Neil Herron Loses High Court Test Case

[mightymouse_69]

The abstract on westlaw makes for an interesting summary of the case for those who do not wish to read the whole transcript.

 

The claimant company and its director (P and H) applied for judicial review of decisions of the defendant adjudicator dismissing their appeals against penalty charge notices (PCNs). Two vehicles, of which H and P were each the registered keeper, had been parked on 39 occasions on single yellow lines within a controlled parking zone (CPZ) operated by the local traffic authority. PCNs, better known as parking tickets, were issued in each case alleging that the vehicle concerned had been involved in a parking contravention, namely parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours. H and P did not pay the penalty charges and H made representations asking for the PCNs to be cancelled, which the traffic authority refused. H further challenged the PCNs by lodging appeals with the National Parking Adjudication Service. An adjudicator dismissed the appeals, save in one case, having found that a number of pedestrian crossings with white zig-zags, or parking bays with defective delineation, in places within the CPZ other than where H had parked were trivialities which could not mislead a motorist who parked on a clearly marked restriction. H applied for a review and a second adjudicator subsequently directed that the first adjudicator's decision should stand and that the appeals should remain dismissed. H and P sought a declaration that the CPZ did not comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 reg.4 and reg.25 and that all single yellow line waiting restrictions contained within it were unenforceable. P and H submitted that the prohibitions in a CPZ could only be enforced if every part of every road within it had been marked with either parking places, a single yellow line or a double yellow line, and that a departure from the strict terms of reg.4 anywhere in the CPZ meant that the area ceased to be a CPZ. P and H contended that as there were delineation defects within the CPZ, the entire CPZ was invalidated.

 

Application refused. A statute, regulation or direction which permitted the issue of a PCN had to be construed strictly, in the sense that where there was a genuine ambiguity in the language used the motorist was entitled to the benefit of the doubt in interpreting it. That did not, however, mean that it had to be construed so literally as to produce an absurd result. On its proper construction, reg.4 meant that every part of every road in a CPZ, other than a parking bay, had to be marked with a single or double yellow line except where an alternative parking prohibition was marked out such as that imposed by the zig-zags on an approach to a pedestrian crossing. Any non-compliance, whether accidental or arising from the presence of an alternative parking prohibition, was immaterial if it was too far from the location of the particular motorist's contravention to have led him into error, Davies v Heatley [1971] R.T.R. 145 and O'Halloran v DPP (1990) 154 J.P. 837 distinguished. An appeal based entirely on technicality and utterly devoid of merit should be dismissed, Canadine v DPP [2007] EWHC 383 (Admin) applied. In the instant case, where H had known perfectly well that on each occasion he was parking on a single yellow line during restricted hours, his case was entirely based on technicality and utterly devoid of merit and could not, therefore, succeed.

[neilherron]

Perhaps further clarification is required.

 

What must be borne in mind is that over 100 PCNs had been cancelled previously by Sunderland City Council.

 

The single yellow line in question was in an area purporting to be a CPZ. CPZ entry plates denoting the time of operation of the single yellow lines can only be erected to give effect to the boundary of a CPZ. If the strict definition of a CPZ is not met then there is no CPZ ... and the dispensation from erecting the little yellow repeater plates falls.

 

Other restrictions within the area purporting to be a CPZ then stand alone ... providing that they are signed correctly ... ie. double yellow lines can be enforced as they operate 24/7 and require no upright plate. Pay and display bays, marked to TSRGD 2002 'TECHNICAL' requirement can be enforced EXCEPT in Sunderland they were all incorrectly marked (in the area purporting to be the CPZ). Bus Stop Clearways had no upright plates, Loading Bays were only 2m wide and there were areas of unrestricted highway, since repainted.

 

So, quite simply, a single yellow line needs an upright plate to give effect to the TRO EXCEPT when it is in a CPZ. CPZ entry plates can only give effect to a CPZ ... but in this case the STRICT definition had not been met.

 

It's a circular argument which was not addressed by Justice bean.

[johno1066]

Considering he was very vocal earlier in the thread, it appears as though G&M isn't going to answer you Neil.

[68904]

I repeat what I said before about G and M.

 

Empty Vessels make the most noise.

[green_and_mean]

People come here for advice not an argument I have better things to do with my life than pander to the wishes of forum trolls.

[johno1066]

No time for arguments????? this is an advice forum! Are you serious? You are one of the most argumentative people on here (have a look at your posts); you are quick to tell people they're wrong then when the person who you accuse of being wrong (in this case Neil Herron) challenges you, you slope off with with your tail between your legs or continue to argue against the person. Why won't you debate with Neil? You have made many insinuations about the man so the least you can do is reply to his question, that being:

 

"Meanwhile, I would appreciate a response from Green and Mean to the 'technical' points I have raised. The relevance is that if strict compliance with the definition of a CPZ is required did Sunderland's CPZ meet that strict criteria BEFORE they corrected everything ie. the case which was before the Adjudicator. "

 

PS, nice to see that you're posting outside of office hours G&M.

