Show Posts
1
The Flame Pit / Re: ULEZ signage challenge
« on: October 03, 2025, 07:36:08 pm »
I’ve explained this to him:
On the material you’ve sent me, what’s publicly available, and my own knowledge, my view is as follows:
*1. Who does the authorising (and what “special authorisation” means).*
You’re correct that a sign must either appear in the TSRGD or be specially authorised. But the authorisation is the Secretary of State’s, issued under s.64–65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, often on application from the authority. It is not a “TfL special authorisation”; it is a freestanding authorisation issued by the Secretary of State under s.64-65 RTRA 1984. The ULEZ signs were specifically authorised in 2018 (GT50/139/0171), with further authorisations in 2019–2020 and again in 2022 (GT50/139/0183), plus associated 2023 approvals for VMS.

*2. “At all times” / hours panel - mandatory or optional?*
Your Facebook post asserts that the DfT authorisation ‘requires operating hours’ and, for a 24/7 scheme, mandates ‘AT ALL TIMES’. That’s not what the authorisations say. The 2018 authorisation expressly provides that ‘the reference to the times of operation may be varied or omitted’ for the entry signs (A, B, D, E, F). That is what we call ‘dispositive’ - hours text is optional. The 2022 authorisation again ties the lawful variants to the TfL drawings and notes (e.g. Sign A on GT50/139/0183-1), which include the ability to vary the bottom panel text or omit it entirely.
*3. Your reliance on the Traffic Signs Manual (TSM).*
The TSM is purely guidance, not law. The DfT’s own page describes it as advice on use of TSRGD-prescribed signs; it doesn’t trump, qualify, or condition a s.64/s.65 authorisation. Where the Secretary of State has authorised a non-standard sign (with its own notes and variants), those authorisation terms then govern.
*4. “2002 Regulations were revoked so LEZ signs became unlawful (2016–2023 gap).”*
Yes, the 2007 LEZ authorisation _did_ refer to provisions in the 2002 TSRGD but the authorisation itself was made under s.64/65 RTRA 1984 and contains its own ‘survival clause’: it remains effective ‘until such day as may be appointed by one month’s notice’ from the Secretary of State. There’s no term in that authorisation making its validity contingent upon the 2002 TSRGD remaining on the statute book. They could have quoted from the Bible or Alice in Wonderland if they so wished. As long as the text is imported or referenced, it assumes its own legal force by virtue of then being a term in the attendant authorisation. I hope that makes sense now. In any event, DfT re-authorised the later LEZ/ULEZ signage suite in 2022, which independently cures any alleged lacuna.
*5. “Davies v Heatley” and strict conformity.*
Davies (1971) is not the governing approach in modern civil enforcement. The Court of Appeal in Herron v Parking Adjudicator confirmed the test is substantial compliance, not absolute perfection. It also only referred to a specific set of facts. Where a sign is expressly authorised by the Secretary of State, the question is whether what’s on street substantially complies with that authorisation (including any permitted variants), not whether it mirrors a TSRGD diagram.
*6. Your tribunal win.*
As previously advised, I’ve read the press reporting of your adjudication. The adjudicator did not hold that “LEZ signage is unlawful” per se; he said he was not satisfied _on the evidence produced_ in that case that TfL had *shown* authorisation/adequacy, so your PCN(s) failed. That sort of case turns on the respondent’s evidential default, not a system-wide declaration. Adjudicators’ decisions (they are decisions, not rulings) aren’t precedents binding other cases.
*7. County Court proceedings.*
As widely reported, your later damages/declaration claim was struck out on the basis that a systemic attack on the lawfulness of enforcement and signage must proceed, if at all, by judicial review, not by private law claim. That’s orthodox administrative law. I appreciate you say you’ll appeal, but you’re flogging a dead horse in my opinion. Your merits of winning are less than 10%. Judicial Reviews are the route to hold public bodies to account.
