Free Traffic Legal Advice
General discussion => News / Press Articles => Topic started by: Grant Urismo on August 28, 2023, 02:00:34 pm
-
TfL has been approached for further comment. :-*
-
I'm pretty sure the signs are authorised and TFL, or rather their contractors at Capita, simply didn't include the relevant evidence.
-
Sounds very much like this case (multiple PCNs), decided Oct 2021
9210516529...........
The conclusion in that case very much says that either TFL dropped the ball or the signs were not authorised, especially as the case was adjourned to give TFL chance to submit evidence on that very point.
"25. The central issue in this appeal is whether the Low Emission Zone signs are authorised and provide adequate information as to the Low Emission Zone Scheme. I accept the Appellant’s submissions that if the signs are not authorised and do not provide adequate information of the charging scheme then no charge or penalty is payable. Despite having adjourned this appeal to allow TfL the opportunity to submit evidence upon these points, TfL has produced no evidence as to either the Low Emission Zone signs being compliant with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 nor the Traffic Signs Manual or that the signs are otherwise authorised as Non-Standard Traffic Signs or as to the adequacy of the information contained on the signs.
26. In these circumstances, I cannot be satisfied that the Low Emission Zone signs are authorised and lawful. TfL have therefore failed to establish that the contraventions occurred and that the PCNs were lawfully issued. I therefore allow the appeal and direct that the PCNs be cancelled."
-
Sounds very much like this case (multiple PCNs), decided Oct 2021
9210516529
No mention of Nick Freeman
UNless this is a further case?
Could simply be that Mr Noel Willcox decided to share his win with the Mail, who asked Nick Freeman for an opinion?
-
I expect Nick Freeman might be touting for business at the judicial review stage, which I would very much like to see. The secretary of state may well have signed a piece of paper that says a sign with the five* words "Ultra low emission ULEZ zone" conveys the existence of a charge and directs motorists to the TFL website, but that doesn't make it true.
Given the camera authorisation fiasco, I wouldn't be too surprised if TfL had actually forgotten to get the LEZ ones authorised.
*Or four, if you take into account the fact that ULEZ isn't actually a word**
** Unless you're Macedonian, in which case it is a word which translates to 'Get in' or Finnish in which case it translates to 'Get out'... which doesn't help much.
-
9210516529
It can't go to review because new evidence can only be introduced if it was not available and its existence could not have been reasonably foreseen prior to the original hearing, i.e. it has to be new / unexpected evidence. Otherwise in every case where the authority loses for failure to produce the TMO, they could win on review.
It's exceptionally rare to get a review based on new and not foreseeable evidence, I've only relied on that ground once.
-
"TfL insisted the signs were deemed lawful by the Department of Transport more than a decade ago and said it is investigating why certain evidence was not submitted."
Investigation found that someone mucked up and the person has now been promoted...sorry retrained....
Can't seem to find the case in LT registers...anyone??
I suspect that adjudicator was faced with an appeal citing the signage and evidence that didn't address but relied on "template" evidence.
Which will no doubt be remedied if it goes to review
-
The ULEZ signs are most definitely authorised, see https://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-auths/?search=ulez
The LEZ signs are pre-2011 so they're not online, but I'm sure an authorisation for those signs exists as well.
Of the fact that Nick Freeman didn't pick up any of this, well make of it what you will.
-
It seems that the argument I've made on Pepipoo in the past that a sign saying something like "Ultra low emission ULEZ zone" does not sufficiently convey the details of the restriction to motorists has been used successfully in court by well known lawyer Nick "Mr Loophole" Freeman:
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12452271/A-blow-ULEZ-expansion-plan-Scaffolder-wins-legal-ruling-signs-ultra-low-emission-zones-sister-scheme-not-lawful.html
The Daily Mail article is short on legal detail (and long on Khan-bashing), and this is actually a case about existing LEZ signage not ULEZ expansion signage despite the headline, but it does say "TfL insisted the signs were deemed lawful by the Department of Transport more than a decade ago and said it is investigating why certain evidence was not submitted." which hints to me that perhaps the Secretary of State did not actually sign off on the signs at all!
I expect this isn't the last we'll hear of Elevation Access Ltd v TfL.