Herron & Anor v The Parking Adjudicator

A controlled parking zone is not invalidated by every technical imperfection within it. Regulation 4 requires the roads in the zone, apart from parking bays, to be marked with the prescribed waiting or loading restrictions, subject to alternative parking prohibitions such as pedestrian-crossing zig-zags. A defect is immaterial where it is sufficiently remote from the motorist’s contravention that it could not have caused error or confusion. Penal provisions are construed strictly, so genuine ambiguity benefits the motorist, but strict construction does not require a literal interpretation producing an absurd result.

The claimants sought judicial review of decisions dismissing appeals against penalty charge notices issued for parking on single yellow lines in Sunderland’s controlled parking zone. Permission was granted only on the statutory interpretation issue. The central question was whether Regulation 4 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 required every part of every road in the zone to carry a prescribed marking, so that any defect elsewhere invalidated the whole zone and rendered the restrictions unenforceable.

1. The application was dismissed.
2. Regulation 4 was construed as requiring every part of every road in a controlled parking zone, other than a parking bay, to be marked with a single or double yellow line, including the relevant loading restrictions where applicable. That requirement is subject to an alternative parking prohibition, such as the zig-zag markings required near a pedestrian crossing.
3. The court accepted that a provision authorising penalty charges must be construed strictly. Where the language contains a genuine ambiguity, the motorist receives the benefit of the doubt. Strict construction does not require a literal reading which produces an absurd result. The presence of a pedestrian crossing could not sensibly have been intended to make an entire controlled parking zone ineffective.
4. Non-compliance is immaterial where it is too far from the location of the particular contravention to have led the motorist into error. Defects in other parts of the zone, including pedestrian-crossing markings or defective parking-bay delineation, did not affect the enforceability of restrictions at the clearly marked locations where the claimants had parked.
5. The adjudicator’s finding that the features relied on were trivialities which could not mislead a driver was a finding of fact with which the court could not interfere and which the court independently considered correct. The claim was therefore dismissed.

The judgment describes the underlying adjudication and review decisions:

• Traffic Penalty Tribunal adjudication: Mr Keenan dismissed the appeals, save for one penalty charge notice which the council was directed to cancel, on 26 February 2008.
• Review: Ms Kennedy directed on 30 June 2008 that Mr Keenan’s decision should stand.
• High Court (Administrative Court): permission for judicial review was granted only on the Regulation 4 and Direction 25 issue. The application was dismissed.