The Gloves are off - Traffic Signs

Forum Signs and Lines... Traffic Signs The Gloves are off

08/07/2008 15:31

	johno1066
7 posts

The Gloves are off

Dear All,

Despite an unambiguous and clear admission by the Council (the bays are not prescribed)(and subsequently of fraud as a result), the Adjudictator, Richard Charles has dismissed my two appeals. Please feel free to read through what is 3 pages of waffle, I am only interesting in the admission by the Council, an admission that has not been included by Charles. Needless to say, that pending a review, a Judicial Review is highly likely.

For your viewing pleasure.

HI 05145C

Page 1 of 4

Adjudicator’s Decision

Wayne Pendle

and

Buckinghamshire County Council

Penalty Charge Notices HI40053433, HI40054414

Penalty Charge £60 in each case

HI40053433 Appeal Dismissed.

HI40054414 Appeal Dismissed.

Reasons

PCN HI40053433 was issued on 01 February 2008 at 10:26 to vehicle X719 ELH in

Gordon Road, High Wycombe for being parked without clearly displaying a valid pay

and display ticket or voucher.

PCN HI40054414 was issued on 14 February 2008 at 12:27 to vehicle X719 ELH in

Priory Avenue, High Wycombe for being parked after the expiry of paid for time.

Mr Pendle has appealed in relation to each PCN on the ground that the alleged

contravention did not occur and asked for a personal hearing. The hearing took place

before me in High Wycombe on 27 June 2008. Mr Pendle was assisted by Mr Herron.

The Council was represented by Mr Chorlton, Mr Summers and Mrs Goodbody.

In his representations to the Council in respect of each PCN Mr Pendle stated the

relevant bay was unlawful as the bay marking were a “1032/1028 hybrid”. He stated

that the NCP did not have a lawful contract and the parking attendants were not in full

uniform. Mr Pendle suggested in his representations that the Council were fraudsters.

Mr Pendle did not set out the detail of his appeal other than to state that the Council

knew that the bays were unlawful He further stated that he would explain his case at

the hearing.

At the start of the hearing commenced Mr Pendle produced a folder of documents and

various photographs consisting of 47 pages. Mr Herron informed me that the late

submission of this material was intended to ensure that a hearing took place as many

Councils decide not to contest an appeal on receipt of detailed arguments. Mr Herron

suggested that this was unsatisfactory as this prevented a decision that may have

wider implications.

I considered whether an adjournment was appropriate as neither I nor the Council had

been given an opportunity to read and consider the additional material produced by Mr

Pendle. While I take the view that the late submission of material and authorities can

be unhelpful to the Tribunal and potentially place the Council at a disadvantage, I

continued to hear the case with the agreement of the parties on the basis that the

Case Number

Case Number
HI 05145C
Page 2 of 4

principal issue to be determined was the adequacy of the bay markings in both Gordon

Road and Priory Avenue. I reserved my decision in order properly to consider the

additional material submitted by Mr Pendle.

Mr Pendle accepted that the vehicle was parked in Gordon Road and Priory Avenue on

the respective occasions when the PCN were issued to it, although he told me that he

was not using the vehicle on 14 February 2008.

The essence of Mr Pendle’s appeal is that the road markings of both bays did not

conform to a significant degree to the requirements of the relevant Regulations and that

as a consequence the PCN issued there must be unenforceable.`

For a parking enforcement authority successfully to enforce a penalty, it must show that

at the time of the alleged contravention the relevant prohibition, restriction or condition

upon which it relies was duly signed or marked. Not only must the traffic sign or

marking be present, it should comply with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General

Directions 2002 (the Regulations) which provide for every particular of permitted

markings, including the type, size, colour and dimensions. Regulation 3(1) of the 2002

Regulations provides that any traffic sign that was placed on or near a road before the

coming into force of the 2002 regulations shall be treated as prescribed by the 2002

regulations, notwithstanding any provision in the 2002 regulations to the contrary

subject to certain conditions.

Furthermore, the road markings must be sufficient to draw the attention of the

reasonable motorist to the parking restriction. It is for the Council to establish this on

the balance of probabilities.

