3. The need for a Higher Tribunal
« previous next »
Pages: [1] 2

Author Topic: The need for a Higher Tribunal  (Read 1936 times)

0 Members and 23 Guests are viewing this topic.

The need for a Higher Tribunal
« on: »
@cp8759 @mrmustard

I am staring this topic due to the lottery and review system in place. I apologise to "The Wizard"; but, I ask again: what is the mechanism to put in place a higher Tribunal whose adjudicators are separate and "higher" than the current ones so that people do not have to fork out thousands to apply for Judicial Review?

This surely needs a concerted effort by many to approach their MPs and get the ball rolling.

I have enough on my plate at present and am finding it difficult coping with advising on here and dealing with appeals - some of which belong to me - apart from taking councils to task big time.

I really hope we can achieve some change in this regard and I do remember raising this before my last personal hearing in February 2025 with the Chief Adjudicator.
« Last Edit: January 18, 2026, 02:18:14 pm by Hippocrates »
Logged
I REGRET THAT, FOR THE PRESENT, I AM UNABLE TO TAKE ON ANY MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. THIS IS FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND LEGAL REASONS. PLEASE DO NOT PM ME UNLESS YOU HAVE POSTED YOUR THREAD ON THE FORUM AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE ADVICE.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: The need for a Higher Tribunal
« Reply #1 on: »
Presumably it would require legislative change to either create an appellate tribunal or direct appeals to the existing Upper Tribunal.
Logged
I am not qualified to give legal advice in the UK. While I will do my best to help you, you should not rely on my advice as if it was given by a lawyer qualified in the UK.
Re: The need for a Higher Tribunal
« Reply #2 on: »
Quote from: Southpaw82 on January 18, 2026, 11:42:11 am
Presumably it would require legislative change to either create an appellate tribunal or direct appeals to the existing Upper Tribunal.
Correct, even if all chief adjudicators agreed with Hippocrates, ultimately only Parliament could bring about such a change. The obvious route would be an appeal to the existing Upper Tribunal, similarly to what's been done in Scotland.

As always the question will be cost, as appeals to the UT would either have to carry very significant fees to cover the costs of paying judges, admin staff, IT systems and so on, or some charging mechanism would need to be introduced whereby enforcement authorities get invoiced by HMCTS for the cost of such appeals. Councils won't want to pay anything, so the government of the day would need to impose a charging mechanism on them.
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 or 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 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: The need for a Higher Tribunal
« Reply #3 on: »
The obvious route would be an appeal to the existing Upper Tribunal, similarly to what's been done in Scotland.

This is the part I have forgotten! Where is it please?

Logged
I REGRET THAT, FOR THE PRESENT, I AM UNABLE TO TAKE ON ANY MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. THIS IS FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND LEGAL REASONS. PLEASE DO NOT PM ME UNLESS YOU HAVE POSTED YOUR THREAD ON THE FORUM AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE ADVICE.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"
Re: The need for a Higher Tribunal
« Reply #4 on: »
Quote from: Hippocrates on January 18, 2026, 12:01:44 pm
The obvious route would be an appeal to the existing Upper Tribunal, similarly to what's been done in Scotland.

This is the part I have forgotten! Where is it please?
Have a look here.
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 or 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 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: The need for a Higher Tribunal
« Reply #5 on: »
@cp8759 and all other members.

As ever I am indebted to your omniscience and assistance.  ;D

I suggest a letter to everyone's MPs - I cannot do this on my own - but here goes.

"Dear MP

I am deeply concerned by the lottery system in place at the London Tribunals (ETA) and the propensity of adjudicators to change their minds on well-established arguments without giving any reasons whatsoever.  Furthermore, please note that even the Chief Adjudicator's decisions may  be overturned by his "colleagues" but, the said person is the first port of call when applying for a review of another adjudicator's decision. In simple terms the holder of the said title is none other than primus inter pares.

Around 5 million tickets are issued per annum in London and less than 1% actually even challenge the same. Motorists are frightened generally and ignorant of the various laws so they pay up notwithstanding that, with proper representation and/or research, cases can be won because of noteworthy incompetence on the part of many councils who, since they are in very powerful positions, should know better.

There are several basic laws at present covering parking, bus lane and moving traffic contraventions et alia in London which are:

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/parking-penalty-charge-notice-enforcement-process

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/clamp-and-remove-enforcement-process

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/moving-traffic-pcn-enforcement-process

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/bus-lane-pcn-enforcement-process

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/understanding-enforcement-process/london-lorry-control-scheme-pcn-enforcement-process

I therefore propose that the above legislations be amended accordingly to state that: If your appeal is refused, you have the automatic right to apply to The Upper Tribunal to have your case considered.

https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/tribunals/upper-tribunal/



This would avoid untenable and prohibitive expenses by applying to the High Court for Judicial Review. Please place this before the Secretary of State for Transport at the earliest opportunity."

Views please. I appreciate I have only included London cases but obviously TPT legislations can be included too and should be.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2026, 11:15:50 pm by Hippocrates »
Logged
I REGRET THAT, FOR THE PRESENT, I AM UNABLE TO TAKE ON ANY MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. THIS IS FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND LEGAL REASONS. PLEASE DO NOT PM ME UNLESS YOU HAVE POSTED YOUR THREAD ON THE FORUM AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE ADVICE.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"
Re: The need for a Higher Tribunal
« Reply #6 on: »
I'm not sure there should be an automatic right to appeal anything, as every disgruntled LiP will want to appeal to the UT, which would be faced with an unmanageable deluge of unarguable appeals. I'd suggest a right to appeal to the Upper Tribunal should be subject to obtaining permission to appeal, either from the lower tribunal or the UT itself.

