Alexander, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator & Anor

A prohibition on vehicles turning to face the opposite direction may be adequately conveyed by the prescribed “No U-turn” sign, even where the prohibited manoeuvre is completed as a 3-point turn involving reversing. The sign must be interpreted in its traffic-management context and not with excessive pictorial literalism.

Whether signage gives adequate information under regulation 18 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 is principally a factual question for the traffic adjudicator. Judicial review is confined to ordinary public-law grounds, including legal error, irrationality, procedural unfairness and failure to consider relevant matters.

The claimant sought judicial review of decisions by two parking adjudicators upholding a penalty charge notice issued for performing a prohibited turn on Gliddon Road. The challenge concerned an order made under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, together with “No U-turn” signs placed near the junction.

The claimant argued that the order prohibited only a continuous forward U-turn, not a 3-point turn, and that the signs were positioned so as not to provide adequate information. He also alleged procedural unfairness and bad faith. The central questions were whether sign 614 adequately conveyed the prohibition and whether the adjudicators had made any reviewable public-law error.

1. The claim was dismissed. The adjudicators’ decisions disclosed no error of law, irrationality, procedural unfairness or failure to consider relevant matters.
2. Article 3 of the Order prohibited a vehicle from turning so as to face in the opposite direction. Paragraph 4 of Schedule 1 to the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 drew no distinction between a turn completed in one forward movement and one completed by stopping and reversing.
3. Sign 614 was an appropriate and adequate sign for the prohibition. Its meaning had to be assessed in the context of traffic regulation. The absence of a separate sign distinguishing a paradigmatic U-turn from a 3-point turn, and the irrational consequences of allowing the prohibition to be avoided by adding a reversing movement, strongly supported that conclusion.
4. The proposed alternative sign was inappropriate because it would prohibit both right and left turns and was ordinarily used to indicate the only route that could lawfully be taken through a junction.
5. Regulation 18 of the 1996 Regulations required adequate information to be conveyed to road users. The adequacy of the signs’ position was a factual assessment for the adjudicator. Mr Chan had addressed the correct legal question, and Mr Harman was entitled to conclude that no reviewable point of law arose.
6. Decisions of other traffic adjudicators had no precedential force. They were relevant only insofar as they might demonstrate that the adjudicators in the present case had erred in law or reached an irrational conclusion. The number of penalty charge notices and internal Council emails did not establish inadequate signage or bad faith.

This was a first-instance judicial review claim in the Administrative Court. Permission to apply was granted on 5 July 2013 by Mr Michael Fordham QC, sitting as a deputy High Court judge. The claim challenged the decisions of the parking adjudicators dated 15 October 2012 and 13 December 2012.