It is unreasonable to expect a Council to maintain road markings in perfect condition at

all times. Lines become worn and faded and are sometimes broken by repairs to

public services. It is for the Council to maintain road markings in a condition sufficient

to draw the attention of the reasonable motorist to the parking restriction contained in

the relevant Traffic Regulation Order that applies there. It is a matter of degree and

each case depends on its own facts.

Mr Pendle told me that he had measured the bay markings in both locations. He

referred me to his sketch plan of Priory Road at page 16 and the photograph at page

14 of his additional material. He explained that the great majority of the gaps between

the broken white line running parallel to the kerb were 5 metres long or more. At one

end of the bay the length of the broken transverse line from the edge of the

carriageway was1700mm. Mr Pendle pointed out that the diagram 1028.4 of Schedule

6 to the 2002 Regulations requires a single broken transverse line at the end of this

type of bay to be between 1800 and 2700mm from the edge of the carriageway and

that the gaps between the parallel lines should be between 600 and 2400mm. These

distances are specifically referred to as being a minimum and a maximum distance.

The diagram at diagram 1032 of Schedule 6 to the Regulations shows what is

described as a parking bay with individual parking spaces. The diagram shows that the

ends of such a bay should be marked by double transverse broken lines stretching for

between 1800 to 2700mm from the edge of the carriageway and that the gaps of

between 4500 and 6000mm are permitted in the line parallel with the kerb.

The Council has produced a set of photographs of the bay in Priory Avenue dated 28

May 2008. One end of the bay is marked by a single transverse line. At the other end

Case Number

Case Number
HI 05145C
Page 3 of 4

there is a single broken transverse line and parallel to that a few inches away a faded

and indistinct broken white line can be seen. Although the extent of the bay is marked

by a visible broken white line running parallel to the carriageway, the gaps in the line

appear long.

Mr Pendle told me that although he has not prepared a detailed sketch of the bay in

Gordon Road, the gaps between the broken white line running parallel to the kerb there

in excess of 4 metres long. Photograph of the bay in Gordon Road are at page 12 of

Mr Pendle’s additional evidence and at page 34 of the Council’s evidence. The broken

white transverse lines are visible with a parallel indistinct broken white line running

alongside.

Mr Chorlton who is the Buckinghamshire County Council Parking manager (Strategy)

told me that in relation to both bays in question the spaces in the line running parallel to

the kerb were greater than permitted by the Regulations. The lines are faded and are

due to be replaced as part of a programme in due course. He suggested that in

Gordon Road a transverse broken white line at either end of the bay had been blacked

out at some stage in the past and that the blacking is rubbing off. This is revealing

parts of the old line. However, he suggested that notwithstanding this and the long

spaces in the worn parallel broken white line in both locations, the extent of the parking

bay in each location was clear to the motorist.

I have considered all the evidence submitted by both parties, both prior to and at the

hearing, and I have considered the authorities put forward by Mr Pendle. I consider

that the purpose of the 2002 Regulations is to provide consistency in the road signs

and markings used across the country to ensure that the motoring public can recognise

the various restrictions and prohibitions that apply in a particular location. I note that

Parliament has recognised the principle of legacy signs on or near a road that do not

conform to the 2002 Regulations. The markings in this case set out the limits of a

parking bay and are intended to be broken lines. In my view a gap in a double white

line in the middle of a road indicating that no overtaking is permitted is far more

fundamental an issue than the length of a space between broken lines in a parking bay.

Mr Pendle has not suggested that he was unable to work out the limits of the

respective bay in Gordon Road when he was using the vehicle and it appears from the

photographic evidence submitted by the Council that the vehicle was parked within the

bay markings on each occasion.

I have carefully studied the photographs of the bays. While the parallel broken line in

each location is worn and the gaps are longer than set out in the Regulations, I am

satisfied that that the extent of the bay is clear. I have reached a similar conclusion in

relation to the transverse lines in both locations. I do not accept Mr Pendle’s argument

that any departure from the 2002 Regulations renders unenforceable a PCN issued in

the location in question.

