DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 22215--------------------------------------------------
Re: Open call for evidence Restricting the generation of surplus
funds from traffic contraventions
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 12, 2024, 5:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Well let us not forget, the only reason the LLA 1996 & the
LLA&TFLA 2003 are still in force is because we're in the
"transitional period" inserted into The Traffic Management Act
2004 (Commencement No. 5 and Transitional Provisions) (England)
Order 2007
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/757/contents/made
by
article 3 of The Traffic Management Act 2004 (Commencement No. 5
and Transitional Provisions) (England) (Amendment) Order 2008
HTML https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2008/757/article/3/made.
We've now been in the "transitional period" for just over 16
years...
#Post#: 22893--------------------------------------------------
Re: Open call for evidence Restricting the generation of surplus
funds from traffic contraventions
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 17, 2024, 2:23 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
This from astralite who is suffering from P.P.T.S.D. = Post
Pepipoo Traumatic Stress Disorder :-[ :-\ :
Traffic regulation orders
Recommendation: Local authorities should be required to place
digital versions of all traffic regulation orders on a central
publication platform as soon as the order is made. They should
not be permitted to issue PCNs unless and until this basic
requirement of public information has been honoured.
Yellow box junctions YBJ
I have watched many hundreds of videos of alleged yellow box
junction contraventions. Almost all have shown the vehicle
stopped partly infringing an outer edge of the area of the box.
Often this has been by just a few inches. Very few have shown an
‘offending’ vehicle impeding the journey of another. The
conclusion is that almost all drivers try to observe the YBJ
rationale – i.e. keep the junction free from stationary traffic.
A fact I consider is indisputable is that many boxes are too
big, or too long, or do not comply with the basic requirements.
I have seen and could identify many such boxes. I entirely agree
with the findings and recommendations of:
HTML https://media.rac.co.uk/pressreleases/size-matters-98-percent-of-top-100-yellow-box-junctions-for-fining-drivers-in-london-and-cardiff-are-bigger-than-necessary-3310731
Unfortunately when an Adjudicator has allowed an appeal on the
ground that the box is too long, or does not comply with
requirements, or is not where it is stated to be, it has made no
difference. It seems that all enforcement authorities simply
disregard the Adjudicator’s decision (on the grounds that the
decision of one Adjudicator does not bind another) and continue
to issue and enforce PCNs at the same site.
Recommendations:
Guidance should be issued to enforcement authorities to the
effect that PCNs should not be issued in any YBJ case unless the
video evidence shows that the vehicle’s stoppage prevented
another vehicle using the junction or making progress.
The powers of the Adjudicators should be enhanced. Where an
Adjudicator has said that a box is unenforceable a notice to
that effect it should be issued and it should continue to be
unenforceable until the enforcement authority has corrected the
problem(s).
Issuing PCNs in relation to an unenforceable box should be made
illegal and subject to a fine.
Parking
Unless payment meters (cash or card) are provided people without
smart phones are excluded from parking where any
payment/registration is required. Similarly they cannot use 30
minutes free parking facilities where those, as they usually do,
require use of a parking app on a smart phone.
Recommendation: Councils should be obliged to provide for all
payment methods at all sites.
Bus lanes
There should be national standards:
a. motorcyclists should be allowed to use any bus lane at any
time
b. bus lane restrictions should not be imposed at times or on
days when buses are not operating
Recommendation: Guidance to be issued reflecting the above
pending regulatory changes.
Appeals
The level of appeals is minuscule. People who appeal bear all
the risk as if they lose they have to pay the full penalty
charge. The local authority has no risk as they do not pay
anything if they lose. It is essential to encourage more people
to appeal.
Recommendation: The full penalty charge should only be paid in
cases where a person loses an appeal at the Tribunal.
Costs
The award of costs to a successful Appellant should not be
exceptional, it should be routine including cases where the
enforcement authority issue a DNC (do not contest notice).
The level of costs should be realistic. Many Appellants spend
many hours researching the law/facts, taking photos etc.
Recommendations:
The regulations should be changed to allow costs to be awarded
to all successful Appellants.
All successful Appellants should be entitled to costs to cover
the time they have used to prepare and submit their appeal and
any actual costs such as travel expenses to attend the Tribunal
in person.
Similarly the regulations should also be amended to allow
reasonable costs to be claimed by lay representatives who assist
and represent Appellants at the Tribunal. Such costs should be
allowed whether or not the lay representative has charged a fee.
The Tribunal should publish guidance on the number of hours
usually allowed in claims for costs. This could be in expressed
in terms of ranges to cater for cases of differing complexity.
Advice about applying for costs (if successful) should be
provided to all Appellants when they lodge their appeal.
Applications for costs would only be heard and decided by an
Adjudicator in cases which exceptionally exceeded the Tribunal’s
guidance re quantum.
Process of appeal
In bus lane cases an Appellant may require the attendance of the
local authority witnesses at the Tribunal hearing of their case.
Attendance can be in person or by phone.
Recommendation: The appeal regulations should be amended to
allow any Appellant in any type of case to require the
attendance of the local authority witnesses at the Tribunal
hearing of their case.
All enforcement authorities must be prepared to identify their
signatories/witnesses.
Blue Badge first contravention
It should be standard practice in all local authorities that
discretion is used to cancel a first time penalty charge notice
when someone has failed to display their badge and/or clock but
later produces a valid badge.
