A case arguement by a council here, is totally  fallacious, and irrelevant. There are pictures that show the absurdity of their arguments, the full topic is here..

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk/fallacies/tony/IrrelevantThesis.html

First part is here.

The case arguments below, the context of statutes CPR and case law that governs this and similar cases.

1. Here is the council's synopsis.

2. Summary of Appellant's Submissions

   1. The Appellant has stated that the bays are unlawful. ( legality is RELEVANT to arguments )

3. Enforcement Authority's Submissions

   1. The Council has considered the points raised by the Appellant in his representations and subsequent correspondence. It is our view that the minor imperfections to which the Appellant refers are not to the detriment of any motorist. It is clear that the restrictions are, and clearly remain, parking bays. The Council therefore remains satisfied that the PCNs were issued legally and correctly, and that the Penalty Charges are due. ( views on clarity of markings are IRRELEVANT to arguments. )

Section 3.above is a fallacy with various names,

'Ignorant thesis', 'Ignorant refutation', 'Ignoratio elenchi' Red Herring, Smoke Screen, Wild Goose Chase

These fallacies, focus on an irrelevant topic presented in order to divert attention from the original issue. The basic idea is to “win” an argument by leading attention away from the argument and to another topic. This sort of “reasoning” has the following form:

1. Topic A is under discussion.

2. Topic B is introduced under the guise of being relevant to topic A (when topic B is actually not relevant to topic A).

3. Topic A is abandoned.

This sort of “reasoning” is fallacious because merely changing the topic of discussion hardly counts as an argument against a claim.

0. Initial comments in abstract form with case law on relevance:

1. 2.a is a generalised synopsis, that deliberately blocks the specifics on legality, the council failed to address, and clearly shows avoidance. This is impermissible, and shall have to be addressed first, BEFORE moving on to any irrelevant thesis and other fallacies that remain, at the end of the topic. IF the adjudicator is flexible on this and strict on hearing their argument before they rebut cogently the Appellant's, then they breach the spirit of CPR 16.5 and the adjudicator shall be scrutinised for 'not furthering the overriding objective' in the spirit of CPR 1.1-1.4.

2. 3.a is in its entirety, an irrelevant thesis, essentially argued on the clarity of the bays, wilfully ignoring their legality, and extenuating major design faults into minor imperfections, this argument is a false representation and misleading within the meaning of the Fraud act 2006, 1-4. The appellant shall not leave the hearing and permit a waste of time in traversing the clarity of the bays, since IF the bays are illegal, it follows that the irrelevance of clarity is a total waste of time, at best to reach a conclusion that from clearly painted lines some form of legality follows where it does NOT. That is why the legality must be determined first. Notwithstanding this, and just for the nonce, the council's fallacious argument forms of which there are at least 3-4 will be disambiguated, showing very confused and muddled reasoning, that in the Appellant's view is quite wilful, since he cannot believe the arguments have been constructed with wilful ignorance; that is a contradiction in terms.

3. 3.a also contains a blurred fallacy of 'begging the question', as well as both an anti grammatical and anti-logical construction that show signs of anacoluthia, (broken thoughts reflected in broken or inaccurate grammatical forms) that has to be wilful while perhaps unconscious. This is entirely deceptive, and has been seen for what it is with utter precision.

4. The fallacies of “irrelevant thesis”, “ignorant refutation”, “ignoratio elenchi” are different names of the same form, and, 'begging the question', circular reasoning, or “petitio principii', are another type in the third sentence of 3.a. that also has further ambiguity by an anti-grammatical construction that reveals an anti-logical construction, that is minor, and both inconsequential since the avoidance of the dispute issue is unequivocally obvious. To the question “Where did you address the issues of legality put up by the Appellant?”, there is no controverting response, and only a quick passing comment in the generalised first line 1. a.

5. To repeat, the structure and efficacy of 'irrelevant themes' and 'begging questions' has its efficacy in avoiding at all costs a proper rebuttal of the Appellant's argument on legality. If the adjudicator permits the council to not argue against the legality he will show complicity in breaching flexible CPR 1.1-1.4, and permit a waste of valuable judicial time on a theme that PRESUMES the bays are legal WITHOUT making a proper determination of that as a FACT. Equally an argument that this has to be determined by a higher court, is viewed as a fallacy of 'ad baculum' an 'argument to force', in stepping up costs, where the facts are as easily determined by an ordinary man as a High Court Justice, There are no mysteries to be examined here whatsoever. Where bays require TWO lines instead of ONE, the determination doesn't even require a tape measure, merely a glimpse of the photographs.

