Free Traffic Legal Advice

@stamfordman and yet unless and until this is overturned by the Court of Appeal, that is the law of the land, whether you like it or not.

I'm not aware of Lambeth having made an application to the Court of Appeal.

An inappropriately targetted consultation would seem to be equally problematic. In practice, failure to consider and failure to consult are 2 sides of the same coin.

I’ve had a look on the appeals tracker on Westlaw and it doesn’t seem like Lambeth have applied to the CoA for permission to appeal. If they haven’t then it’s difficult to see how Lambeth will “see this off” as asserted.

What does this mean in the relief/consequential matters order:

1) The Defendant applies for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal. The
Claimant resists the application, partly on procedural grounds and partly on its
merits.

[snip]

13) For these reasons the Defendant’s application for permission to appeal is
refused.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Z0NktxPq-J41OXU1EwEt69Br6ioGPOB2/view

You can apply for permission to appeal from (a) the court you’re in, or (b) the court you want to appeal to. It seems they applied for permission in the High Court to appeal to the Court of Appeal but were denied. They can try again in the Court of Appeal, within a certain time period, but I can’t see any application listed.

And - what exactly is the law of the land here?

What the judge said it is. Just as it's the law of the land that CCTV can be used to enforce red route bays, we have to deal with the law as it is, rather than the law as we would like it to be.