DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 21439--------------------------------------------------
Open call for evidence Restricting the generation of surplus
funds from traffic contraventions
DIR By: Fluffykins
Date: May 3, 2024, 9:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Has anyone seen this?
HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/restricting-the-generation-of-surplus-funds-from-traffic-contraventions
HTML https://www.gov.uk/government/calls-for-evidence/restricting-the-generation-of-surplus-funds-from-traffic-contraventions
#Post#: 21526--------------------------------------------------
Re: Open call for evidence Restricting the generation of surplus
funds from traffic contraventions
DIR By: roythebus
Date: May 4, 2024, 4:40 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Yep, done mine yesterday quoting the Harwood Road/New Kings road
SW6 YBJ as making several millions for the council.
#Post#: 21575--------------------------------------------------
Re: Open call for evidence Restricting the generation of surplus
funds from traffic contraventions
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 4, 2024, 4:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I will do mine tomorrow and publish it if ok to do so.
#Post#: 22043--------------------------------------------------
Re: Open call for evidence Restricting the generation of surplus
funds from traffic contraventions
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 10, 2024, 6:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Just a thought: would it not be a good idea if, accidentally,
some members made the same points so that this may add weight?
#Post#: 22135--------------------------------------------------
Re: Open call for evidence Restricting the generation of surplus
funds from traffic contraventions
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 11, 2024, 5:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Just a thought: would it not be a good idea if, accidentally,
some members made the same points so that this may add weight?
>
--- End Quote ---
If the answers appear to come from a group or campaign, they
hold less weight rather than more. So everybody should come up
with their own wording, the worst approach would be to come up
with a template answer as templated responses would be given
very little weight indeed.
#Post#: 22136--------------------------------------------------
Re: Open call for evidence Restricting the generation of surplus
funds from traffic contraventions
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 11, 2024, 6:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
1. Signage is inadequate and the law should incorporate Bus Lane
legislation Para 7(6) of Schedule 1 so that authors of witness
statements are required to attend to be cross-examined.
2. The law has been relaxed in 2016 to allow these boxes to be
enforced willy-nilly. There should be warning signage in place.
3. Bus lane enforcement has been "illegal" from 2005 for 18
years as councils have not had the correct VCA certificates for
their evidence to be admissible at the Tribunal.
4. Parking enforcement, in situ and by camera, is similarly
unfair as regulations need to be homogenised as per 1 above.
Staff are incompetent; the law is not easily understood by
councils and motorists, the latter are affected mostly and just
pay up as they are frightened to lose the discount. Cost
decisions should be made much easier against councils who
knowingly flout the rules. Some press people all the way to the
Tribunal but then do not contest or adduce any evidence. In
general, the laws are far too complicated and lack
homogenisation.
Simply councils are targeting motorists to fund their
incompetence re management of their finances. Motorists are
soft targets.
The law needs to be tightened in terms of fining council staff
who knowingly lie in their evidence or, indeed, are so
incompetent so as to make wholly wrong statements of truth.
Fit for purpose advance warning signage
Ditto plus signs erected on posts in advance
Proper advanced signage and de minimis rule
Less complicated signage.
#Post#: 22137--------------------------------------------------
Re: Open call for evidence Restricting the generation of surplus
funds from traffic contraventions
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 11, 2024, 6:31 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Costs should follow the event, that would solve a lot of
problems.
#Post#: 22138--------------------------------------------------
Re: Open call for evidence Restricting the generation of surplus
funds from traffic contraventions
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: May 11, 2024, 6:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
A middle ground that I've seen deployed in the past, that could
work here, is to identify some key themes that members may wish
to ensure they cover, in their own words, in the submission
(alongside any individual points they want to raise).
This avoids the answers appearing template, and thus afforded
little value, whilst ensuring a number of responses touching on
the same themes.
#Post#: 22139--------------------------------------------------
Re: Open call for evidence Restricting the generation of surplus
funds from traffic contraventions
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 11, 2024, 6:56 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I "worked" with a BBC TV reporter about a decade ago who
"illegally" attached impromptu warning signs on a post at a
famous YBJ in Hammersmith and Fulham and he saw a remarkably
increased rate of compliance! H and F were not too happy
needless to say - especially about the signs!
#Post#: 22142--------------------------------------------------
Re: Open call for evidence Restricting the generation of surplus
funds from traffic contraventions
DIR By: guest17
Date: May 11, 2024, 9:45 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The Govt had the opportunity, when Parliament looked at the
Tribunal system 4-5 years ago, to beef up the power of
adjudicators and even appoint a parking/MTC "Tsar" to guard
against the excesses of Enforcement Authorities.
They didn't go down that route, largely because of the pitiful
mantra that each case is unique and we are not governed by
precedent.
If the bus lane at Clapham Park Road records 27000
contraventions a year I would say that the Chief Adjudicator was
honour bound to convene a "Panel" and examine the lines and
signs. Likewise the other Lambeth cash cows (you know what they
are). She/He didn't probably because of the resultant political
fallout.
Eric Pickles MP tried to instigate a review mechanism via
e-Petitions (27000 signatories as above?) but that seems to have
fallen on stony ground.
With Councils going bust I doubt any politician will put their
name to depriving Lambeth and other "serial offenders"of such
major income whether this be classed as unjust enrichment or
not.
This current exercise will be kicked into the long grass before
the Summer is out. Plus the civil servant who came up with this
idea will be seconded to the British Antarctic Survey where they
will spend the next 18 months freezing their extremities off.
Mike
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 2
DIR Next Page