DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 2615--------------------------------------------------
TFL judicial review
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: August 5, 2023, 7:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Following an application by Transport for London, this court
order has been made.
HTML https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1JpH-X-iO2uG0mXTapM85S4iRcr60XWlZ
TFL has stated in correspondence that:
[indent]
I confirm that TfL will not seek to recover its costs against
any of the appellants should they choose to participate in the
proposed judicial review proceedings, given the general public
importance of the resolution of the core issue in these appeals
and for the avoidance of doubt, nor will it seek to recover its
costs against your organisation.
[/indent]
I would suggest anyone with an outstanding PCN affected by the
interpretation of Regulation 11 has standing to join the
proceedings as an interested party, and to oppose the claim.
#Post#: 3370--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: guest17
Date: August 16, 2023, 10:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The meaning of "costs"-- suggests they will not seek to recover
their legal fees should they be successful at JR but will still
seek the penalty charges in those cases where they have sought a
Review of the Tribunal's Decision.
It appears imperative that the Tribunal, as the Defendant, lists
all those cases, such as Jimmy M's, where TfL have sought a
Review obviously with the JR in mind.
The key issue for some of those PCN appellants is of course that
they did forgo the discount in the knowledge of the Panel
Decision. It would therefore be grossly unfair, if TfL were
successful at JR, that they be dunned the higher amount of the
penalty charge. That situation is highly prejudicial.
Mike
#Post#: 3402--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 17, 2023, 5:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As a matter of interest, who are the Tribunal's solicitors?
Looking forward to this immensely.
#Post#: 3405--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: John U.K.
Date: August 17, 2023, 5:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Suspect that TfL/GLA will have in house solicitors. No doubt
they will follow Ealing's example and brief top KCs, though
Mr.Byass who appeared at the panel hearing does not appear to be
a K.C.
#Post#: 3427--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: August 17, 2023, 3:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Anyone with an outstanding PCN (at whatever stage) might want to
email generaloffice@administrativecourtoffice.justice.gov.uk and
inform the court that they consider they're an interested party
to case CO/2884/2023.
Apparently it hasn't occurred to TFL that if they pursue
everyone pending the judicial review, it makes them all
interested parties.
#Post#: 3432--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 17, 2023, 4:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So, when they lose (TFL), how is this problem going to be fixed?
New legislation unlike the bus lane saga?
#Post#: 3433--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: August 17, 2023, 4:31 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: John U.K. link ---
>
> Suspect that TfL/GLA will have in house solicitors. No doubt
they will follow Ealing's example and brief top KCs, though
Mr.Byass who appeared at the panel hearing does not appear to be
a K.C.
>
--- End Quote ---
I meant the Tribunal's solicitors.
#Post#: 3440--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: August 17, 2023, 6:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> So, when they lose (TFL), how is this problem going to be
fixed? New legislation unlike the bus lane saga?
>
--- End Quote ---
To which "problem" are you referring?
The problem that motorists have is that TfL have decided that
the protections that Parliament deliberately put in place to
protect them from over-zealous authorities seeking to line their
own pockets is hindering their god-given right to line their own
pockets with minimum effort.
The problem that TfL have is that Parliament clearly decided
that they must not use CCTV to enforce parking bays, which
potentially hinders their ability to line their own pockets with
minimum effort.
This is not a loophole that needs fixing - it is legislation
being interpreted (by the Tribunal) the way that Parliament
intended, and which TfL are ignoring. The closest to an actual
loophole is that if the legislation is taken literally, CCTV is
only allowed to be used where there are both single or double
red lines *and* the time plates required only for single red
lines - so CCTV would not be allowed for double red lines with
no time plate (which is all double red lines). TfL's argument is
that this literal interpretation would be absurd, so rather than
applying the golden rule and reading in "in the case of single
red lines" to the time plate requirement, the entire provision
must be treated as a dead letter or otherwise read so as to
allow TfL to do whatever they like. I must have been off sick
when we did that rule of statutory interpretation.
#Post#: 3446--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: DancingDad
Date: August 18, 2023, 3:11 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> So, when they lose (TFL), how is this problem going to be
fixed? New legislation unlike the bus lane saga?
>
--- End Quote ---
Assuming the court finds with LT and that camera enforcement is
unlawful, either TFL go back to parliament asking for a revision
to the 2022 regs or they employ loads of CEOs and stop relying
on Met Police or cameras
That is an assumption, the court may well decide that the
interpretation of Red Route is more general and that camera use
anywhere on a REd Route is OK.
This interpretation was difficult to argue against under the
2015 Amendment that interpreted Red Routes as "“red route” means
a road conveying such red route road markings and signs as
authorised or directed by the Secretary of State in the exercise
of powers conferred on him by sections 64(1) and (2) and 65(2)
of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(4);"
It is within the 2022 regs that a tighter definition was brought
in.
#Post#: 3548--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: August 19, 2023, 7:42 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> I meant the Tribunal's solicitors.
>
--- End Quote ---
A judicial tribunal would not engage solicitors, they have a
panel of over 20 experienced judicial officers holders so they
should hardly need external legal advice. At most they might
engage a barrister to represent them, but that would be
exceptionally rare.
*****************************************************
Page 1 of 7
DIR Next Page