Free Traffic Legal Advice

Re: Reply #28

I don't consider that the duty under LATOR really affects whether the signage is adequate. Either it is or it isn't. Adjudicators make that judgment when assessing an appeal against a PCN. If an adjudicator allows an appeal, explaining that some specific signage is defective, the highway authority may choose to remedy it pronto rather than see what happens at further appeals. That's what happened in March 2010 with the missing "O" from "BUS & // (cycle symbol) // ONLY" (appeal 2090587989, registered 20/11/2009, decided 21/12/2009).

The doctrine of ultra vires and its consequences are the subject of administrative law. If an action is held to be ultra vires, that action is void, i.e. it is a legal nullity and has been so since the action was taken. This creates interesting conundrums where, as with road markings, secondary actions have been taken on the assumption that the first action was valid.

Re: Reply #28

Under s. 64(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, DfT can authorise anything they wish to. Regulation 4 of TSRGD 2016 acknowledges this.

What I find interesting about Shepherds Bush Road is

• Hammersmith & Fulham had an experimental TMO from 2004 and had implemented the offside bus lane without an authorised sign, so ultra vires;
• DfT authorised the diagram 958 in 2006 when its position lay before the start of the lead-in taper to the bus lane, i.e. when the diagram 958 was being placed in a position which was consistent with its definition. DfT agreed that the diagram 959 wasn't needed because it would clash with the large direction sign before the roundabout. They may have felt that, as the bus lane had already been in use for 18 months, they could hardly prohibit it. Before 2008 H&F changed the road markings so that the diagram 958 now lay after the start of the lead-in taper. H&F assert that that change was within their powers as they didn't move the diagram 958 from its authorised position and nor did they move the bus lane. The definition of diagram 958 merely specifies that it appears before the start of the diagram 1049 so,  arguably, H&F are right. But the result is that the sign now appears before the start of the lead-in taper, so contrary to what's shown on the sign. This looks dodgy to me, but I can understand why DfT hasn't given H&F 1 month's notice to remove it.

Quote from: Bustagate on May 04, 2025, 03:39:00 pm

I recognise that this advice is the opposite of that normally advanced, which is not to reveal your hand until the other side has shown his. Quite apart from matters of fairness, it is prompted by London Tribunals' Practice Direction 2024 No. 2, which limits the material which can be added at the appeal stage.

It doesn't, in the notice of appeal you can add whatever you want. It purports to limit what can be added after the notice of appeal stage, but most adjudicators ignore it anyway.

In my view, this PD inherently favours the councils.

2 (e) A party’s skeleton argument must be lodged with the Tribunal at least 14 days prior to the hearing.  

And I have written to the CA stating so. Not only that, how on earth is the unrepresented appellant supposed to know all this, particularly when the Tribunal publishes you must send in your evidence 7 days before the hearing?  I have a case pending in which the council only served their evidence 8 days before the hearing. So, how much time is allowed for me and/or my client to respond? This also begs the question: am I expected to view the portal on a daily basis when I have a life and other cases for which to prepare?

And then there is Bus Lane legislation where the council must serve their evidence 7 days before the hearing. Upon receipt, is the appellant supposed to point out errors before the hearing? Not b****y likely as far as I am concerned. If the officer required to attend does or does not, I reserve the right to make further submissions on the day.

I am glad this has been moved into The Flame Pit because that was the way it was going.

One council engages in tit for tat responses right up to the 11th hour. Also, regarding screenshots of website pages re payment status, I adduce evidence like 45 minutes before the hearing to illustrate to the Adjudicator that the council is publishing an unlawful demand for money even when the appeal has not even been heard.

Re emboldened quote from cp8759:  It would be more constructive for all of us if all adjudicators followed it to the letter. But, as we know, they never followed Martin Wood's PD re admission of evidence less than three days before the hearing constituted a reason for allowing the appeal. On has recently I believe. The only other one , Mr John Lane (now sadly retired) did as well.

Finally, I have spoken with several members of the Tribunal call service who were unaware of this PD.

Very very finally, if my petition were signed, much of this would be resolved by councils having to attend all hearings in moving traffic. Mickey Mouse and kangaroos could observe free of charge. Clearly, originally the Tribunal was set up to deal with relatively simple matters like signs and lines. Now that people have become more savvy, largely due to forums such as this (only this one in my opinion), it has become a far more educational experience for all concerned.

Re: Reply #31

The point which I was making was that if an adjudicator holds that a highway authority has failed to carry out its duty under LATOR, this merely relieves the appellant of having to pay the PCN. The authority does not have to change its signage. It may choose to do so, as Harrow did on Camrose Avenue in 2010.

While the Secretary of State has powers to require the removal of non-authorised signs and can rescind the authorisation of signs which have been specially authorised, he or she does not have the power to direct the authority to place any signs. I suppose a writ of mandamus might do it, but I can't see it happening.

Re: Reply #31

The point which I was making was that if an adjudicator holds that a highway authority has failed to carry out its duty under LATOR, this merely relieves the appellant of having to pay the PCN. The authority does not have to change its signage. It may choose to do so, as Harrow did on Camrose Avenue in 2010.

For the purpose of getting PCNs cancelled, it's better that they don't change the signage. That way you eventually can get costs orders against the council. Suggesting that the council should be incentivised to do everything correctly is somewhat misguided IMO.

If the council does everything by the book, has perfect signage, a perfect website, notices of rejection that show they have properly and fairly considered each and every issue raised in the representation, and a motorist with such a PCN comes here for advice, what then?

Re: Reply#31

I attach my first piece of boilerplate. If it's not wanted, I'll take it elsewhere.

To be honest it looks pretty good, but I suspect that to get a substantive decision you'll need to argue it yourself at a hearing.

Thank you. Second draft attached.

What stage is Brazilianx at?

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

Your representations didn't include that the TMO didn't apply to the area of road where you were. I'd be inclined to upload CamroseNote2b.pdf now rather than seek to add it at the appeal stage. If their system won't allow this, print it out and send it to them, with a covering note, by snail mail. Get a certificate of posting.

As H C Andersen wrote (Reply #24), adjudicators don't like ambushes. The more opportunity Harrow have had to respond to a line of argument, and the more BS their response, the less an adjudicator needs to give Harrow further opportunity to respond.

With this particular line of argument, it was in my son's representations but they ignored it. The adjudicator asked them to provide a detailed response to the appeal document, which included the aerial view to show which was the southern and which the northern traffic island. Harrow did not mention it in their Adjournment Evidence. It was only at the reconvened hearing, when asked directly about it, that they produced their explanation.