I have considered all evidence submitted by both parties. I have also seen the Email

from Mr Pendle dated 2

I dismiss the appeals. Mr Pendle is liable for the penalty charge of £60 in each case.
nd July 2008 and do not find of any assistance.
Case Number
HI 05145C

11/07/2008 12:25

	johno1066
7 posts

Re: The Gloves are off

Modified By johno1066 on 11/07/2008 07:26:39)

Letter to NPAs, sent 9th July 2008

Dear Miss C,

May I first state that the template letter covering covering the decision, is both highly misleading and prejudicial. The Tribunal, by insinuating finality to proceedings then informing the appellent how he must pay, implies that the appellent has no further rights to appeal. I am fortunate in knowing (unless this has now changed),that I can have a review of the decision and appeal to the Administrative Court. Please confirm in the first instance, that I do have further means of appeal and for clarity, list these means. I would comment that it has already been apprehended, that from the income revenue source of the Adjudicators, the opening remarks by Mr Charles at the hearing and the remarkably invidious decision, contrary to an open admission, that the agenda of this tribunal is fully open for any discerning person to see. I therefore consider an appeal for you to do a review, would have the same outcome as this decision and therefore, I add to it, the appeal to go before the Administrative Court. It would demonstrate integrity, openness and transparency, that you avoid making an internal review a long drawn out affair, because such a practise (that has gone on before), has its own connotations as you will see below in the remarks on the numbered paragraphs 6 & 7. As has already been mentioned, your omissions have their corresponding thoughts in "mens rea" and are recorded as acting contrary to a duty of fairness in the overiding objective.

Where it is for the owner of a vehicle to defend himself against an allegation of whether a contravention occured and where he might not have been the driver of the vehicle, the least an appellant can expect, is that any road markings are as prescribed by Statute. In light of the Council's own admission that the markings are not as prescribed, such is the perverseness of this decision, it can only lead me in forming a conjecture that the decision was made to protect the future revenues of TPT, which is directly influenced by the number of PCNs issued; irrespective of whether the Adjudicator himself is impartial, the institutional or structural impartiality of TPT is breached, as it's very existance is reliant directly on the Penalties in which the tribunal is tasked by the Joint Committee of Councils to decide upon.

Section 64 Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

In this Act "traffic sign" means any object or device (whether fixed or portable) for conveying, to traffic on roads or any specified class of traffic, warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions of any description—

specified by regulations made by the Ministers acting jointly, or

authorised by the Secretary of State, and any line or mark on a road for so conveying such warnings, information, requirements, restrictions or prohibitions.

Traffic signs shall be of the size, colour and type prescribed by regulations made as mentioned in subsection (1)(a) above except where the Secretary of State authorises the erection or retention of a sign of another character; and for the purposes of this subsection illumination, whether by lighting or by the use of reflectors or reflecting material, or the absence of such illumination, shall be part of the type or character of the sign.

The duty of a highway authority is clearly set out in section 65 of the Act:

Section 65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984

Subject to and in conformity with such general directions as may be given by the Ministers acting jointly, or such other directions as may be given by the Secretary of State, a highway authority may cause or permit traffic signs to be placed on or near any road in their area.

Regulation 11 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002.

Signs, markings and signals to be of the sizes, colours and types shown in diagrams.

(1) Subject to the provisions of these Regulations, a sign for conveying information or a warning, requirement, restriction, prohibition or speed limit of the description specified under a diagram in Schedules 1 to 7, Part II of Schedule 10 and Schedule 12 to traffic on roads shall be of the size, colour and type shown in the diagram.

