Transport Committee

Dr John Patterson
Clerk of the Committee
Transport Committee
House of Commons
Westminster
London
SW1

mail to: tramscom@parliament.uk

Submission by Neil Herron on behalf of the Metric Martyrs Defence Fund
30th September 2005

Transport Committee
Current effectiveness of Parking Provision & Enforcement Policy

I wish to make the following submission to the Committee but I also wish to make a formal request that further, more substantive evidence, either written or oral, may be submitted after the date October 3rd 2005.

The reason it will be necessary to do so as there are allegations of malfeasance, misfeasance and possibly more serious offences involving decriminalized parking enforcement in a number of local authority areas currently in the process of being uncovered. There are also serious concerns and possible legal action involving the National Parking Adjudication Service. The outcome of both of these will have fundamental and serious implications for the future of decriminalized parking enforcement across the country.

There is currently a serious internal and external investigation being conducted into the legitimacy of Sunderland City Council’s D.P.E. There has already been an admission by the City Council that over 20,000 pounds has been collected unlawfully from motorists with more to follow;.
1.Accrington Council have also been forced to repay monies to motorists who have received unlawful PCN's

2.More evidence is being uncovered in other local authorities arising from incorrect Traffic Regulation Orders or misinterpreting or misunderstanding the legislative requirements with regard to DPE.

The implications of legal action being taken in areas across the country must be fundamental to the Transport Committee’s understanding of the serious concerns that are being raised with regard to DPE and the perception by the motorist of DPE´s legitimacy.

Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 vs Road Traffic Act 1991

The first series of problems arises because of the inequitous situation across the country whereby parking restrictions are enforced under two different pieces of legislation. The motorist does not generally become aware of this inequity until he has received a ticket...ie. after having committed an ‘offence’ (under the 1984 RTRA ) or a ‘contravention’ (under the 1991 RTA).
Surely this is fundamental principle. The consequences of this do not appear to have been addressed.

For laws to be accepted and understood by society at large, they need to be seen as clear, fair and just. However, with the case of parking offences, it is the case that access to justice for an alleged offender is potentially totally different in two neighbouring local authority areas. This is purely dependent on which parking enforcement regime a Local Authority is operating.
One enforcement regime, operating under the RTRA 1984, results in an appeal process which allows access to a magistrates court. The other, operating under the RTA 1991, does not allow access to a court of law but to an 'independent' tribunal.

Under the 1984 Act it is the driver who is responsible for the offence.
Under the 1991 Act it is the registered keeper who is responsible for the contravention. Hardly fair, just, transparent or acceptable and not apparent to the motorist until he receives a ticket.
We have actual cases ready to cite as examples of injustice.

Therefore, surely the best legislative provision would be to have one national parking law to ensure fairness, transparency and acceptance rather than the situation at present, where under the RTA 1984 the system has the necessary common law checks and balances yet the system operating under the 1991 RTA simply perceived by the public as a ‘revenue raiser’ with Local Authority’s simply incentivised by profit and no access to justice for the motorist.

A simple question to ask is… “As the number of PCN’s has exponentially increased have the towns and cities become clearer of traffic?”
If the DPE enforcement system works then the number of contraventions should decrease as funded alternatives increase.
This is not the case and there appears to be no evidence to support this, but the revenue raised from a more draconian enforcement regime seems to be the main driver, not the necessity to create a fairer parking enforcement regime for local businesses, customers and residents.

Legitimacy of DPE / Bill of Rights 1689

For the avoidance of any doubt in the following matter it is very useful that the Houses of Parliament Transport Committee Press Notice ( 04 / 2005 – 06, 9 August 2005 ) refers to ‘parking fines’.
There can be no argument. If the Committee, the public, the Bulk Traffic Enforcement Centre at Northampton County Court and the legislators consider parking penalty charges as fines then the attempted justifications put forward by local authorities that it is not a fine but an ‘excess charge’ or other play on words, it is clear to all that what we are dealing with here is a fine.

Therefore, I wish for the Committee therefore to now consider and address the legality of DPE itself in light of the following...

As no doubt members will be aware, on 21 July 1993, the Speaker of The House of Commons issued a reminder to the courts. Betty Boothroyd said: ‘There has of course been no amendment to The Bill of Rights…the house is entitled to expect that The Bill of Rights will be fully respected by all those appearing before the courts.’

