Author Topic: TFL judicial review  (Read 4048 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #45 on: December 02, 2023, 02:32:19 pm »
I've just heard that TfL have won the judicial review, the interested parties have until Thursday to ask for permission to appeal.
Personally, I have no faith in the justice system.
Last time I ran the numbers, I'd won 91.36% of all cases in the sample period I looked at. Taking this morning as an example, I've won 6 cases and one has been adjourned to give the council an opportunity to respond. I wonder how much faith local authorities have in the justice system?
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". 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.

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

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1071
  • Karma: +13/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #46 on: December 02, 2023, 05:12:18 pm »
I've just heard that TfL have won the judicial review, the interested parties have until Thursday to ask for permission to appeal.
Personally, I have no faith in the justice system.
Last time I ran the numbers, I'd won 91.36% of all cases in the sample period I looked at. Taking this morning as an example, I've won 6 cases and one has been adjourned to give the council an opportunity to respond. I wonder how much faith local authorities have in the justice system?
Good question.  I would rephrase it:  I wonder how much faith they have in their staff? My statement above is specific to the top end of the system. And, it was indeed "unfortunate" that a certain person was not granted the right to speak in the TFL Review case. In the other case, I wonder whether the judge had even read all the paperwork since a clear error occurred. It is simply not good enough to order an appellant/claimant to pay the wrong body!
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 in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1071
  • Karma: +13/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #47 on: December 08, 2023, 07:02:14 pm »
Well, today at a hearing, Mr Chan made his views quite clear concerning the High Court decision and said that "he was stuck with it."
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 in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #48 on: January 29, 2024, 02:59:29 pm »
Just got this from TFL:

The legal costs paid for this case were £112,674.50.

If we add the £46,200 incurred at the tribunal, that's a total of £158,874.50.

And they didn't even get everything they wanted.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". 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.

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

andy_foster

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 400
  • Karma: +6/-3
  • Location: Reading
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #49 on: January 29, 2024, 06:50:07 pm »
As their KC was mostly spouting bollox (to the exasperation of the judge) and had to be lead by the judge as to which door to push against, I feel that they got poor value for money.
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #50 on: January 29, 2024, 11:20:09 pm »
I believe they can reclaim the VAT, so that knocks it down to £132,395.42.

That's just 827 PCNs' worth, so not that expensive really.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". 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.

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

Incandescent

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1575
  • Karma: +45/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: Crewe
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #51 on: February 13, 2024, 12:09:24 pm »
When you read about judges, you seem to always see the words "the learned judge" Hm... I don't think all judges are as learned as we would like to believe.

andy_foster

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 400
  • Karma: +6/-3
  • Location: Reading
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #52 on: February 13, 2024, 12:34:46 pm »
For those familiar with Hanlon's razor, High Court Judges are very intelligent.
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #53 on: February 18, 2024, 10:48:00 pm »
When you read about judges, you seem to always see the words "the learned judge" Hm... I don't think all judges are as learned as we would like to believe.
The problem with any sort of appellate process is that highly specialised jurisdictions are subject to the supervisory authority of judges who might never have looked at an area of law before. The judge asked counsel for assistance on this odd "procedural impropriety" concept that was all over the panel decision as the judge was not sure what the adjudicators were on about, needless to say Mr Korner was unable to provide any assistance.
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". 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.

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

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1071
  • Karma: +13/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #54 on: March 09, 2024, 02:25:39 pm »
An important spin-off case:

ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference   2230282004
Appellant   Commercial Plant Services Ltd
Authority   Transport for London
VRM   WX69ZDD
PCN Details
PCN   GX06515327
Contravention date   04 Apr 2023
Contravention time   08:16:00
Contravention location   O/S 201-213 BOROUGH HIGH STREET SE1
Penalty amount   N/A
Contravention   Stopped where prohibited on red route or clearway
Referral date   
Decision Date   04 Jul 2023
Adjudicator   Alastair Mcfarlane
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons   
The Appellant was due to attend for a personal appeal before me today, but has not done so. No explanation has been received by the tribunal for the Appellant's absence. In the circumstances I consider it just proportionate to determine this appeal on the information before me in the absence of the Appellant.

