them to say they didn’t know what was going on is tosh. We have got the evidence here in this letter.
“This proves that what Clr David Hall said is wrong; it shows they’ve known about it since February, 2006. All I would like to see is somebody made accountable."

Neil Herron, director of parkingappeals.co.uk, said: “The fact that there is no statutory body or watchdog has led to councils embarking on what is the biggest case of highway robbery since Dick Turpin rode Black Bess.
“The situation, because of the lack of scrutiny or censure, has led to the escalation of lawlessness by councils and officers who believe that they can act with impunity.
“The game is now up and it is only a matter of time before we see council officers in court and the initiation of a public inquiry into what has become a national scandal.
“I think there’s a lot of worried people at Kirklees Council as they’ve been caught red- handed.”

Kirklees’s assistant director for transport, Jacqui Gedman, said: “At a site meeting in March, 2006, which a Government Office official attended, detailed issues were discussed in relation to lines and signs.
“The council wrote to the DfT in April informing them of the March meeting and that the Government Office representative was satisfied that measures were well established to address the issues raised in relation to the controlled parking zones.
“The letter also gave the DfT assurances that where the council recognised there were non enforceable areas within the controlled parking zones, then these areas would not be enforced until remedial works had been completed. That remains the case.
“The council considered that the subsequent granting of enforcement powers on July 3 was an endorsement from the DfT that it and Government Office were satisfied with Kirklees’s approach.
“The council did follow the DfT's advice and did not knowingly enforce powers until such time as signing and lining was corrected.”