6. To end here and commence the next, one is entitled to know why the hearing is on the council's premises, and who is therefor paying for it, does it come from the joint committee of councils or TPT. One would expect an 'impartial', 'independent' hearing to be held on neutral grounds. This shall be an additional focus, for subsequent public availability within the meaning of the EU HR Pr5 Ar6 of course.

7. Equally noted as adverse comment to the council is their willful holding back the details of their own review of signs and lines, and this should have been ordered under the spirit of CPR 31.6 (b),(i). Its absence seriously prejudices this case. Although the bays are so obviously non complaint, the Appellant is content to dispose of their need if the adjudicator disposes of the legality issue as determined unlawful, non complaint and unenforceable.

8. Finally the tribunal has a duty to include relevant and exclude irrelevant material. If this is reversed it will show design and purpose quite unequivocally. Excluding the relevance of illegality and including the irrelevance of clarity will be unambiguously a disastrous decision revealing bias, elective sampling, and hasty generalization. It is the observance of this duty that is the matter of initial focus since the last visit showed these codes breached with a decision on 'view, extent and clarity' that was clearly synthesised.

9. To emphasise the council may not be expected to maintain lines and signs in “perfect condition” at all times is also an irrelevance, the signs MUST be COMPLIANT, and while minor imperfections may be tolerated, design faults that make it illegal are not. If substantial compliance is an argument offered, then that goes two ways, namely that if the Appellant has paid for 60 minutes and parked 65-68 minutes, he also parked in substantial compliance. Argue on substantial compliance and give the flexibility to motorists also, it's your decision, if substantial is the order, that goes both ways, and the decision maker will have to admit it, or show strictness for the motorist and flexibility for the council, namely bias, prejudice and partiality.

   1. These facts are well known to Councils and adjudicators alike, and it is typical of tribunals nowadays for an adjudicator to 'slalom' through a critical path of CPR, and where aversion, floodgate potential, and revenue are prominent, there is a very clear overriding of the 'overriding objective of fairness' in CPR 1-1.4, and where appetite for a 'win' there is a clear furtherance of flexibility for the objective that looks like fairness for the powerful body whose conduct breaches other statutes wholesale in the objective of revenue, ahead of justice and fairness. This is the face and form of 'dark' conduct, design and purpose that does not escape notice whatsoever. Instinct in the public shows awareness and that is reflected in the voting patterns that confirm it.

   2. Duty to exclude all irrelevant material.
      R v Director General of Telecommunications, ex parte Cellcom Ltd (1999) Justice Lightman "The Court may interfere if the Director has taken into account an irrelevant consideration or has failed to take into account a relevant consideration."
      R (on the application of Alconbury Developments Ltd) v Secretary of State for the Environment and the Regions (2001) Lord Slynn "It has long been established that if the Secretary of State ............. takes into account matters irrelevant to his decision or refuses or fails to take into account matters relevant to his decision .......... The Court may set his decision aside".

   3. Duty to consider all relevant material. (there are more.)
      R v Secretary of State for the Home Department ex parte Nelson (1994) "Not satisfied that the material before the Secretary of State was properly considered before the decision was taken"
      R v Parliamentary Commissioner for Administration, ex parte Balchin (1998) "The relevant test .......... as well as a consideration has been omitted which, had account been taken of it, might have caused the a decision maker to reach a different conclusion"
      Recommendation Number R (80)2 of the Committee of Ministers (adopted 11 March(1980) In describing this basic principle "an administrative authority when exercising a discretionary power .......... observes objectivity and impartiality, taking into account any of the factors relevant to the particular case".

Since the council's arguments are deemed totally irrelevant, the issue has nothing to do with 'views on clarity', their disambiguation is at the end, since it is considered a waste of judicial time. Nevertheless the Appellant HAS addressed it, UNLIKE the council, in their NOT addressing the Appellant's. This shows principles and respect towards procedure.

Others are here at

http://www.logiclaw.co.uk