[green_and_mean]

As I have said before if the points are valid then take it up with the High Court.

[johno1066]

LOL, oh dear, the 'great' G&M, silenced by Neil Herron in two posts.

[green_and_mean]

LOL, oh dear, the 'great' G&M, silenced by Neil Herron in two posts.

 

zzzzzzzzzz wake me up when you have something interesting to say? Are you really as thick as you are coming across?? There is nothing to debate his argument was ruled as incorrect that is the outcome he lost, he may think he was right, you may think he was right but as far as the law stands he was wrong or do you not understand the concept of a High court hearing? I think you will find a big clue to help you understand in the title of this thread...Neil Herron Loses High Court Test Case.

[johno1066]

Now now, I know it's frustrating for you, but there's no need for Ad Hominem.

 

Neil Herron might have lost in the High Court but you only have too look at how many High Court rulings have been overturned on appeal to realise that it's far from over,there is no reason whatsoever as to why you can't answer Neil Herron's question, unless of course you can't answer it which is what I suspect, is the case.

Edited June 6, 2010 by johno1066

[green_and_mean]

Now now, I know it's frustrating for you, but there's no need for Ad Hominem.

 

Neil Herron might have lost in the High Court but you only have too look at how many High Court rulings have been overturned on appeal to realise that it's far from over,there is no reason whatsoever as to why you can't answer Neil Herron's question, unless of course you can't answer it which is what I suspect, is the case.

 

Come back when its overturned then until then he is wrong.

[johno1066]

So you're refusing to answer? This thread has highlighted a great deal about about you G&M, both technically and as a person. I say it again, the 'great' G&M, silenced by Neil Herron in two posts

[mightymouse_69]

G&M does have a point though.

 

As it stands, in law, Neil lost his case. The judge appears to have used a well known and widely used form of statutory interpretation, and threw the case out.

 

Until Neil wins an appeal, from a purely legal perspective he is incorrect in his argument - whether or not you agree or disagree with it.

[johno1066]

Thanks MM, let me refresh people's memory as to what G&M wrote less the muck and spiteful opening posts:

 

"Technically Herrons argument is wrong then because as pointed out in the hearing a CPZ can contain other road markings because the law states..

 

• "controlled parking zone" means either -
  

• (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; or
    

It doesn't state that every PART of every road must have single or double yellows just that every road in the CPZ must contain either marking. So even if he is trying to be clever and win on a technicality his argument is flawed. Whilst drafted poorly it does not back up his claim that Sunderland are acting unlawfully by having bus stops and crossings in a CPZ."

 

Neil's reply was:

 

That was not the argument before the adjudicator and an over-simplification of what was presented to the High Court.

 

I provided numerous examples at the appeal of non-compliant restrictions and areas of unrestricted highway which proved that the definition of a CPZ was not met. They included:

 

- over 400m of missing double yellow lines in Central Area (the council remarked this while the hearing was still live)

 

- unlawfully marked Disabled Bays in a number of locations (the council remarked these while the hearing was still live).

 

- unlawfully marked loading bays (the council remarked these while the hearing was still live)

 

- non-compliant Bus Stop Clearways (still non-compliant)

 

- Echelon Taxi Ranks (still non-compliant ... no diagram exists in TSRGD 2002)

 

- an un-marked pedestrian area

 

- non-compliant Pay and Display bays ... all eleven locations were incorrectly marked and the adjudicator allowed the appeal stating that the restriction was non-compliant. (They were corrected after the appeal).

 

The adjudicator dismissed all of these as 'trivialities' when it was argued that the Regulation 4 definition of a CPZ had not been met .... because the area contained non-prescribed markings and areas of unrestricted highway ... and therefore the dispensation from the requirement to erect repeater 639 timeplates fell. Therefore, the single yellow line was not signed in accordance with TSRGD as Direction 26 only permits the erection of CPZ entry plates to give effect to a CPZ.

 

The JR was to address the point that the adjudicator erred in law ... hence Herron v The Parking Adjudicator.

 

The 'Parking Adjudicator' remained neutral on the point and allowed counsel for Sunderland to argue the points which were never rebutted in the appeal.

 

(Bear in mind that the first time I was allowed to go to appeal, which only came after Sunderland had cancelled over 100 PCNs Sunderland turned up with Stephen Sauvain QC at a cost to the public purse of £thousands)

 

Counsel for Sunderland and the Judge conveniently avoided all of the above and went down the route of 'would a zig zag invalidate the CPZ?' which was not what was put to the adjudicator.