From the government website, “Enforcing bays that are not prescribed means a council will be acting 'ultra vires' ie; beyond its co powers.” From this it follows that such enforcement is ILLEGAL. Perfectly simple, contrary to law.
1. The adjudicator was shown pictures of pothole markings that looked like parking bays, and mistook them as such.
The Adjudicator's ruling contains 3 pages of crafted persuasions in casuistry, with many overlayed fallacies of reasoning that shall be forthcoming in due course, disambiguated.
1. THE ONLY context of any importance or relevance.
Following my appeal hearing of 27^th last Friday, and the clear admission [ by the council - June 2008 ]

“I admit the bays are non prescribed bays” witnessed thereat by eleven people.
1. The council had conducted a full and thorough survey of all its bays, prior to the hearing.
The adjudicator's delayed decision WAS, “W. Wayne Pendle's appeal is dismissed.”
1. The admission by the council above was NOWHERE to be found, perhaps a small oversight?
That is all we need to know at present, except that:
The adjudicator was asked to let the appellant see the decision BEFORE it was ruled on, to allow him to comment and controvert, as a fundamental principle of law. The adjudicator IGNORED this request.
This and other matters were predicted in a written exchange.............. because a course of conduct with an agenda is not only foreseeable, but at all stages of the course, the correspondence between the agenda, its acts and omissions and the journey are in correspondence. Just like a route planner.
1. The adjudicator's comments concerning an email that was sent while making the decision, and delaying it, presumably to alter it, indicated that the course of conduct was foreseeable, and being examined closely for independence, were “Email from Mr. Pendle dated 2^nd July, and did not find of any assistance.”
2. Dare one add, a conjecture......'did not find of any assistance' “in altering the decision” made before the hearing by himself and directing mind(s).
The spirit of CPR 1.1-1.4 is that a tribunal or court, shall ensure the overriding objective of fairness,, not override the objective of fairness.
1. CPR 31.6 (b),(i) requires a party to disclose material that is adverse to their case, and the council has not as yet disclosed the results of their surveys.
2. CPR 16.5, states that where a party fails to deal with an allegation they are taken to admit that allegation.
3. Their will be allegations that the ruling is perverse, and shows bias and prejudice with utter precision. The adjudicators is invited to controvert this shortly in a prepared piece.
All will be shown in what is currently called “'''''fair and public hearings'''''”

A simple few comments at this stage.

I have considered all evidence submitted by both parties. I have also seen the Email

from Mr Pendle dated 2nd July 2008 and do not find of any assistance.

The email pointed at the mechanism for determination of design and purpose with utter precision, as to agenda driven judgments that seek goals. As such it was a caution to be circumspect to a high degree.

I have considered all evidence submitted by both parties.
1. Obviously the admission by the council is not considered as evidence, but something 'outside' evidence, -- INEPT. It was fundamental, and the mental purpose; 'mens rea' is now exposed, this adjudication is not merely contrary to independence, it is clearly biased to an extraordinary degree. (it lines up with the Leggatt report perfectly as an example of precisely what these tribunals are about.)
I have also seen the Email from Mr Pendle dated 2nd July 2008 and do not find of any assistance.
1. The stem verb 'to assist' is transitive, and requires an object to complete its meaning, namely; a purpose, end or agenda.
  - This is a common form of truncation, used to block 'intension' and hence strip attributes. Allow me to suggest a completion of the meaning, from the obvious context of the full bodied, brew assembled in 'cut and paste' persuasions from an exhausted library, now having 'spent their purse'; and combined with the stark omission of the admission by the council that has been spirited OUT of their words “all evidence ”.......... The bays are NOT prescribed... hence unlawful......... You should be able to notice, that the term ALL evidence, stands in contradiction with the admission by the Council, that is not to be found anywhere in your Decision. Charles cannot say that he has considered ALL the evidence, then omit from his decision, the most fundamental and crucial piece of evidence, that being the admission by the Council, itself. Mr Charles cannot surely, for one instant, think that all evidence, sounds utterly hollow without the incusion of the admission.

with the object --------- to find any pretext whatsoever to dismiss an appeal with floodgate potential, admissions, truth, and integrity by demonstrating unambiguously the adjudicator is 'acting' as such, but in fact functioning as a council barrister while, pursuing CPR 1.1-1.4 by overriding the 'overriding objective of fairness'.

E&OI

CC:

As per the above CC box

Page 1 of 1

Forum

Signs and Lines...

Traffic Signs

The Gloves are off