Free Traffic Legal Advice

Yep, done mine yesterday quoting the Harwood Road/New Kings road SW6 YBJ as making several millions for the council.

Just a thought: would it not be a good idea if, accidentally, some members made the same points so that this may add weight?

1. Signage is inadequate and the law should incorporate Bus Lane legislation Para 7(6) of Schedule 1 so that authors of witness statements are required to attend to be cross-examined.
2. The law has been relaxed in 2016 to allow these boxes to be enforced willy-nilly.  There should be warning signage in place.
3. Bus lane enforcement has been "illegal" from 2005 for 18 years as councils have not had the correct VCA certificates for their evidence to be admissible at the Tribunal.
4. Parking enforcement, in situ and by camera, is similarly unfair as regulations need to be homogenised as per 1 above.

Staff are incompetent; the law is not easily understood by councils and motorists, the latter are affected mostly and just pay up as they are frightened to lose the discount. Cost decisions should be made much easier against councils who knowingly flout the rules. Some press people all the way to the Tribunal but then do not contest or adduce any evidence. In general, the laws are far too complicated and lack homogenisation.

Simply councils are targeting motorists to fund their incompetence re management of their finances.  Motorists are soft targets.

The law needs to be tightened in terms of fining council staff who knowingly lie in their evidence or, indeed, are so incompetent so as to make wholly wrong statements of truth.

Fit for purpose advance warning signage

Ditto plus signs erected on posts in advance

Proper advanced signage and de minimis rule

Less complicated signage.

A middle ground that I've seen deployed in the past, that could work here, is to identify some key themes that members may wish to ensure they cover, in their own words, in the submission (alongside any individual points they want to raise).

This avoids the answers appearing template, and thus afforded little value, whilst ensuring a number of responses touching on the same themes.

The Govt had the opportunity, when Parliament looked at the Tribunal system 4-5 years ago, to beef up the power of adjudicators and even appoint a parking/MTC "Tsar" to guard against the excesses of Enforcement Authorities.

They didn't go down that route, largely because of the pitiful mantra that each case is unique and we are not governed by precedent.

If the bus lane at Clapham Park Road records 27000 contraventions a year I would say that the Chief Adjudicator was honour bound to convene a "Panel" and examine the lines and signs. Likewise the other Lambeth cash cows (you know what they are). She/He didn't probably because of the resultant political fallout.

Eric Pickles MP tried to instigate a review mechanism via e-Petitions (27000 signatories as above?) but that seems to have fallen on stony ground.

With Councils going bust I doubt any politician will put their name to depriving Lambeth and other "serial offenders"of such major income whether this be classed as unjust enrichment or not.

This current exercise will be kicked into the long grass before the Summer is out. Plus the civil servant who came up with this idea will be seconded to the British Antarctic Survey where they will spend the next 18 months freezing their extremities off.

Mike

This from astralite who is suffering from P.P.T.S.D. = Post Pepipoo Traumatic Stress Disorder    :

Traffic regulation orders

Recommendation: Local authorities should be required to place digital versions of all traffic regulation orders on a central publication platform as soon as the order is made. They should not be permitted to issue PCNs unless and until this basic requirement of public information has been honoured.

Yellow box junctions  YBJ

I have watched many hundreds of videos of alleged yellow box junction contraventions. Almost all have shown the vehicle stopped partly infringing an outer edge of the area of the box. Often this has been by just a few inches. Very few have shown an ‘offending’ vehicle impeding the journey of another. The conclusion is that almost all drivers try to observe the YBJ rationale – i.e. keep the junction free from stationary traffic.

A fact I consider is indisputable is that many boxes are too big, or too long, or do not comply with the basic requirements. I have seen and could identify many such boxes. I entirely agree with the findings and recommendations of:

https://media.rac.co.uk/pressreleases/size-matters-98-percent-of-top-100-yellow-box-junctions-for-fining-drivers-in-london-and-cardiff-are-bigger-than-necessary-3310731

Unfortunately when an Adjudicator has allowed an appeal on the ground that the box is too long, or does not comply with requirements, or is not where it is stated to be, it has made no difference. It seems that all enforcement authorities simply disregard the Adjudicator’s decision (on the grounds that the decision of one Adjudicator does not bind another) and continue to issue and enforce PCNs at the same site.

Recommendations:

Guidance should be issued to enforcement authorities to the effect that PCNs should not be issued in any YBJ case unless the video evidence shows that the vehicle’s stoppage prevented another vehicle using the junction or making progress.

The powers of the Adjudicators should be enhanced. Where an Adjudicator has said that a box is unenforceable a notice to that effect it should be issued and it should continue to be unenforceable until the enforcement authority has corrected the problem(s).

Issuing PCNs in relation to an unenforceable box should be made illegal and subject to a fine.

Parking

Unless payment meters (cash or card) are provided people without smart phones are excluded from parking where any payment/registration is required. Similarly they cannot use 30 minutes free parking facilities where those, as they usually do, require use of a parking app on a smart phone.

Recommendation: Councils should be obliged to provide for all payment methods at all sites.

Bus lanes

There should be national standards:
a.    motorcyclists should be allowed to use any bus lane at any time
b.    bus lane restrictions should not be imposed at times or on days when buses are not operating

Recommendation: Guidance to be issued reflecting the above pending regulatory changes.

Appeals

The level of appeals is minuscule. People who appeal bear all the risk as if they lose they have to pay the full penalty charge. The local authority has no risk as they do not pay anything if they lose. It is essential to encourage more people to appeal.

Recommendation: The full penalty charge should only be paid in cases where a person loses an appeal at the Tribunal.

Costs

The award of costs to a successful Appellant should not be exceptional, it should be routine including cases where the enforcement authority issue a DNC (do not contest notice).
The level of costs should be realistic. Many Appellants spend many hours researching the law/facts, taking photos etc.

Recommendations:

The regulations should be changed to allow costs to be awarded to all successful Appellants.
All successful Appellants should be entitled to costs to cover the time they have used to prepare and submit their appeal and any actual costs such as travel expenses to attend the Tribunal in person.

Similarly the regulations should also be amended to allow reasonable costs to be claimed by lay representatives who assist and represent Appellants at the Tribunal. Such costs should be allowed whether or not the lay representative has charged a fee.

The Tribunal should publish guidance on the number of hours usually allowed in claims for costs. This could be in expressed in terms of ranges to cater for cases of differing complexity.

Advice about applying for costs (if successful) should be provided to all Appellants when they lodge their appeal.

Applications for costs would only be heard and decided by an Adjudicator in cases which exceptionally exceeded the Tribunal’s guidance re quantum.

Process of appeal

In bus lane cases an Appellant may require the attendance of the local authority witnesses at the Tribunal hearing of their case. Attendance can be in person or  by phone.

Recommendation: The appeal regulations should be amended to allow any Appellant in any type of case to require the attendance of the local authority witnesses at the Tribunal hearing of their case.

All enforcement authorities must be prepared to identify their signatories/witnesses.

Blue Badge first contravention

It should be standard practice in all local authorities that discretion is used to cancel a first time penalty charge notice when someone has failed to display their badge and/or clock but later produces a valid badge.

Recommendation: The Tribunal regulations should be amended to enable Adjudicators to allow appeals automatically in cases where a local authority has persisted with enforcement in a first time failure to display.

Costs usually can’t exceed those actually incurred (the indemnity principle). If an appellant is charged nothing by a representative, they can recover nothing.