I'm also minded to suggest there should be a small but reasonable fee (say £50 - £100) to be reimbursed by the council if the appeal is successful, just to discourage appellants from pursuing appeals just where they disagree with the adjudicator. Lastly I don't think an appeal to the UT should pause enforcement, because otherwise people will pursue UT appeals just to delay payment, rather than because they actually believe they have a meritorious appeal.

LT and the TPT handle over 200,000 appeals a year between them, if 10% were appealed to the UT that would more than double the UT's workload, and a proposal that would potentially double the UT's workload overnight (or worse) wouldn't get off the ground.

I do quite a few appeals myself, and I can think of only 2 or 3 cases in the last year which would have merited an appeal to the Upper Tribunal.
« Last Edit: February 15, 2026, 11:17:18 pm by cp8759 »
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 or 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 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: The need for a Higher Tribunal
« Reply #7 on: »
"Automatic right" I agree is not good enough. Perhaps: "provided there are valid grounds for review......."
Logged
I REGRET THAT, FOR THE PRESENT, I AM UNABLE TO TAKE ON ANY MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. THIS IS FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND LEGAL REASONS. PLEASE DO NOT PM ME UNLESS YOU HAVE POSTED YOUR THREAD ON THE FORUM AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE ADVICE.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"
Re: The need for a Higher Tribunal
« Reply #8 on: »
Normally the legislation just says that you need to ask for permission to appeal, and the tribunals interpret that to mean that there must be an arguable appeal to begin with.
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 or 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 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: The need for a Higher Tribunal
« Reply #9 on: »
I am formulating a better and more inclusive draft. I sincerely hope this will achieve something as we have all been moaning about this situation for years.

I am fully acquainted with procedures re the High Court and Court of Appeal and this Tribunal's criteria re permission to appeal. I will upload a case of mine shortly - lost, of course.

R Morgan v The Parking Adjudicator C1/2014/4207

They even got my initial wrong! And, wait for it, Lord Justice Simon said I had to pay the Defendant costs! Actually, His Honour Blair said I had to pay Elmbridge.

Lord Justice Simon dismissed my request to amend his Order.  I was one day late in filing my appeal to the ECHR. Now, things are different for me. I do not care an iota at my stage of life and, if costs are awarded against me, the Court will have to decide which is the most valuable: my 5 goldfish; my 3 violins and recording equipment or my body for scientific research. No house involved. They can take my car as it will stop me getting tickets.
« Last Edit: February 16, 2026, 11:20:56 pm by Hippocrates »
Logged
I REGRET THAT, FOR THE PRESENT, I AM UNABLE TO TAKE ON ANY MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. THIS IS FOR BOTH PERSONAL AND LEGAL REASONS. PLEASE DO NOT PM ME UNLESS YOU HAVE POSTED YOUR THREAD ON THE FORUM AND I WILL ATTEMPT TO GIVE ADVICE.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"
Re: The need for a Higher Tribunal
« Reply #10 on: »
I'd like to see the tribunal open to some basic outside checks on its decisions, perhaps from a panel of trusted representatives. This could mean:

- A request for a decision review could come from this panel, not only the appellant
- Locations with binary decisions made for identical contraventions flagged for review (eg the Redbridge red route)
- Whether adjudicators hands are tied when authorities do not consider or act on the statutory guidance on acting fairly.   
Logged
Re: The need for a Higher Tribunal
« Reply #11 on: »
Quote from: stamfordman on Yesterday at 03:38:49 pm
I'd like to see the tribunal open to some basic outside checks on its decisions

That would be a fairly (perhaps completely) unique proposition. I’m not aware of any other judicial body that has its decisions subject to “outside checks” absent an appeal or JR.
Logged
I am not qualified to give legal advice in the UK. While I will do my best to help you, you should not rely on my advice as if it was given by a lawyer qualified in the UK.
Re: The need for a Higher Tribunal
« Reply #12 on: »
AIUI, cases are referred to the ECJ by certain bodies or MEPs, rather than the losing party - so not entirely unique.
Logged
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.
Re: The need for a Higher Tribunal
« Reply #13 on: »
Quote from: andy_foster on Yesterday at 04:15:19 pm
AIUI, cases are referred to the ECJ by certain bodies or MEPs, rather than the losing party - so not entirely unique.
I thought it was the national court that, having identified that it has a point of EU law before it, refers the case to the ECJ for a determination of that discrete issue, and then applies the ECJ's findings of law to the facts before it.
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 or 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 and I abide by the SPMF service standards.

Quote from: 'Gumph' date='Thu, 19 Jan 2023 - 10:23'
cp8759 is, indeed, a Wizard of the First Order
Re: The need for a Higher Tribunal
« Reply #14 on: »
When we bumped into Mr Farage in Strasbourg some years back, his team suggested that an MEP could refer a case to the ECJ.
Logged
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.
Pages: [1] 2
« previous next »
  3. The need for a Higher Tribunal