*8. Auto Pay and Woolwich.*
If a public authority exacts money ultra vires, restitution isn’t precluded by contract terms, Woolwich confirms that. But you only get to engage Woolwich anyway if you first establish that the exaction lacked lawful authority. Given the extant authorisations under s.64/65 and the ‘times may be omitted’ clause, your route to ultra vires is blocked on the facts.
*9. “Abuse of process”because TfL enforced during an adjournment.*
An adjournment in London Tribunals does not stay the entire scheme. It merely preserves the status of the appealed PCN(s). There’s no general principle that an adjournment bars ongoing enforcement absent an express order. Different if you had interim relief in the High Court - you didn’t.
*10. Your photo with the weight-limit roundel and LEZ/ULEZ panel.*
The 2022 authorisation explicitly allows the authorised LEZ/ULEZ symbols to be used on direction/informatory plates and to replace symbols in diagram 818.4; it also authorises combined plates. So the mixed assembly you’ve shown is within the four corners of the authorisation.
*11. What might work (devil’s advocate).*
Your strongest litigation ground is never a sweeping ‘all signs unlawful’ thesis; it’s targeted, site-specific non-compliance like wrong x-heights, wrong colour values, missing or misplaced plates, siting/visibility defects, or evidence that a particular installation departs from the authorised drawings/notes e.g. an unauthorised legend, or an omitted note-condition that is *mandatory*. That sort of granular defect, proven with photos, schedules and the DfT drawing pack, can still win an *individual appeal* notwithstanding the general authorisations. But it won’t invalidate the scheme globally (see Herron).
With respect, the proposition that LEZ/ULEZ signs were unlawful between 2016 and 2023 because the 2002 TSRGD was revoked is a misunderstanding of how s.64/65 authorisations operate, and it’s contradicted by the 2018 and 2022 authorisations, which also make your ‘AT ALL TIMES is mandatory’ point untenable. If you can show specific deployments that diverged from the authorised drawings/notes, that’s different but the blanket claim is simply not sustainable.
If you send me a transcript of the written judgment I’ll happily have a look at it to see if I’ve missed anything, but I think you’ll fail even on a judicial review.
Equally, if you have any questions I’ll do my best to address them now that I have more time.
Best,
Amy
On the material you’ve sent me, what’s publicly available, and my own knowledge, my view is as follows:
*1. Who does the authorising (and what “special authorisation” means).*
You’re correct that a sign must either appear in the TSRGD or be specially authorised. But the authorisation is the Secretary of State’s, issued under s.64–65 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, often on application from the authority. It is not a “TfL special authorisation”; it is a freestanding authorisation issued by the Secretary of State under s.64-65 RTRA 1984. The ULEZ signs were specifically authorised in 2018 (GT50/139/0171), with further authorisations in 2019–2020 and again in 2022 (GT50/139/0183), plus associated 2023 approvals for VMS.

*2. “At all times” / hours panel - mandatory or optional?*
Your Facebook post asserts that the DfT authorisation ‘requires operating hours’ and, for a 24/7 scheme, mandates ‘AT ALL TIMES’. That’s not what the authorisations say. The 2018 authorisation expressly provides that ‘the reference to the times of operation may be varied or omitted’ for the entry signs (A, B, D, E, F). That is what we call ‘dispositive’ - hours text is optional. The 2022 authorisation again ties the lawful variants to the TfL drawings and notes (e.g. Sign A on GT50/139/0183-1), which include the ability to vary the bottom panel text or omit it entirely.
*3. Your reliance on the Traffic Signs Manual (TSM).*
The TSM is purely guidance, not law. The DfT’s own page describes it as advice on use of TSRGD-prescribed signs; it doesn’t trump, qualify, or condition a s.64/s.65 authorisation. Where the Secretary of State has authorised a non-standard sign (with its own notes and variants), those authorisation terms then govern.