There is a provision in the Bill of Rights Act 1689 which states;
“ That all grants and promises of fines and forfeitures of a particular person before conviction are illegal and void.”

This states that a conviction is necessary before a fine or forfeit can be imposed. As you will be aware, the Bill of Rights is a "constitutional statue" and may not be repealed impliedly. This was stated in the the case Thoburn vs City of Sunderland, the decision commonly referred to as the "Metric Martyrs" Judgment. This was handed down in the Divisional Court (18th February 2002) by Lord Justice Laws and Mr Justice Crane (I will paraphrase, but have included a copy of the judgment's relevant sections 62 and 63):

62."We should recognise a hierarchy of Acts of Parliament: as it were 'ordinary' statutes and 'constitutional statutes.' The special status of constitutional statutes follows the special status of constitutional rights. Examples are the ... Bill of Rights 1689 ...

63. Ordinary statutes may be impliedly repealed. Constitutional statutes may not…"

This was upheld by Lords Bingham, Scott and Steyn in an appeal which went to the House of Lords on Monday, July 15 2002.

I am not aware that the Road Traffic Act 1991 makes express reference to repealing the Bill of Rights Act 1689 therefore there can be no fine except for one that is imposed by a court.

It is therefore important that the Transport Committee considers the implications of any attempt to override the provisions of the Bill of Rights and the constitutional considerations of doing so. It will then be necessary to understand the constitutional considerations of ignoring the Declaration of Rights.

The Sunderland City Council Investigation

A specific case which has ‘implications’ for all other DPE’s across the country. The submission or application to the Department for Transport for approval by the Secretary of State to create the Special Parking Area to allow Sunderland City Council to create a DPE simply gave ‘reassurances’ that all necessary signs, lines and Traffic Regulation Orders would be in place when the DPE was to commence. If it is proved not to be the case and that the Secretary of State was misled into granting an SPA creating a DPE then there are very serious implications indeed as over 60,000 PCNs will have been issued unlawfully.

The investigation is ongoing but there has already been an admission to unlawfully receiving over £20,000 from PCN’s issued under non-existant TRO’s and the allegation is that none of the TRO’s are ‘in force’ thereby meaning every PCN issued has been done so unlawfully.
There appears to have been no checks by either the DfT or the Secretary of State regarding the substance of claims made by any applicant to have valid and accurate signage and TROs.

Evidence is coming to light of many other similar situations by other Local Authorities. It is in light of this that I stress the need for further, more detailed submissions to the Committee involving citing specific cases in detail.

NPAS (National Parking Adjudication Service)

Again, there is an ongoing investigation in relation to this body. It involves complaints to the Department of Constitutional Affairs and the Law Society.

NPAS is representing itself as a ‘ Court of Law ‘ on its website yet when questioned in writing it confirms it is not a court of law, but a tribunal.

However, the main concern is that NPAS is not ‘independent’ as it is scrutinised by a Joint Committee (comprising appointed members from participating LA’s ) and is funded solely by 60p per PCN issued.
There is no right of appeal except on a point of law.

If NPAS is not a court of Law within the meaning of Article 234 EC, therefore its decision will be in contravention of Article 6 of The European Convention on Human Rights

In order to determine whether a body making a reference is a court or tribunal of a Member State for the purposes of Article 234 EC, the Court takes account of a number of factors, such as whether the body is established by law, whether it is permanent, whether its jurisdiction is compulsory, whether its procedure is inter partes, whether it applies rules of law and whether it is independent (see, in particular, Case C-54/96 Dorsch Consult [1997] ECR I-4961, paragraph 23, and the case-law there cited, and Case C-516/99 Schmid [2002] ECR I-4573, paragraph 34).

Under the Court’s case-law, an arbitration tribunal is not a ‘court or tribunal of a Member State’ within the meaning of Article 234 EC where the parties are under no obligation, in law or in fact, to refer their disputes to arbitration and the public authorities of the Member State concerned are not involved in the decision to opt for arbitration nor required to intervene of their own accord in the proceedings before the arbitrator (Case 102/81 ‘Nordsee’ Deutsche Hochseefischerei [1982] ECR 1095, paragraphs 10 to 12, and Case C-126/97 Eco Swiss [1999] ECR I-3055, paragraph 34).

Therefore because of the rights of the individual are being removed in the name of parking ‘efficiency’ then the resistance to DPE will grow and as more and more motorists realise the illegitimacy of the whole operation and begin to challenge and clog the system then it will collapse under its own bureaucratic burden.