The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped where prohibited in a loading and disabled persons box on the red route outside permitted hours in Borough High Street on 4 April 2023. A penalty charge notice was issued at 08 16.

Following the panel decision in Commercial Plant Services v Transport for London this appeal must be allowed as this contravention is not enforceable on the basis of a record produced by an approved device. No other issue may be determined.
Decision Date   01 Mar 2024
Adjudicator   Carl Teper
Previous decision   Appeal allowed
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons   
The Appellant was represented by Mr I Murray-Smith and the Enforcement Authority was represented by Mr A Garratt.

This hearing was set down for a review application on 8 February 2024. Mr Garratt made an application on 23 February 2024 for this review application to be rescheduled to a date that was suitable to his Counsel because the arguments were too complex for him to deal with. Further, that the Appellant's representative had submitted a skeleton argument of some 70 pages on 21 February 2024, and that he would not have time to deal with the issues raised.

Whilst the skeleton argument was 70 pages, the actual submissions are contained in fewer than nine pages of double-spaced script. I did not consider that there was anything in the skeleton argument that was new or that Mr Garratt could not address. This was essentially a one issue review application to decide whether this tribunal had jurisdiction to decide an application for review. The issue turned on a legal finding made by Swift J in the High Court case Transport for London, R (on the application of) v London Tribunals (Environment and Traffic Adjudicators) [2023] EWHC 2889 (Admin) (“Transport for London”).

TFL had applied for a review of the original decision soon after it was made on 10 July 2023. No decision was taken as to whether a review would be heard until the High Court gave its decision on the substantive issue. After the decision was delivered, TfL refreshed its application for a review. It is clear, therefore, that Mr Garrett was on notice that the issue of the adjudicator’s power to review an error of law would have to be resolved at a hearing, since the judgment of the High Court in November 2023 and has had sufficient time to prepare for today's application for a review.

I refused the application to adjourn on 26 February 2024, and again today before the hearing commenced at 3pm on 29 February 2024, because I find that it is not in the interests of justice to delay this matter further.

This is an application by the Enforcement Authority, TfL, for a review of the decision of Adjudicator Alastair McFarlane (“the Appeal Adjudicator”), who allowed this appeal on 4 July 2023.

The application is made under paragraph 12, Part 2, Schedule 1 to the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 (“the 2022 Appeals Regulations”).

The decision by the Appeal Adjudicator was that, following the coming into force of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 (“the 2022 Regulations”), and following a decision of a panel of adjudicators on 26 May 2023, there is no power to serve a penalty charge notice by post on the basis of evidence from a prescribed camera device for the contravention of being stopped where prohibited on a red route, other than when stopped on single or double red lines. In this case the vehicle was parked in a loading bay during part of the prohibited time on the red route in Borough High Street.

The High Court in Transport for London, decided, though, that the panel decision was wrong and that, following the coming into force of the 2022 Appeals Regulations, there was power to serve a penalty charge notice by post on the basis of evidence from a prescribed camera device for the contravention of being stopped where prohibited on a red route in a bay in addition to single or double red lines.

It is significant that the Chief Adjudicator had previously refused TfL’s application for a review of the panel decision. Swift J considered, as part of TfL’s application for judicial review, whether the Chief Adjudicator even had the power to entertain the application.

In the judgment of Swift J. at paragraphs 26 to 28 "... the Chief Adjudicator was wrong to conclude that a review on the interests of justice ground could consider the legality of an adjudicator’s decision applying the principles relevant on an application for judicial review. Properly understood, paragraph 12 of Schedule 1 to the Appeal Regulations provides no such jurisdiction. Decisions of adjudicators are susceptible to judicial review. If the losing party wishes to challenge a decision on the basis it was wrong in law the correct route is by application for judicial review to this court, not an application under paragraph 12 for a review on the interests of justice ground.


27. In this case the Chief Adjudicator ought to have refused Transport for London’s application for review under paragraph 12 because the interests of justice ground for review does not permit review on the basis that the decision in question was wrong in law. Transport for London’s challenge to the Chief Adjudicator’s decision on the review application therefore fails.