Recommendation: The Tribunal regulations should be amended to
enable Adjudicators to allow appeals automatically in cases
where a local authority has persisted with enforcement in a
first time failure to display.
#Post#: 22904--------------------------------------------------
Re: Open call for evidence Restricting the generation of surplus
funds from traffic contraventions
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 17, 2024, 4:07 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> This from astralite who is suffering from P.P.T.S.D. = Post
Pepipoo Traumatic Stress Disorder :-[ :-\ :
>
--- End Quote ---
We all wish astralite a speedy recovery.
I agree with the comments with the following limited exceptions:
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Parking
>
> Unless payment meters (cash or card) are provided people
without smart phones are excluded from parking where any
payment/registration is required. Similarly they cannot use 30
minutes free parking facilities where those, as they usually do,
require use of a parking app on a smart phone.
>
> Recommendation: Councils should be obliged to provide for all
payment methods at all sites.
>
--- End Quote ---
This is, with respect, nonsense. Every single pay by phone sign
I have ever seen gives the option of making a phone call, indeed
I point-blank refuse to install any such apps on my phone and on
the very rare occasions I've had to use a pay-by-phone bay, I
simply called the number provided. You do not need a smartphone
to do this, the dumbest phone you can possibly get will allow
you to make a phone call.
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Appeals
>
> The level of appeals is minuscule. People who appeal bear all
the risk as if they lose they have to pay the full penalty
charge. The local authority has no risk as they do not pay
anything if they lose.
>
--- End Quote ---
That's only true outside of London. For London cases, the
authority is charges a fee for every case, whether they win or
lose, so for every lost case they make a net loss.
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Recommendation: The full penalty charge should only be paid in
cases where a person loses an appeal at the Tribunal.
>
--- End Quote ---
In practice that's already the case in almost all instances.
With a couple of exceptions, all authorities reoffer the
discount in all cases where a challenge is made during the
discount period.
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Costs
>
> The award of costs to a successful Appellant should not be
exceptional, it should be routine including cases where the
enforcement authority issue a DNC (do not contest notice).
> The level of costs should be realistic. Many Appellants spend
many hours researching the law/facts, taking photos etc.
>
> Recommendations:
>
> The regulations should be changed to allow costs to be awarded
to all successful Appellants.
> All successful Appellants should be entitled to costs to cover
the time they have used to prepare and submit their appeal and
any actual costs such as travel expenses to attend the Tribunal
in person.
>
--- End Quote ---
Costs in all jurisdictions have to be reasonable and
proportionate. For my first appeal I probably spent around 20
hours preparing and researching the law, that was neither
reasonable nor proportionate and if costs followed the event, I
shouldn't have been awarded more than 3 / 4 hours. But remember
it has to be the same rule for both sides, so if the bar for
costs is lowered then many appellant (especially unrepresented
ones) could end up with adverse costs orders on top of the
penalty, which might then discourage appeals.
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> Similarly the regulations should also be amended to allow
reasonable costs to be claimed by lay representatives who assist
and represent Appellants at the Tribunal. Such costs should be
allowed whether or not the lay representative has charged a fee.
>
--- End Quote ---
That would be a costs order for a non-party who never had any
skin in the game, and may encourage charlatans to set themselves
up as they'd have nothing to lose.
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> The Tribunal should publish guidance on the number of hours
usually allowed in claims for costs. This could be in expressed
in terms of ranges to cater for cases of differing complexity.
>
> Advice about applying for costs (if successful) should be
provided to all Appellants when they lodge their appeal.
>
> Applications for costs would only be heard and decided by an
Adjudicator in cases which exceptionally exceeded the Tribunal’s
guidance re quantum.
>
--- End Quote ---
It would probably be simpler to just have a fixed-costs regime
saying that if you win the appeal you get X, and what happens
between the Appellant and their representative is a matter for
them. That being said I don't see that there's anything wrong
with the current rules on quantum, which seem to work perfectly
well. As long as the Appellant's costs are reasonable and
proportionate and the relevant threshold is met, you get every
penny back.
#Post#: 22907--------------------------------------------------
Re: Open call for evidence Restricting the generation of surplus
funds from traffic contraventions
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: May 17, 2024, 4:27 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Costs usually can’t exceed those actually incurred (the
indemnity principle). If an appellant is charged nothing by a
representative, they can recover nothing.
#Post#: 22946--------------------------------------------------
Re: Open call for evidence Restricting the generation of surplus
funds from traffic contraventions
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 18, 2024, 4:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The problem with quantum, as two of "The Musketeers" know, some
adjudicators are more generous than others.
HTML https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/michell-way-(bus-lane)-bromley-code34j/msg22942/#msg22942
Also, do we know in cases in which councils are awarded costs,
what hours they spend accordingly? The good thing is that costs
awards are published in the CA's yearly reports - well, not the
full details.
Also, perhaps a time limit to be set by statute with automatic
penalty attached if the council do not comply? cp has had
experience of this, too, representing Chaseman 18 months ago v
Lambeth. And so have I v Havering: it all increases the
workload, of course.
#Post#: 22950--------------------------------------------------
Re: Open call for evidence Restricting the generation of surplus
funds from traffic contraventions
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 18, 2024, 4:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> The problem with quantum, as two of "The Musketeers" know,
some adjudicators are more generous than others.
>
--- End Quote ---
But costs are discretionary, so either you accept that each
adjudicator can make up their own mind, or you introduced fixed
costs. If you introduce fixed costs, you've effectively
introduced a cap.
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page