An Outline of Neil Herron's Case

Court dates now set for 18th & 19th May 2010

In 2005 Neil Herron began collecting Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) in Sunderland with a view to exposing the Council’s flawed decriminalised parking enforcement regime.

He found massive defects in the lines, signs, Traffic Order and paperwork compliance, but he could not get any cases before the National Parking Adjudication Service (NPAS) because Sunderland kept cancelling his PCNs (now over 120).

As the evidence of substantial flaws became more apparent he contacted the Department for Transport who simply stated that they had no power to investigate, despite the fact that Sunderland had been granted Decriminalised powers only after applying to the DfT claiming that all their lines, signs, Traffic Regulation Orders and paperwork were correct.

Eventually Sunderland allowed 26 appeals to proceed, but remarkably they instructed Stephen Sauvain QC to handle their case in the 'informal tribunal.'

The decision went against Herron on 24 of the 26 cases and the adjudicator had ruled that he had not provided any evidence of areas where the restrictions were not lawfully marked. The two cases he won were because the restriction … 'was not lawfully marked.'

A further hearing for 55 cases involved legal arguments over signs and Traffic Orders as well as evidential flaws (photographs of PCNs on the windscreen 5 minutes BEFORE the time of issue). This went ahead on 12th September 2007 with Sunderland retaining Jonathan Easton from King's Chambers to handle their case. Stephen Sauvain QC was unavailable.

Herron had asked for the adjudicator, Mr. Keenan, to be recused well in advance of the hearing because he would effectively be asked to rule that he made a mistake at the previous hearing. This was refused.

A report on the legality of the Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) and related signing matters had been commissioned from Expert Witness Richard Bentley and substantial evidence had been obtained from the DfT and the Government Office for the North East regarding the illegality of Sunderland's regime.

The hearing was adjourned until 20th November 2007 and Sunderland were allowed 21 days to rebut the Bentley Report. They did not, and stated that they accepted its contents. Sunderland then used the report to correct the flaws identified by both Herron and Richard Bentley in between the hearings. The hearing reconvened on 20th November 2007 and further evidence was submitted with no rebuttal from Sunderland.

The Adjudicator's decision was 45 pages long and handed down on 26th February 2008 and marked up as a 'Judgment.' The adjudicator found in favour of the council in 54 of the 55 Penalty Charge Notices. A Request for a Review of the Adjudicators decision was submitted in the interests of justice because of the number of errors in fact and in law. This was rejected on 30th June 2008.

The only avenue open now was to take matters to the High Court.

The principle argument which is now before the High Court relates to the validity of CPZs. A summary of the definition of a CPZ and the implications of non-compliance can be viewed here and this includes evidence from the House of Commons Transport Committee and the Dft.

Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs)

CPZs were originally intended for small areas to reduce street sign clutter. However, they have been rolled out by councils to wider and wider areas to save money on signing. The resulting confusion leads to many PCNs being issued.

A CPZ is strictly defined by Regulation 4 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 as an area in which every street is controlled with either single yellow or double yellow lines except where parking places have been provided. If the definition is not met then the dispensation from the requirement to erect time plates with the single yellow lines no longer applies.

Therefore, if there are areas of unrestricted highway, non-compliant bays or restrictions other than single yellows, double yellows or parking places such as red routes, taxi ranks, bus stop clearways etc. then the definition of a CPZ is not met. If the definition is not met then single yellow lines are not correctly signed and therefore PCNs issued in such circumstances are unenforceable.

For more information and background to the case visit Neil's Blog.