28. The application for judicial review of the adjudicators’ decision of 26 May 2023 is allowed with the consequence that the decision allowing the appeals of the 4 interested parties are quashed and will be replaced by a decision dismissing each of those appeals."

The High Court therefore plainly decided that the Chief Adjudicator had no jurisdiction to entertain TfL’s application for a review because that application alleged an error of law by the panel, which was not amenable to review by another adjudicator and could only be put right by judicial review.

I do not accept the argument by Mr Garratt that a review in this case would not be on a point of law, and that it could somehow be argued that it was a question of fact or concomitant on the judgment in the Transport for London case. What Mr. Garratt for TfL is saying is, in reality, that the Appeal Adjudicator made an error in interpreting the 2022 Regulations so as to conclude that TfL had no power to serve a PCN by post. That is an alleged error of law, not of fact. Indeed, it was the same error of law made by the panel the application for review of which the Chief Adjudicator should not, according to the judgment of the High Court, have entertained.

The ruling by Swift J was one that was sought by TfL, which was the only legally represented party in the High Court proceedings. If TfL contended, as it now contends, that the effect of paragraphs 26 to 28 of the judgment was not as it appears on the face of those paragraphs, or if there was any ambiguity about it, that was a matter that could and should have been raised before Swift J before judgment was formally handed down.

The application for a review is refused.
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 in view of some adjudicators' lack of knowing what they ought to know through no fault of their own.

"Hippocrates"

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #55 on: March 10, 2024, 05:08:09 pm »
It is worth noting there are approximately 900 outstanding review cases which are affected by this decision.

Mr Garrett helpfully stated at the hearing that a review should be allowed to proceed because it would be in the public interest for TFL to collect the money from those penalties, and that if TFL could not collect the money it would have to look at other ways of raising revenue.

So much for only enforcing for traffic management purposes...
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law. Section 6 of the Interpretation Act 1978 applies to everything I post as it would apply to an Act of Parliament. I am a Conservative councillor, this means some people think I am "scum". 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.

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

guest968

  • Guest
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #56 on: March 12, 2024, 02:38:58 pm »
Is it not simply the case that if parking/waiting/stopping/bus lane/etc restrictions are indeed in place for genuine traffic management reasons, and justifiably need to be enforced for that reason, that the costs of marking/signing/enforcing/etc should covered by the fines levied for contraventions?

i.e. if TfL need money to implement traffic management schemes and are denied the fines then yes, of course they'll need to get the money from other sources.


Of course we need to be vigilent in making sure that traffic management measures are genuinely needed, and not put in place simply to raise revenue for general purposes, but if they are genuine then it seems to me to be very much in the public interest for the costs of any law enforcement processes to be defrayed as much as possible by making the law-breakers pay, not the law-abiding taxpayer.

andy_foster

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 400
  • Karma: +6/-3
  • Location: Reading
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #57 on: March 12, 2024, 02:49:39 pm »
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.

DWMB2

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 881
  • Karma: +25/-0
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #58 on: March 12, 2024, 04:17:28 pm »
very much in the public interest for the costs of any law enforcement processes to be defrayed as much as possible by making the law-breakers pay
I'd argue it is equally (or even more) in the public interest to make sure that TfL are themselves following the law and relevant procedures when enforcing.

If they were doing so, these appeals to the tribunal would surely fail, and thus they wouldn't be 'denied' the associated revenue.

guest968

  • Guest
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #59 on: March 12, 2024, 04:30:56 pm »
I'd argue it is equally (or even more) in the public interest to make sure that TfL are themselves following the law and relevant procedures when enforcing.
Couldn't agree more, but this Mr. Garrett's fatuous suggestion that the review should be allowed because TfL need the money doesn't mean that the money isn't needed and isn't being put to good use.

[edit]Modified because how I described Mr. Garrett in the original post got changed by a mod to "****", which made it look like I'd called him something far worse than what I actually did, and thus made me look bad[/edit]