Neil Herron
Campaign Director
Metric Martyrs Defence Fund
12 Frederick Street
Sunderland
SR1 1NA





Notes:
1.Covered in the Sunderland Echo and Sunday Telegraph
2. Reported in the Lancashire Evening Telegraph

Zonal waiting restriction signing

Zonal waiting restriction signing - Executive summary
See website here

Although this report was commissioned by the Department, the findings and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department for Transport.

Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) are mainly used in urban areas and relate only to waiting and loading restrictions. They have been designed to remove the need for time plates at yellow lines, where the restrictions apply at the times indicated on the boundary signs.

CPZs are frequently introduced by local authorities to address specific parking problems in a particular community. Research undertaken as part of this study, has shown that the most common reason for implementing a CPZ stems from the need to address residential parking difficulties, particularly where residents complain they can not park close to their house due to shopper or commuter parking. CPZs can also, however, be used to allow more free-flowing traffic through a town centre, particularly where parking causes problems for emergency services. CPZs reduce clutter on the streets, both in terms of signing and parked cars, and are therefore often supported by residents and environmentalists who campaign for less intrusive traffic signing.

The purpose of this research study has been to establish existing problems with regard to zonal waiting restriction signing and how these might be addressed. The study was therefore divided into three stages. These stages were as follows:

Stage1: Undertake a literature review, using the research team's current network of and a sample of twenty local authorities with different types of restricted zone identify the issues to be investigated in Stage 2.

Stage 2: Using a sample of eight local authority areas, undertake in-depth interviews with a number of key stakeholders in/for each area including a sample of motorists parking on-street within the regulated area.

Stage 3: Develop recommendations which can be carried forward for further investigation and possibly field trials.

The literature review (which can be found in Appendix A) investigates motorists' understanding of regulatory signing and lining, focusing specifically on Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) and Restricted Zones (RZs). The aims were to identify issues that should be considered when questioning motorists about their understanding of the signs and to designing new signs in order to maximise the level of understanding of the meaning of those signs. The review covered the following areas: current regulations, past and existing schemes, public reaction to various aspects of signing, the environmental impact of lining and signing in environmentally sensitive areas and the effectiveness of different types of signing.

The scheme review was designed to find out about the issues surrounding the implementation of Controlled Parking Zones and Restricted Zones. Twenty local authorities were contacted and the sample included a range of different sizes of local authority from the larger urban conurbation to those with tourist attractions, rural sites, villages and small towns. The review included an operational and policy development perspective to determine the extent to which public consultation was carried out by various parties prior to a scheme being introduced.
A survey of motorists was undertaken by TRL to investigate public understanding and perception of the signs and lines relating to Controlled Parking Zones and Restricted Zones. TRL undertook the design of the study and analysis, whilst commissioning a survey company to undertake the fieldwork and data processing. The research entailed conducting questionnaire surveys in Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs) and Restricted Zones (RZs) in eight towns and cities in England. A number of issues have been explored within the survey, including motorists' interpretation of the signs and lines in their immediate vicinity, and their understanding of signs presented to them on show cards. The output from the research is used to identify the issues surrounding zone boundary signing, local signing and comprehensibility of existing signing.
Detailed stakeholder consultation exercises have been carried out within the eight selected UK towns/cities, and nationally with parking adjudicators, motoring organisations and trader representations to identify problems associated with Controlled Parking Zones and Restricted Zones. The focus was to:

Identify environmental issues related to the display of regulatory signing;

Identify the difficulties experienced by motorists to understand the signs and lines;

Identify the difficulties in planning issues;

Identify the effect of the economic viability on the town/city centre.

In Stage 3 of this study, TRL were contracted to design new signs that would attempt to solve some of the ongoing issues with CPZs and RZs. It was agreed with the customer that these signs should deal with only CPZs because the issues with Restricted Zones needed to be dealt with separately. 6 signs were therefore designed in an attempt to remedy some of the confusion experienced by motorists. The signs were designed on the basis that signing parking restrictions on a zonal basis remains.

Having proposed six new signs to replace some of the existing signing that is used within Controlled Parking Zones and Restricted Zones, the signs must be validated and approved for further development for them to proceed.

To date, the design process has been informed by a literature review, public consultation, in-house expertise and has incorporated discussion with the Client. It is considered that this collaborative approach has already provided some validation of the sign proposals, however further theoretical and practical testing should now be undertaken.

