Free Traffic Legal Advice

The meaning of "costs"-- suggests they will not seek to recover their legal fees should they be successful at JR but will still seek the penalty charges in those cases where they have sought a Review of the Tribunal's Decision.

It appears imperative that the Tribunal, as the Defendant, lists all those cases, such as Jimmy M's, where TfL have sought a Review obviously with the JR in mind.

The key issue for some of those PCN appellants is of course that they did forgo the discount in the knowledge of the Panel Decision. It would therefore be grossly unfair, if TfL were successful at JR, that they be dunned the higher amount of the penalty charge. That situation is highly prejudicial.


Mike

Suspect that TfL/GLA will have in house solicitors. No doubt they will follow Ealing's example and brief top KCs, though Mr.Byass who appeared at the panel hearing does not appear to be a K.C.

So, when they lose (TFL), how is this problem going to be fixed?  New legislation unlike the bus lane saga?

So, when they lose (TFL), how is this problem going to be fixed?  New legislation unlike the bus lane saga?

To which "problem" are you referring?

The problem that motorists have is that TfL have decided that the protections that Parliament deliberately put in place to protect them from over-zealous authorities seeking to line their own pockets is hindering their god-given right to line their own pockets with minimum effort.

The problem that TfL have is that Parliament clearly decided that they must not use CCTV to enforce parking bays, which potentially hinders their ability to line their own pockets with minimum effort.

This is not a loophole that needs fixing - it is legislation being interpreted (by the Tribunal) the way that Parliament intended, and which TfL are ignoring. The closest to an actual loophole is that if the legislation is taken literally, CCTV is only allowed to be used where there are both single or double red lines *and* the time plates required only for single red lines - so CCTV would not be allowed for double red lines with no time plate (which is all double red lines). TfL's argument is that this literal interpretation would be absurd, so rather than applying the golden rule and reading in "in the case of single red lines" to the time plate requirement, the entire provision must be treated as a dead letter or otherwise read so as to allow TfL to do whatever they like. I must have been off sick when we did that rule of statutory interpretation.

I meant the Tribunal's solicitors.

A judicial tribunal would not engage solicitors, they have a panel of over 20 experienced judicial officers holders so they should hardly need external legal advice. At most they might engage a barrister to represent them, but that would be exceptionally rare.

Except that as Mr Chan puts it, a purposive approach supports the tribunal's interpretation.

If it's considered that the 2007 and 2022 Regs intentionally distinguish between the use of CCTV in these circumsyances then I find it interesting that there's no reference to this in either the Explanatory Note or Explanatory Memorandum accompanying the SI.