 

Therefore, the question is "Does Sunderland have a CPZ given the fact that every road WAS NOT marked with single yellow lines, double yellow lines or parking spaces?"

 

The DfT was also aware of major non-compliance .... here are a few examples obtained under Freedom of Information Act

here and here

 

The Council itself produced its own damning report. An extract here shows that some two and a half years after DPE was granted (when they told the DfT that all TROs and signs were lawful) there were still massive failings ... most of which was in the area of the alleged CPZ.

 

Furthermore, the PCNs issued in other locations where the adjudicator refused the appeals, have since been successfully appealed in other instances ... bays were non-compliant or the TRO was defective ... all of which was evidenced before the adjudicator.

 

So, the question remains ... was the definition of a CPZ met? If not, what would be the effect of PCNs issued on single yellow lines?

 

If G&M is going to pose a scenario or question then it follows that he should answer a question in return, he won't answer and probably can't answer without agreeing with Neil Herron, irrespective of Bean's decision.

Edited June 6, 2010 by johno1066

[green_and_mean]

G&M does have a point though.

 

As it stands, in law, Neil lost his case. The judge appears to have used a well known and widely used form of statutory interpretation, and threw the case out.

 

Until Neil wins an appeal, from a purely legal perspective he is incorrect in his argument - whether or not you agree or disagree with it.

 

At least someone has a grasp on reality!

[johno1066]

Clearly your idea of what is Reality G&M, is the same as that of the other 'Borgs' that plague and infest this Country. Your failure to reply to Neil says much about your Character sunshine.

[letshelp]

Clearly your idea of what is Reality G&M, is the same as that of the other 'Borgs' that plague and infest this Country. Your failure to reply to Neil says much about your Character sunshine.

How much longer are you going to be dragging this out for?

I think by now both G&M and Neil have pretty much accepted each others position, by going on and getting involved you are not only threadjacking but becoming boring now, for everyones sake give it a rest and let us move on.

regards

[green_and_mean]

Clearly your idea of what is Reality G&M, is the same as that of the other 'Borgs' that plague and infest this Country. Your failure to reply to Neil says much about your Character sunshine.

 

Oh well such is life, I'm sure I will survive without being on your Xmas card list!

[johno1066]

How much longer are you going to be dragging this out for?

I think by now both G&M and Neil have pretty much accepted each others position, by going on and getting involved you are not only threadjacking but becoming boring now, for everyones sake give it a rest and let us move on.

regards

 

 

Who are you? Go away and mind your own business! Neil Doesn't think anything of the sort, he's still awaiting an answer.

Edited June 6, 2010 by johno1066

[johno1066]

Oh well such is life, I'm sure I will survive without being on your Xmas card list!

 

 

Yeah, you mind how you go and that Council computer of yours.

[letshelp]

Who are you? Go away and mind your own business! Neil Doesn't think anything of the sort, he's still awaiting an answer.

You clearly haven't noticed this is a PUBLIC forum that anybody can subscribe to. You a like a small child in a school yard trying to provoke a fight between two other children, running backwards and forwards between them, telling tales, why don't you grow up?

[green_and_mean]

Who are you? Go away and mind your own business! Neil Doesn't think anything of the sort, he's still awaiting an answer.

 

Maybe he should have splashed out on a computer with the £200 you gave him then he could speak for himself or are you some sort of ventriloquist dummy? I'm flattered that you both await my reply but I can assure you I have far less authority than the high court.

I think you are so confused you forget its a Sunday and not even my Council can afford to pay me double time on my grade in these difficult times so I am not on a Council computer.

[johno1066]

You clearly haven't noticed this is a PUBLIC forum that anybody can subscribe to. You a like a small child in a school yard trying to provoke a fight between two other children, running backwards and forwards between them, telling tales, why don't you grow up?

 

So despite not knowing anything about the argument, the history or the people involved, you thought you'd be the big I-am and make it better by getting involved? the stupidity of man never fails to amaze me.

[johno1066]

Maybe he should have splashed out on a computer with the £200 you gave him then he could speak for himself or are you some sort of ventriloquist dummy? I'm flattered that you both await my reply but I can assure you I have far less authority than the high court.

I think you are so confused you forget its a Sunday and not even my Council can afford to pay me double time on my grade in these difficult times so I am not on a Council computer.

 

 

He's already asked you twice, I know it's a Sunday, but I refer to your previous posts which have in the last few days, been outside office hours. Don't bother deleting that cache, it can be recovered, mind how you go

[letshelp]

So despite not knowing anything about the argument, the history or the people involved, you thought you'd be the big I-am and make it better by getting involved? the stupidity of man never fails to amaze me.

How do you know I don't know anything about the argument?

If you want to know what stupidity is like look in any mirror you will see it staring right back at you.