Free Traffic Legal Advice
General discussion => The Flame Pit => Topic started by: cp8759 on July 22, 2023, 01:41:24 am
-
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that if a public authority becomes aware that the imposition of a penalty
may be unlawful, it should seek to clarify the position before issuing more PCNs. Mr Korner does not
think that it is an issue because motorists can always challenge the PCNs and in not engaging on the
issues, it is TfL who lost out. I do not find this argument attractive. Many motorists would have paid and
not fought the issue. Those who do contest the PCNs lose their statutory discount and they may have to
pay 50% more. A public authority exercising a quasi-prosecutorial function should not put members of
the public in this position. It cannot wait until the benefit of engaging on the issue outweighs the benefit
of not taking action.
Serendipity re bus lane enforcement? To be used.
-
Which also raises the issue of whether, if a 'red route bay' is not considered part of a 'red route' and therefore not enforceable by camera then the contravention grounds of 'stopping where prohibited on a red route or clearway' must similarly be incorrect.
No, the restrictive definition is found in regulation 11, which only concerns the use of CCTV enforcement. The whole issue arises out of the fact that for the purposes of CCTV enforcement, there is an explicit, narrow definition of a red route which is narrower than the normal definition.
the legislation says that CCTV enforcement can only be used on DRLs and SRLs and only when the timeplate that is required to give effect is in place - which taken literally means that CCTV could never be used to enforce DRLs as there cannot be a timeplate, therefore the legislation cannot be read absolutely literally, and rather than being read with the necessarily implied "where appropriate" or somesuch, the legislation must be read only insofar as it supports them and otherwise disregarded.
I understand that this shows an utter lack of integrity which is not inconsistent with LA enforcement, or the legal profession for that matter. Or arguments that have won in other cases and other courts where the bench were determined to find a way to give effect to their biases. Beyond that, I struggle to recognise or understand any rational or credible argument on their behalf.
That's an extremely good summary. Assuming I have to deal with the JR pre-action protocol letter, I hope you don't mind if I borrow that?
The only comment I'd make is I'm not sure there is any lack of integrity on the part of the legal profession, I'm sure if Commercial Plant had forked out whatever it costs to instruct them, Mr Timothy Korner KC and Mr Andrew Byass would have made a compelling case for the appellants.
-
The dark side's argument appears to be-
the legislation says that CCTV enforcement can only be used on DRLs and SRLs and only when the timeplate that is required to give effect is in place - which taken literally means that CCTV could never be used to enforce DRLs as there cannot be a timeplate, therefore the legislation cannot be read absolutely literally, and rather than being read with the necessarily implied "where appropriate" or somesuch, the legislation must be read only insofar as it supports them and otherwise disregarded.
I understand that this shows an utter lack of integrity which is not inconsistent with LA enforcement, or the legal profession for that matter. Or arguments that have won in other cases and other courts where the bench were determined to find a way to give effect to their biases. Beyond that, I struggle to recognise or understand any rational or credible argument on their behalf.
-
Yes.
I understand the view put forward by the away team. But I don't agree with it
-
It doesn't seem absurd to me that a contravention in a bay on a red route cannot be enforced via CCTV.
Intentional double-negative?
-
It doesn't seem absurd to me that a contravention in a bay on a red route cannot be enforced via CCTV.
That is the situation everywhere else and that interpretation gives consistency across all of London (and indeed the country).
A worry would be that if the position changes that becomes one less hurdle towards enforcing other contraventions by CCTV.
-
How to get these robbers to cease enforcement?
-
Which also raises the issue of whether, if a 'red route bay' is not considered part of a 'red route' and therefore not enforceable by camera then the contravention grounds of 'stopping where prohibited on a red route or clearway' must similarly be incorrect.
-
As a follow up to the red route panel case (https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Red%20Route%20Panel%20Decision.pdf), Mr Chan has rejected the authority's application for review. Some interesting comments about how TFL has conducted itself.
Commercial Plant Services Ltd and others v Transport for London (2230060716, 21 July 2023) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MuUHGsMkemuPt6esWEcWyTHmCzG47ssT/view?usp=sharing)