.... Pat Garrett ...Is it the Wild West out there? :lol:
It is worth noting there are approximately 900 outstanding review cases which are affected by this decision.One other and I were there as observers. To put it mildly, Mr Teper was not impressed. Also Pat Garrett mentioned it was in the interests of all London authorities.
Mr Garrett helpfully stated at the hearing that a review should be allowed to proceed because it would be in the public interest for TFL to collect the money from those penalties, and that if TFL could not collect the money it would have to look at other ways of raising revenue.
So much for only enforcing for traffic management purposes...
But is a pedestrian crossing part of a red route? It's been held that it interrupts a bus lane, see Neville Stanley v London Borough of Lambeth (2170474513, 1 June 2017) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1k-uHqbYs7iRPYC_Q0TWhL9cJm6DZ2iFJ).1) I wonder if any bus drivers have been prosecuted for overtaking on the left?
Arguably a pedestrian crossing is similarly incompatible with a red route restriction and its provisions must trump the TMO, so I'd argue it cannot be part of the red route at all.But you're also not allowed to stop on a pedestrian crossing or its zig-zags. What you're charged with would be different, but unlike Mr Stanley you'd not be not guilty of an offence.
[edit]Modified because how I described Mr. Garrett in the original post got changed by a mod to "****", which made it look like I'd called him something far worse than what I actually did, and thus made me look bad[/edit]
If they were doing so, these appeals to the tribunal would surely fail, and thus they wouldn't be 'denied' the associated revenue.
I'd argue it is equally (or even more) in the public interest to make sure that TfL are themselves following the law and relevant procedures when enforcing.Couldn't agree more, but this Mr. Garrett's fatuous suggestion that the review should be allowed because TfL need the money doesn't mean that the money isn't needed and isn't being put to good use.
very much in the public interest for the costs of any law enforcement processes to be defrayed as much as possible by making the law-breakers payI'd argue it is equally (or even more) in the public interest to make sure that TfL are themselves following the law and relevant procedures when enforcing.
When you read about judges, you seem to always see the words "the learned judge" Hm... I don't think all judges are as learned as we would like to believe.The problem with any sort of appellate process is that highly specialised jurisdictions are subject to the supervisory authority of judges who might never have looked at an area of law before. The judge asked counsel for assistance on this odd "procedural impropriety" concept that was all over the panel decision as the judge was not sure what the adjudicators were on about, needless to say Mr Korner was unable to provide any assistance.
Good question. I would rephrase it: I wonder how much faith they have in their staff? My statement above is specific to the top end of the system. And, it was indeed "unfortunate" that a certain person was not granted the right to speak in the TFL Review case. In the other case, I wonder whether the judge had even read all the paperwork since a clear error occurred. It is simply not good enough to order an appellant/claimant to pay the wrong body!Last time I ran the numbers, I'd won 91.36% of all cases in the sample period I looked at. Taking this morning as an example, I've won 6 cases and one has been adjourned to give the council an opportunity to respond. I wonder how much faith local authorities have in the justice system?I've just heard that TfL have won the judicial review, the interested parties have until Thursday to ask for permission to appeal.Personally, I have no faith in the justice system.
Last time I ran the numbers, I'd won 91.36% of all cases in the sample period I looked at. Taking this morning as an example, I've won 6 cases and one has been adjourned to give the council an opportunity to respond. I wonder how much faith local authorities have in the justice system?I've just heard that TfL have won the judicial review, the interested parties have until Thursday to ask for permission to appeal.Personally, I have no faith in the justice system.
I've just heard that TfL have won the judicial review, the interested parties have until Thursday to ask for permission to appeal.Personally, I have no faith in the justice system. In this case below*, the guy went to the Court of Appeal and Lord Justice Simon ordered him to pay the Traffic Penalty Tribunal! And refused to amend. The High Court Judge ordered him to pay the Council! Sadly, his application to the European Court was received a day late! :(
But the principle is the same, the waiting provisions of para 3 of the Schedule covers stopping (Mr Chan has told me he agrees with that).
My question related to 'designated parking bays' and the issues, albeit separate from CCTV, that were raised by PMB.
As far as I can see, this adjudication decision relates to OGL and waiting/stopping, not designated parking places under s.45 RTRA.
