3. TFL judicial review
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5

Author Topic: TFL judicial review  (Read 9138 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

H C Andersen

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2222
  • Karma: +46/-31
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #15 on: August 24, 2023, 04:53:52 pm »
No-one is suggesting that the memorandum etc. gives a legal interpretation, that's a matter for the courts. But what cannot be dismissed at a stroke is that they clearly give an indication of rationale, which is my point. If one looks at the other elements they all seem to have been ported across without change or the reason behind the change explained, not the legal interpretation but the department's reason for seeking to make the change. 

I mention this only because weight is being placed on the revised wording and revisions normally have a purpose, but in this case unexplained.

The court will decide and let's hope their decision is clear-cut and prompt.

Logged

Southpaw82

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 711
  • Karma: +11/-2
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #16 on: August 24, 2023, 05:36:25 pm »
Quote from: H C Andersen on August 24, 2023, 04:53:52 pm
But what cannot be dismissed at a stroke is that they clearly give an indication of rationale, which is my point.
Are they an admissible aid to construction?
Logged

DancingDad

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
  • Karma: +11/-1
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #17 on: August 24, 2023, 08:04:12 pm »
Quote from: Southpaw82 on August 24, 2023, 05:36:25 pm
Quote from: H C Andersen on August 24, 2023, 04:53:52 pm
But what cannot be dismissed at a stroke is that they clearly give an indication of rationale, which is my point.
Are they an admissible aid to construction?
I'm sure that I have seen them referred to in HC cases but would need to go hunting to find where and how.

A little academic in this case as the notes give no rational or even mention the changes.
Logged

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5460
  • Karma: +126/-4
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #18 on: August 25, 2023, 02:12:37 pm »
Quote from: Southpaw82 on August 24, 2023, 05:36:25 pm
Quote from: H C Andersen on August 24, 2023, 04:53:52 pm
But what cannot be dismissed at a stroke is that they clearly give an indication of rationale, which is my point.
Are they an admissible aid to construction?
My understanding is that they are, if there were any authorities against that I'm sure TFL's KC would have pointed it out at the review hearing.
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2411
  • Karma: +26/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #19 on: August 31, 2023, 09:00:04 pm »
I cannot miss the Khan v Chan show.  ;)
Logged
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply.
"Hippocrates"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι ε

Grant Urismo

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 88
  • Karma: +1/-0
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #20 on: August 31, 2023, 10:20:12 pm »
Just because I haven't seen this point mentioned in this thread... a CEO can (and should) check for a blue badge and dashboard clock and record useful evidence about them if they are present, fixed CCTV can't reliably do this and it's unreasonable to expect blue badge holders to have to appeal a constant stream of tickets for lawful behaviour.

If this point isn't considered at the judicial review then I expect disability discrimination might provide a second avenue to banning the use of CCTV for parking enforcement.
Logged

DancingDad

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
  • Karma: +11/-1
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #21 on: September 01, 2023, 10:57:45 am »
Quote from: Grant Urismo on August 31, 2023, 10:20:12 pm
Just because I haven't seen this point mentioned in this thread... a CEO can (and should) check for a blue badge and dashboard clock and record useful evidence about them if they are present, fixed CCTV can't reliably do this and it's unreasonable to expect blue badge holders to have to appeal a constant stream of tickets for lawful behaviour.

If this point isn't considered at the judicial review then I expect disability discrimination might provide a second avenue to banning the use of CCTV for parking enforcement.

TFL have batted this one away for many years, claiming that their cameras can spot a BB but failing to explain how... with many videos being taken from the rear of the car.
But is part of the argument that CP put forward and no doubt will be considered in the upcoming review
Logged

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5460
  • Karma: +126/-4
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #22 on: September 01, 2023, 05:24:51 pm »
Quote from: Grant Urismo on August 31, 2023, 10:20:12 pm
Just because I haven't seen this point mentioned in this thread... a CEO can (and should) check for a blue badge and dashboard clock and record useful evidence about them if they are present, fixed CCTV can't reliably do this and it's unreasonable to expect blue badge holders to have to appeal a constant stream of tickets for lawful behaviour.

