An Outline of the Case
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 legal arguments are:
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 more PCNs being issued. The vast majority of CPZs across the country are unlawful.
Signs and Lines
Must be in strict accordance with the law otherwise they cannot be enforced. Many local authorities have illegal signs, and the majority of restrictions in London are illegal. The problem is so bad that London Councils (on behalf of the 33 London Boroughs) is currently asking the DfT for blanket Special Authorisation for ALL non-compliant parking bays.
Independence and Impartiality
The adjudicators are appointed by the councils and paid for by the councils via their Joint Committee which is their legal personality. The case will show that it can be clearly seen that there is no division between the councils, the adjudication service and the funding.