*4. “2002 Regulations were revoked so LEZ signs became unlawful (2016–2023 gap).”*
Yes, the 2007 LEZ authorisation _did_ refer to provisions in the 2002 TSRGD but the authorisation itself was made under s.64/65 RTRA 1984 and contains its own ‘survival clause’: it remains effective ‘until such day as may be appointed by one month’s notice’ from the Secretary of State. There’s no term in that authorisation making its validity contingent upon the 2002 TSRGD remaining on the statute book. They could have quoted from the Bible or Alice in Wonderland if they so wished. As long as the text is imported or referenced, it assumes its own legal force by virtue of then being a term in the attendant authorisation. I hope that makes sense now. In any event, DfT re-authorised the later LEZ/ULEZ signage suite in 2022, which independently cures any alleged lacuna.
*5. “Davies v Heatley” and strict conformity.*
Davies (1971) is not the governing approach in modern civil enforcement. The Court of Appeal in Herron v Parking Adjudicator confirmed the test is substantial compliance, not absolute perfection. It also only referred to a specific set of facts. Where a sign is expressly authorised by the Secretary of State, the question is whether what’s on street substantially complies with that authorisation (including any permitted variants), not whether it mirrors a TSRGD diagram.
*6. Your tribunal win.*
As previously advised, I’ve read the press reporting of your adjudication. The adjudicator did not hold that “LEZ signage is unlawful” per se; he said he was not satisfied _on the evidence produced_ in that case that TfL had *shown* authorisation/adequacy, so your PCN(s) failed. That sort of case turns on the respondent’s evidential default, not a system-wide declaration. Adjudicators’ decisions (they are decisions, not rulings) aren’t precedents binding other cases.
*7. County Court proceedings.*
As widely reported, your later damages/declaration claim was struck out on the basis that a systemic attack on the lawfulness of enforcement and signage must proceed, if at all, by judicial review, not by private law claim. That’s orthodox administrative law. I appreciate you say you’ll appeal, but you’re flogging a dead horse in my opinion. Your merits of winning are less than 10%. Judicial Reviews are the route to hold public bodies to account.
*8. Auto Pay and Woolwich.*
If a public authority exacts money ultra vires, restitution isn’t precluded by contract terms, Woolwich confirms that. But you only get to engage Woolwich anyway if you first establish that the exaction lacked lawful authority. Given the extant authorisations under s.64/65 and the ‘times may be omitted’ clause, your route to ultra vires is blocked on the facts.
*9. “Abuse of process”because TfL enforced during an adjournment.*
An adjournment in London Tribunals does not stay the entire scheme. It merely preserves the status of the appealed PCN(s). There’s no general principle that an adjournment bars ongoing enforcement absent an express order. Different if you had interim relief in the High Court - you didn’t.
*10. Your photo with the weight-limit roundel and LEZ/ULEZ panel.*
The 2022 authorisation explicitly allows the authorised LEZ/ULEZ symbols to be used on direction/informatory plates and to replace symbols in diagram 818.4; it also authorises combined plates. So the mixed assembly you’ve shown is within the four corners of the authorisation.
*11. What might work (devil’s advocate).*
Your strongest litigation ground is never a sweeping ‘all signs unlawful’ thesis; it’s targeted, site-specific non-compliance like wrong x-heights, wrong colour values, missing or misplaced plates, siting/visibility defects, or evidence that a particular installation departs from the authorised drawings/notes e.g. an unauthorised legend, or an omitted note-condition that is *mandatory*. That sort of granular defect, proven with photos, schedules and the DfT drawing pack, can still win an *individual appeal* notwithstanding the general authorisations. But it won’t invalidate the scheme globally (see Herron).
With respect, the proposition that LEZ/ULEZ signs were unlawful between 2016 and 2023 because the 2002 TSRGD was revoked is a misunderstanding of how s.64/65 authorisations operate, and it’s contradicted by the 2018 and 2022 authorisations, which also make your ‘AT ALL TIMES is mandatory’ point untenable. If you can show specific deployments that diverged from the authorised drawings/notes, that’s different but the blanket claim is simply not sustainable.
If you send me a transcript of the written judgment I’ll happily have a look at it to see if I’ve missed anything, but I think you’ll fail even on a judicial review.
Equally, if you have any questions I’ll do my best to address them now that I have more time.
Best,
Amy