DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 1744--------------------------------------------------
Red route panel review
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: July 21, 2023, 7:41 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
As a follow up to the red route panel case
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/keycases/Red%20Route%20Panel%20Decision.pdf,<br
/>Mr Chan has rejected the authority's application for review.
Some interesting comments about how TFL has conducted itself.
Commercial Plant Services Ltd and others v Transport for London
(2230060716, 21 July 2023)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MuUHGsMkemuPt6esWEcWyTHmCzG47ssT/view?usp=sharing
#Post#: 1763--------------------------------------------------
Re: Red route panel review
DIR By: guest179
Date: July 22, 2023, 6:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Which also raises the issue of whether, if a 'red route bay' is
not considered part of a 'red route' and therefore not
enforceable by camera then the contravention grounds of
'stopping where prohibited on a red route or clearway' must
similarly be incorrect.
#Post#: 1766--------------------------------------------------
Re: Red route panel review
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 22, 2023, 7:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
How to get these robbers to cease enforcement?
#Post#: 1773--------------------------------------------------
Re: Red route panel review
DIR By: slapdash
Date: July 22, 2023, 10:58 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't seem absurd to me that a contravention in a bay on a
red route cannot be enforced via CCTV.
That is the situation everywhere else and that interpretation
gives consistency across all of London (and indeed the country).
A worry would be that if the position changes that becomes one
less hurdle towards enforcing other contraventions by CCTV.
#Post#: 1782--------------------------------------------------
Re: Red route panel review
DIR By: guest179
Date: July 22, 2023, 3:44 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It doesn't seem absurd to me that a contravention in a bay on a
red route cannot be enforced via CCTV.
Intentional double-negative?
#Post#: 1785--------------------------------------------------
Re: Red route panel review
DIR By: slapdash
Date: July 22, 2023, 4:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Yes.
I understand the view put forward by the away team. But I don't
agree with it
#Post#: 1786--------------------------------------------------
Re: Red route panel review
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: July 22, 2023, 5:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
The dark side's argument appears to be-
the legislation says that CCTV enforcement can only be used on
DRLs and SRLs and only when the timeplate that is required to
give effect is in place - which taken literally means that CCTV
could never be used to enforce DRLs as there cannot be a
timeplate, therefore the legislation cannot be read absolutely
literally, and rather than being read with the necessarily
implied "where appropriate" or somesuch, the legislation must be
read only insofar as it supports them and otherwise disregarded.
I understand that this shows an utter lack of integrity which is
not inconsistent with LA enforcement, or the legal profession
for that matter. Or arguments that have won in other cases and
other courts where the bench were determined to find a way to
give effect to their biases. Beyond that, I struggle to
recognise or understand any rational or credible argument on
their behalf.
#Post#: 1790--------------------------------------------------
Re: Red route panel review
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: July 23, 2023, 5:19 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Ugly duckling link ---
>
> Which also raises the issue of whether, if a 'red route bay'
is not considered part of a 'red route' and therefore not
enforceable by camera then the contravention grounds of
'stopping where prohibited on a red route or clearway' must
similarly be incorrect.
>
--- End Quote ---
No, the restrictive definition is found in regulation 11, which
only concerns the use of CCTV enforcement. The whole issue
arises out of the fact that for the purposes of CCTV
enforcement, there is an explicit, narrow definition of a red
route which is narrower than the normal definition.
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> the legislation says that CCTV enforcement can only be used on
DRLs and SRLs and only when the timeplate that is required to
give effect is in place - which taken literally means that CCTV
could never be used to enforce DRLs as there cannot be a
timeplate, therefore the legislation cannot be read absolutely
literally, and rather than being read with the necessarily
implied "where appropriate" or somesuch, the legislation must be
read only insofar as it supports them and otherwise disregarded.
>
> I understand that this shows an utter lack of integrity which
is not inconsistent with LA enforcement, or the legal profession
for that matter. Or arguments that have won in other cases and
other courts where the bench were determined to find a way to
give effect to their biases. Beyond that, I struggle to
recognise or understand any rational or credible argument on
their behalf.
>
--- End Quote ---
That's an extremely good summary. Assuming I have to deal with
the JR pre-action protocol letter, I hope you don't mind if I
borrow that?
The only comment I'd make is I'm not sure there is any lack of
integrity on the part of the legal profession, I'm sure if
Commercial Plant had forked out whatever it costs to instruct
them, Mr Timothy Korner KC and Mr Andrew Byass would have made a
compelling case for the appellants.
#Post#: 1992--------------------------------------------------
Re: Red route panel review
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: July 26, 2023, 1:45 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, I am of the opinion that if a public authority
becomes aware that the imposition of a penalty
may be unlawful, it should seek to clarify the position before
issuing more PCNs. Mr Korner does not
think that it is an issue because motorists can always challenge
the PCNs and in not engaging on the
issues, it is TfL who lost out. I do not find this argument
attractive. Many motorists would have paid and
not fought the issue. Those who do contest the PCNs lose their
statutory discount and they may have to
pay 50% more. A public authority exercising a
quasi-prosecutorial function should not put members of
the public in this position. It cannot wait until the benefit of
engaging on the issue outweighs the benefit
of not taking action.
Serendipity re bus lane enforcement? To be used.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 1