It is suggested that validation and assessment of the sign changes could consist of two processes:

consultative validation; followed by
field trials.

Each of these techniques is considered to offer a different perspective on the quality of the signs. Experience indicates that the undertaking of the 'consultative validation' is likely to require fewer resources than the 'field trials'. It is therefore proposed that the 'consultative validation' phase precedes the 'field trials'.

A number of potential areas of concern relating to the current operation of CPZs and RZs have been identified during this research study. They relate to motorists' comprehension of the concept of CPZs and RZs and how they should be used, and local authority officers' comprehension of the concept of CPZs and RZs and how they should be used to regulate parking. This report sets out some of the issues arising from the study with a discussion on how they may be resolved to ensure that the level of compliance with parking regulations increases, the number of signs that motorists experience difficulty in interpreting decreases and the ability of local authorities to comply with the regulations in the Traffic Signs Manual increases.
Based on the findings of this research study, TRL recommend that Controlled Parking Zones should not relate specifically to waiting and loading restrictions, and that motorists should not be expected to remember the restrictions while they drive around the zone. Controlled Parking Zones should relate to a regime encompassing all parking regulations in a particular area (therefore zones such as Pay & Display Zones should remain). A new entry sign should be designed and include 2 parts: the top section displaying information referring to permitted parking on a white background (possibly with the P symbol) and the bottom section describing the waiting and loading restrictions on a yellow background with the No Waiting roundel. The important point being that yellow line repeater plates should be used along all stretches of single yellow lines so that motorists are not expected to remember the times displayed on the entry sign.

In order to increase the effectiveness of Controlled Parking Zones and Restricted Zones, it is also recommended that an educational programme be devised, aimed in particular at the local authority officers who implement these zones.

Although this report was commissioned by the Department, the findings and recommendations are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the views of the Department for Transport.

Further letter to Andrew Barfoot NPAS

23rd September, 2005.

Mr Andrew Barfoot,
Tribunal Manager,
National Parking
Adjudication Service,
Level 6,
Barlow House,
Minshull Street,
MANCHESTER.
M1 3DZ.

By e-mail only:-
npas@parking-appeals.co.uk


Dear Mr Barfoot,

Re: Case Number WC49 – de Crittenden –v- Worcester City Council
Penalty Charge Notice WC00072143 – 26th June, 2003 –

I refer to our telephone conversation this morning and to an Adjudicator’s Direction, issued by NPAS and dated 20th September, 2005.

The relevant Direction provides that a Mr R A Prickett, Parking Adjudicator, has resolved to deny me the right to employ recording equipment at a hearing before a tribunal over which he is to preside – and Mr Prickett has provided several legal references in support of his decision.

Having now considered this Direction in detail, I must ask for an immediate and formal review of the Direction, for the following reasons:-

1. The Service Charter of NPAS fails to make clear that the right to record all proceedings is reserved to NPAS &/or its Adjudicators only – and it is reasonable for me to proceed on the basis of the precise words that are used in the Charter, and not on the basis of assertions that are now being offered, for whatever reason.

2. I have been denied all opportunity to offer formal representation at a Directions Hearing and Worcester City Council has been similarly denied all opportunity to make any case for itself at a Directions Hearing.

3. The Direction itself serves to offer some vague suggestion that I could be subjected to Contempt of Court proceedings if I should proceed to any assertion of my right to record the tribunal proceedings – this present ‘vague suggestion’ being offered to me at a date that is very much later than the date on which NPAS itself formally conceded that NPAS tribunals are not Courts of Law and Adjudicators are not judges.

4. Having now inspected the various regulations to which Mr Prickett has made reference, I can find no legal authority whatsoever for him to refuse the use of recording facilities, by me; by persons appointed to act for me &/or by any other appellant &/or their own appointed persons.

The ‘authority’ that is quoted within the Direction issued by Mr Prickett, and relevant to this last point, simply states that:-

‘The regulations, The Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicator’s)(England and Wales) Regulations 1999 do not authorize an Appellant to record the proceedings’ –

- to which ‘authority’ I must now respond by pointing out that these same regulations do not serve to deny to any appellant the right to record the proceedings.

I have made you aware of the fact that NPAS &/or the Adjudicators employed by NPAS are not ‘targets’ in the activity that I am undertaking in support of my own determination to defeat the ‘rogue’ legislation that has been and is being attempted by unworthy people (who neither understand our Constitution nor hold any true allegiance to it).