3(2)(b), as per Christopher Phipps v NEPP - Essex County Council (IF00014-2211, 17 February 2023) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1w5IDGdNrhpEmwMCKuu5xWvKmDiial3se), upheld on review in Christopher Phipps v NEPP - Essex County Council (IF00014-2211, 24 March 2023) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1AV1NlcBxcEBvYFAzh4lMxYUm_JnwVfCQ).
If not a designated parking place, then which part of para. 3 to Part 2 of Schedule 7 applies?
We used to argue regularly that the sign if not facing traffic fell outwith LATOR but that has fallen away as not relevant I think it can now be re bornI'm not sure that ever fell away, we've been winning cases throughout on the basis of inadequate signage, including one that TfL didn't challenge because the signage was indisputably inadequate, and a double red line where the sign said no stopping 7 am to 7 pm (the appellant stopped after 7 pm).
From the report, The Standard's reporter found Karen's analogy "bizarre", but not the judge's foreshadowing.QuoteIn a bizarre moment, she compared the Red Route regulations to a restaurant menu offering "cheese board and spotted dick and custard", and asked: "Would a patron reasonably expect to be served cheese board and custard?"
Mr Justice Swift replied, to laughter in Court One: "You know what? These days, you just can't tell."
In a bizarre moment, she compared the Red Route regulations to a restaurant menu offering "cheese board and spotted dick and custard", and asked: "Would a patron reasonably expect to be served cheese board and custard?"
Mr Justice Swift replied, to laughter in Court One: "You know what? These days, you just can't tell."
These sites carry reports. The first is regularly updated.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/transport-for-london-tfl-high-court-parking-tickets-cctv-b1116055.html#comments-area
Similar to Standard but less adverts
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/tfl-could-refund-500-000-065411720.html
No mention of barrister or case for LT - sounds as if CPS had to make their own case?
Case concluded 4p.m,. judgement reserved - expected in a few weeks.
Order of The Honourable Mr Justice Martin Spencer (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1Yk-O-BqaGYVNjhfoGK81psLkWF_MbUbR).I trust that the learned Mr Chan's statement was excellent? ;D
Just because I haven't seen this point mentioned in this thread... a CEO can (and should) check for a blue badge and dashboard clock and record useful evidence about them if they are present, fixed CCTV can't reliably do this and it's unreasonable to expect blue badge holders to have to appeal a constant stream of tickets for lawful behaviour.If you read both the panel decision and Mr Chan's review, you'll see that this has been specifically considered.
If this point isn't considered at the judicial review then I expect disability discrimination might provide a second avenue to banning the use of CCTV for parking enforcement.
Just because I haven't seen this point mentioned in this thread... a CEO can (and should) check for a blue badge and dashboard clock and record useful evidence about them if they are present, fixed CCTV can't reliably do this and it's unreasonable to expect blue badge holders to have to appeal a constant stream of tickets for lawful behaviour.
If this point isn't considered at the judicial review then I expect disability discrimination might provide a second avenue to banning the use of CCTV for parking enforcement.
My understanding is that they are, if there were any authorities against that I'm sure TFL's KC would have pointed it out at the review hearing.But what cannot be dismissed at a stroke is that they clearly give an indication of rationale, which is my point.Are they an admissible aid to construction?
I'm sure that I have seen them referred to in HC cases but would need to go hunting to find where and how.But what cannot be dismissed at a stroke is that they clearly give an indication of rationale, which is my point.Are they an admissible aid to construction?
But what cannot be dismissed at a stroke is that they clearly give an indication of rationale, which is my point.Are they an admissible aid to construction?
Except that as Mr Chan puts it, a purposive approach supports the tribunal's interpretation.
I meant the Tribunal's solicitors.A judicial tribunal would not engage solicitors, they have a panel of over 20 experienced judicial officers holders so they should hardly need external legal advice. At most they might engage a barrister to represent them, but that would be exceptionally rare.
So, when they lose (TFL), how is this problem going to be fixed? New legislation unlike the bus lane saga?Assuming the court finds with LT and that camera enforcement is unlawful, either TFL go back to parliament asking for a revision to the 2022 regs or they employ loads of CEOs and stop relying on Met Police or cameras
So, when they lose (TFL), how is this problem going to be fixed? New legislation unlike the bus lane saga?
Suspect that TfL/GLA will have in house solicitors. No doubt they will follow Ealing's example and brief top KCs, though Mr.Byass who appeared at the panel hearing does not appear to be a K.C.