Author Topic: TFL judicial review  (Read 4048 times)

0 Members and 0 Guests are viewing this topic.

andy_foster

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 401
  • Karma: +6/-3
  • Location: Reading
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #60 on: March 12, 2024, 04:32:42 pm »
If they were doing so, these appeals to the tribunal would surely fail, and thus they wouldn't be 'denied' the associated revenue.

Ahh, but the tribunal mistakenly applied the law as it was written, rather than how it was required to be re-imagined in favour of TfL in order to avoid any accusation of the courts making up the law themselves, as Swift J decided (when he also decided that you could have custard with the cheese board).
I am responsible for the accuracy of the information I post, not your ability to comprehend it.
Like Like x 2 View List

Southpaw82

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 351
  • Karma: +3/-0
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #61 on: March 12, 2024, 06:24:12 pm »
[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]

Changed by the forum software automatically, not by a moderator manually.

guest968

  • Guest
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #62 on: March 12, 2024, 08:37:13 pm »
Oh, OK.
 
Settings must be ultrasensitive

cp8759

  • Administrator
  • *****
  • Posts: 4039
  • Karma: +99/-3
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #63 on: March 13, 2024, 09:59:38 pm »
So, I've just seen a PCN for code 99 on a red route.

Do we think a road marked with pedestrian zig-zags that happens to be on a red route is also marked "in accordance with" a DRL or SRL?
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: 401
  • Karma: +6/-3
  • Location: Reading
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #64 on: March 13, 2024, 10:41:03 pm »
It means the entire red route - which is why the relevant provision contains a definition which requires both red lines and an upright, just so that people can tell that the intention was that the definition must be read widely enough so that it means the entire length of the red route, but without saying so because they could have done but didn't, and the definition isn't wide enough to cover the entire length of the named road, because that would be absurd.
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 #65 on: March 14, 2024, 09:15:25 am »
But is a pedestrian crossing part of a red route? It's been held that it interrupts a bus lane, see Neville Stanley v London Borough of Lambeth (2170474513, 1 June 2017).

Arguably a pedestrian crossing is similarly incompatible with a red route restriction and its provisions must trump the TMO, so I'd argue it cannot be part of the red route at all. After all a parking bay is there to convey the effect of the red route TMO, while the pedestrian crossing is a section 36 sign.
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 #66 on: March 15, 2024, 12:10:45 am »
But is a pedestrian crossing part of a red route? It's been held that it interrupts a bus lane, see Neville Stanley v London Borough of Lambeth (2170474513, 1 June 2017).
1) I wonder if any bus drivers have been prosecuted for overtaking on the left?

2) Is there any way that anybody can think of whereby the illiterate ignoramuses who have decided that overtaking on the left should be called "undertaking" can be locked  up and banned from ever saying anything in public ever again?


Arguably a pedestrian crossing is similarly incompatible with a red route restriction and its provisions must trump the TMO, so I'd argue it cannot be part of the red route at all.
But you're also not allowed to stop on a pedestrian crossing or its zig-zags.  What you're charged with  would be different, but unlike Mr Stanley you'd not be not guilty of an offence.

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1071
  • Karma: +13/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #67 on: March 15, 2024, 10:04:04 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...
One other and I were there as observers.  To put it mildly, Mr Teper was not impressed. Also Pat Garrett mentioned it was in the interests of all London authorities.
« Last Edit: March 15, 2024, 10:09:25 pm by Hippocrates »
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"

guest968

  • Guest
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #68 on: March 16, 2024, 07:39:20 pm »
.... Pat Garrett ...
Is it the Wild West out there? :lol:

Hippocrates

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 1071
  • Karma: +13/-0
  • Gender: Male
  • Location: The Cosmos.
    • View Profile
Re: TFL judicial review
« Reply #69 on: March 20, 2024, 04:07:32 pm »
Well, I observed a hearing just before Christmas and he was quite rude then. Both the CA and I shared a look of disbelief with each other.  Being a good boy, I said nothing.
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"