I have previously made Miss Curtin entirely aware of the fact that my purpose in seeking to record the process of your tribunal is to provide evidence to the Administrative Court that is entirely clear in its content and not altered in any way.


In view of the Direction that has now been issued by Mr Prickett (which direction now serves to deny to the Administrative Court a full access to the original material that is to be introduced and ‘argued’ at the tribunal itself), I must ask for a detailed review of this Direction, as indicated.

At a more personal level, I wish to record with you that the direction itself appears to offer nothing more than an entirely personal decision which has been entered into the proceedings without the benefit of proper and entirely normal debate on the issues involved for both myself and the City of Worcester - and without the benefit of any recognizable legal authority for such conduct.

No doubt you will be kind enough to confirm that A Full and Formal Review of Mr Prickett’s Direction will now be undertaken by NPAS, and I must ask you to advise me of the precise details of the process that will be undertaken for all purposes of achieving such a Review.

Before closing, I should mention that I have now spoken to the City of Worcester, and made the point that the NPAS tribunal will expect the City to offer the case for the RTA 1991, in contention with my own case that the Declaration of Rights is unalterable by Parliament and that the provisions of the Bill of Rights are being breached at this time.

I am assured that I can expect a telephone call from the Legal Department of Worcester, within a short time, for all purposes of establishing a good working relationship and liaison for all purposes of the hearing by the NPAS tribunal.

Finally, I should record with you that I am entirely aware of the fact that Mr Prickett will not be at all pleased to hear that I have required a Full and Formal Review of his Direction: It occurs to me that Mr Prickett may not now be the best person to preside over the impartial tribunal that is to hear my case?

Perhaps you will advise your own feelings in the matter of a suitably independent adjudicator – and further provide me with details of the rationale that you employ in any decision that you may reach?

The issues that are to be presented to the NPAS tribunal are Constitutional Issues that have a clear and present relevance to the several Authorities of the Crown; the Government & the Parliament of this Country – and you will understand that I have no wish to see ‘personal’ feelings become involved in the matter.

To my mind, there should be nothing at all that can serve to distract attention away from the supreme importance of the principal issues and I must ask for your help in making sure that the principal issues are proper addressed, without bias on the part of anyone at all, including the NPAS Adjudicator appointed to the tribunal.

Thank you for your time on the telephone this morning and for your attention to this present letter: I look forward to receipt of your detailed response at some early time.

Yours faithfully,


Robin de Crittenden.

Letter to Andrew Barfoot NPAS

23rd September, 2005.

Mr Andrew Barfoot,
Tribunal Manager,
National Parking
Adjudication Service,
Level 6, By e-mail only:-
Barlow House, npas@parking-appeals.gov.uk
Minshull Street,
MANCHESTER.
M1 3DZ.

By e-mail only:-
npas@parking-appeals.gov.uk


Dear Mr Barfoot,

Re: Case Number WC49 – de Crittenden –v- Worcester City Council
Penalty Charge Notice WC00072143 – 26th June, 2003 –

Thank you for your letter of the 20th September, 2005, received yesterday.

NPAS Circulars.

I am concerned to receive your advice that the offending circular (05/05 of August, 2005) has been widely distributed to selected parties other than the DPE Councils: Your advice has made it even more apparent that NPAS has published suspect material to the prejudice of the general public and in violation of the independence that is claimed by NPAS.

This latest advice to me confirms that NPAS has subjected both Councils and Advisory-Organizations to an unsubstantiated & unwarranted suggestion that the High Court has both considered and upheld the Constitutional Status of the RTA 1991 (when measured against the provisions of the Declaration & Bill of Rights). You will understand that I must continue in my efforts to establish the purposes of NPAS in publishing material that is suspect & that remains unconfirmed; not least because of the fact that you are refusing to provide detailed information, in response to a perfectly normal request for such information.

This matter is very serious indeed, because NPAS has provided an official seal of approval to suspect material, by the widespread issue of the offending circular 05/05: Your response to the questions raised has been evasive and you will recognize that I must now ask you to provide an honest explanation for the NPAS bias that has been demonstrated.