If this point isn't considered at the judicial review then I expect disability discrimination might provide a second avenue to banning the use of CCTV for parking enforcement.
If you read both the panel decision and Mr Chan's review, you'll see that this has been specifically considered.
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5460
  • Karma: +126/-4
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #23 on: September 04, 2023, 02:05:34 pm »
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

John U.K.

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1206
  • Karma: +22/-1
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #24 on: September 04, 2023, 04:09:31 pm »
Logged

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 5460
  • Karma: +126/-4
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #25 on: September 04, 2023, 05:26:46 pm »
Oh well, I'm sure TFL's solicitor will work out what to do next.

I'm not going to worry about other interested parties because it seems unlikely they would have anything of substance to add.
Logged
I practice law in the Traffic Penalty Tribunal, London Tribunals, the First-tier tribunal for Scotland, and the Traffic Penalty Tribunal for Northern Ireland, but I am not a solicitor nor a barrister. Notwithstanding this, I voluntarily apply the cab rank rule. I am a member of the Society of Professional McKenzie Friends, my membership number is FM193.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2411
  • Karma: +26/-1
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #26 on: September 09, 2023, 12:35:15 pm »
Quote from: cp8759 on September 04, 2023, 02:05:34 pm
Order of The Honourable Mr Justice Martin Spencer.
I trust that the learned Mr Chan's statement was excellent? ;D

Observations 3 and 4 are noted.  Therefore, I presume the CA will not necessarily have to attend?

Please inform me/us when an exact date is finalised for the hearing.
« Last Edit: September 09, 2023, 12:42:55 pm by Hippocrates »
Logged
There are known knowns which, had we known, we would never have wished to know. It is known that this also applies to the known unknowns. However, when one attends a hearing, Mr Rumsfeld's idea that there are also unknown unknowns fails to apply because, anyone who is in the know, knows that unknown unknowns are purely a deception otherwise known as an aleatory experience or also known as a lottery. I know that I know this to be a fact and, in this knowledge, I know that I am fully prepared to present my case but, paradoxically, in full knowledge that the unknown unknowns may well apply.
"Hippocrates"

ἔοικα γοῦν τούτου γε σμικρῷ τινι αὐτῷ τούτῳ σοφώτερος εἶναι, ὅτι ἃ μὴ οἶδα οὐδὲ οἴομαι ε

ghostivv

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 21
  • Karma: +0/-0
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #27 on: October 26, 2023, 07:22:31 pm »
Any news on the outcome?
Logged

DWMB2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 2337
  • Karma: +66/-1
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #28 on: October 26, 2023, 07:30:34 pm »
See here:
Quote from: John U.K. on October 26, 2023, 03:39:29 pm
These sites carry reports. The first is regularly updated.
https://www.standard.co.uk/news/london/transport-for-london-tfl-high-court-parking-tickets-cctv-b1116055.html#comments-area
Similar to Standard but less adverts
https://uk.finance.yahoo.com/news/tfl-could-refund-500-000-065411720.html

No mention of barrister or case for LT - sounds as if CPS had to make their own case?

Case concluded 4p.m,. judgement reserved - expected in a few weeks.

cp8759 was of course there so may be able to provide more context at a later date
Logged
Away 10/01/25 - 18/01/25 - I will have limited forum access

Posting for the first time? READ THIS FIRST - Private Parking Charges Forum guide | House Rules

Useful Links (for private parking charges):
Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 (PoFA) Schedule 4 | Private Parking Sector Single Code of Practice
Useful Useful x 1 View List

DancingDad

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 322
  • Karma: +11/-1
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #29 on: October 26, 2023, 08:08:09 pm »
For once a newspaper report that doesn't seem full of errors

Hats off and a round of applause for Karen, not easy for a layperson in court
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3 4 5
« previous next »
  3. TFL judicial review