DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 8734--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: October 30, 2023, 8:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
As I was sitting in front of the current Chief Adjudicator, I
can honestly state that he shook his head from right to left in
disagreement when the TFL barrister in his final submissions
said that CCTV enforcement was valid! The previous CA had left
the room by this stage.
#Post#: 8748--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: October 30, 2023, 9:36 am
---------------------------------------------------------
From the report, The Standard's reporter found Karen's analogy
"bizarre", but not the judge's foreshadowing.
--- Quote ---
>
> In a bizarre moment, she compared the Red Route regulations to
a restaurant menu offering "cheese board and spotted dick and
custard", and asked: "Would a patron reasonably expect to be
served cheese board and custard?"
>
> Mr Justice Swift replied, to laughter in Court One: "You know
what? These days, you just can't tell."
--- End Quote ---
#Post#: 8836--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: October 31, 2023, 2:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
So apparently the pepipoo directors are sitting on £30k that's
apparently held for some future big case. I can't imagine
there's going to be another "big case" any time soon, anyone
fancy seeing if they'd be willing to fund an appeal to the Court
of Appeal?
#Post#: 9395--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 6, 2023, 11:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: andy_foster link ---
>
> From the report, The Standard's reporter found Karen's analogy
"bizarre", but not the judge's foreshadowing.
>
> [quote]
> In a bizarre moment, she compared the Red Route regulations to
a restaurant menu offering "cheese board and spotted dick and
custard", and asked: "Would a patron reasonably expect to be
served cheese board and custard?"
>
> Mr Justice Swift replied, to laughter in Court One: "You know
what? These days, you just can't tell."
--- End Quote ---
[/quote]
I laughed deliberately so loudly in an attempt to blow off the
TFL barrister's wig. ;D
The ES often get it wrong. I believe someone else wrote the
argument!
#Post#: 10420--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: November 17, 2023, 4:51 am
---------------------------------------------------------
I've just heard that TfL have won the judicial review, the
interested parties have until Thursday to ask for permission to
appeal.
#Post#: 10425--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: November 17, 2023, 6:24 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Transport for London, R (on the application of) v London
Tribunals (Environment and Traffic Adjudicators) [2023] EWHC
2889 (Admin)
HTML https://drive.google.com/uc?id=1O05oSfiNyIL2muZ0W3xFZlo8p9uCJVBy.
Paragraph 17 is interesting, as it suggests that without an
upright sign, there cannot be any CCTV enforcement of a double
red line.
#Post#: 10504--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: Pastmybest
Date: November 18, 2023, 5:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Having only skim read the judgement two thinks sort of come to
mind.
Firstly the upright sign it must be present in the bay. We used
to argue regularly that the sign if not facing traffic fell
outwith LATOR but that has fallen away as not relevant I think
it can now be re born
Secondly the contravention it's self 46 stopped where prohibited
on a red route or clearway. if you are within the permitted time
of bay operation then can this stand as a reason to believe you
commit that offence. I would suggest it should be one of the
various parking offences code 30 re parked in a disabled bay or
24 for a loading bay without loading
#Post#: 10506--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: November 18, 2023, 6:06 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Pastmybest link ---
>
> We used to argue regularly that the sign if not facing traffic
fell outwith LATOR but that has fallen away as not relevant I
think it can now be re born
>
--- End Quote ---
I'm not sure that ever fell away, we've been winning cases
throughout on the basis of inadequate signage, including one
that TfL didn't challenge because the signage was indisputably
inadequate, and a double red line where the sign said no
stopping 7 am to 7 pm (the appellant stopped after 7 pm).
The problem with the bays is that they're not designated parking
places, so the other codes cannot apply.
#Post#: 10518--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: November 18, 2023, 8:20 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Quo vadis cp?
#Post#: 10584--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: H C Andersen
Date: November 19, 2023, 4:10 am
---------------------------------------------------------
If not a designated parking place, then which part of para. 3 to
Part 2 of Schedule 7 applies?
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page