To illustrate my own assertion that NPAS has been guilty of demonstrating a bias that is clearly against the public interest, I need do no more than point out to you that the very low index number allocated to the offensive circular now serves to reveal that NPAS has quite obviously failed to issue circulars that would have provided an equal amount of publicity to those tribunal-decisions that were resolved in favour of appellants, by NPAS Adjudicators -

– where it might be considered reasonable and ‘balanced’ for both DPE Councils and Appellant-advisory Services to measure the content of (and reasons for) such favourable decisions against the substance of intended claims; intended appeals &/or appeals-in-process.

Quite frankly, Circular 05/05 and your own letter to me have both served to confirm that NPAS has wandered very far indeed from its intended and oft-proclaimed purpose of providing an impartial service to the public.

That being said, and having now requested a further & honest explanation from you, I must move on to the further content of your letter, which serves to raise yet another point that is relevant to the claimed independence/impartiality of NPAS and its tribunal service.

Decision in Case No. SF 272.

As given previously, the content of this Appeal decision serves to suggest that the High Court has already decided that the present establishment of de-criminalised parking regimes (with NPAS Tribunals) does not breach the provisions of the Constitution.

Your letter provides that you are now refusing to provide me with any/all detailed information that would serve to give substance, if any, to the vague claims (&/or general inferences) of the Adjudicator in the Sefton Appeal -

- and at this point, I must remind you that in spite of the very obvious lack of legal information offered by the Adjudicator in the Sefton Case, you have seen fit to distribute his claims/inferences and final decision on a widespread basis, for whatever reasons of your own.

In view of the defensive attitude of NPAS that is now being demonstrated by your letter, I am forced to the conclusion that NPAS has become entirely aware of the fact that the High Court has rendered no decision of any kind that can be truly related to the Constitutional Status of the RTA 1991. In addition, I must suggest to you that by the wilful denial of the detailed information that I have formally requested - &/or by a present failure to concede that the remarks of the NPAS Adjudicator were not based on good and recorded law & precedent - you are now taking it upon yourself to act in a manner that is prejudicial to the impartial hearing of my own case.

I am determined that the provisions of our Constitution will not be undermined &/or side-stepped by unworthy politicians &/or by their foolish allies, and it is clear to me that by your refusal to provide me with the requested information (&/or some alternative admission of inaccuracy), you are confirming that NPAS is now aware that the Adjudicator’s decision in the Sefton Case is lacking in legal substance and accuracy, in spite of the fact that NPAS has published this case to the world at large.

In an attempt to clarify this untidy and sordid situation, and in order to prevent all/any reliance upon false statements made/inferred by any party &/or Adjudicator in any previous case, I must now ask you to appear and to give evidence yourself before the tribunal that is to consider my own appeal.

At the tribunal hearing, I will ask you to confirm whether or not you performed any check of any kind on the substance and accuracy of the legal opinion offered by the Sefton Adjudicator BEFORE you instructed/allowed the issue and distribution of Circular No 05/05 of August, 2005, to my prejudice –

AND I will ask you to confirm why it is that you have found yourself unable to provide me with full and detailed information regarding all/any Case-Law that would serve to give substance, if any, to the opinion offered by the Adjudicator in the Sefton Case (which opinion was thereafter distributed by you, or on your instructions, to the prejudice of an impartial hearing in my own case).

In formulating your response to my request that you now appear to give answers to my questions at my own hearing, I must ask you to consider that NPAS has laid claim to the promotion and maintenance of tribunals that have the status of Courts - and to further consider that HM Courts of Law regularly publish the entirety of legal argument presented to them (including full references to Case Law on both sides of any dispute), once decisions have been handed-down by these same Courts.

Under the circumstances, I think it reasonable for me to require that NPAS provide me with nothing less than the service provided by HM Courts of Law, and for you to appear as a witness in person to explain your decision that the services of NPAS will not match the services offered by HM Courts. At the bottom line, NPAS has taken it upon itself to publish and to circularize material that is suspect in its content and prejudicial to my case - and has refused to provide me with access to such material as would serve to reveal &/or to regularize a position that has an important effect upon me.

NPAS conduct has made it essential for me to provide against any adjudicator in my own case being tempted to rely upon the seemingly-unsupported opinion of the Sefton Adjudicator.

The NPAS seal of approval that has been attached to the results of the Sefton Case now renders it necessary for the adjudicator in my own case to hear the evidence that will serve to confirm whether or not the High Court has been allowed to consider the important Constitutional issues that have been raised (by the now-widespread challenge to the Constitutional Status of the RTA 1991).

The record will show that my own claim to adjudication is based upon my assertion that the RTA 1991 represents nothing more than an unlawful attempt at the enactment of law, and I regret to note that NPAS has elected to take the field against me in spite of the requirement that NPAS be impartial.

Please be kind enough to confirm your willingness to provide the entirety of the Case-Law information that I have previously requested &/or to offer full apology for the fact that the Sefton Adjudicator was mistaken in his claims (with a public retraction of the position taken by NPAS hitherto) &/or to attend as a witness at the tribunal appointed to hear my own case (and for the purpose of providing answer to the specified questions.

I look forward to receipt of the response that is now required from you.

Attendance of Worcester City Council.

I have confirmed with the Worcester City Council that a representative of this Council will attend at the tribunal and will present the Council’s evidence in person. It has been agreed on an informal basis that the Council will be represented by someone who is suitably qualified in both knowledge and law, and I have emphasized to a City representative that it is not my intention to cause difficulties of any kind for any representative of the City of Worcester.

Media Presence & Recording Facilities.

Your Coordinator, Miss Curtin, is fully aware of my requirement that the appointed Adjudicator grants permission for all such facilities prior to any appointment of the date; time and place for the requested tribunal.

Miss Curtin’s advice on these several points is now awaited and I will respond in an appropriate manner when I have received this advice: In the meantime, I have already advised Miss Curtin that all/any attempt to restrict the required facilities in any way will be subjected to appropriate challenge.

I feel sure of your agreement that NPAS &/or its Adjudicators can have no wish to hide anything at all from the general public and/or from the Administrative Court – and for my part, I am happy to provide my assurances that the hearing will be conducted with dignity and that my legal arguments are clear; brief and in the public interest.

I now await your required response.

Yours faithfully,


Robin de Crittenden.

Department for Transport...Parking

Procedures to create parking places
Local authorities must go through a process called 'Procedure Regulations' before creating parking or traffic controls. The process usually involves:
consultation with local bodies and representatives;
advertising the proposal;
considering objections from the public;
deciding whether or not to make minor changes to the proposal;
holding an inquiry if necessary;
making the order;
advertising the order; and
implementing the order.
The Secretary of State follows similar procedures in relation to major national roads.

Controlled Parking Zones
A local authority can create Controlled Parking Zones (CPZs). A CPZ is an area in which there are parking restrictions indicated by means of yellow lines except where parking places are provided. Parking places are identified by use of white bays. Parking may be restricted to residents at certain times of the day or restricted to a certain time.
A CPZ is often used where there is a large demand for parking spaces from residents, shoppers or commuters. CPZs must have signs at their entrances and exits to tell drivers about the restrictions.
Two traffic orders may be needed to introduce a CPZ:
waiting and loading restrictions; and
parking places.
Single yellow lines in a CPZ that do not have their own specified restriction times operate at the same time as the CPZ.

Consolidation and minor orders 21.—(1) In this regulation—
(a) "consolidation order" means an order which—
(i) revokes provisions of one or more existing orders;
(ii) re-enacts those provisions without any change of substance, other than changes having one or more of the effects described in Part I of Schedule 4, and
(iii) has no other effect;

The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulation

Read it here

How parking is managed (DFT)

read it here

Decriminalised Parking Enforcement...Guidance by the Secretary Of State

Read it here

Other Areas

Lancashire

Tribunals

Bailiffs

Tribunal Service

Controlled Parking Zones

As with most traffic management policies, CPZs are initiated through the adoption of Traffic Regulation Orders (TROs). The TRO issued by the local authority defines the terms and conditions of the scheme.
Read it here

Salford's CPZ

Salford

Parking Places And Controlled Parking Zone
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Salford City Council propose to make an Order under Sections 1, 2, 4 and Part IV of Schedule 9 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
When the Order comes into effect The City of Salford (Parking Places and Controlled Parking Zone) Order 2002 will be amended in so far as it relates to the Schedule below.
A copy of the proposed Order together with a plan of the area and a statement of the Council's reasons for proposing to make the Order may be examined at the Legal Section, Salford Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton, M27 5DA, between 8.30 a.m. and 4.30 p.m. Mondays to Fridays inclusive.
If you wish to object to the proposed Order you should send the grounds of your objection in writing to the Head of Law and Administration, Civic Centre, Chorley Road, Swinton, M27 5DA by the 6th day of March 2003 (quoting reference H/JLW/RTO/231).

Hackney CPZ

Creating a CPZ...Hackney