DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 14577--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: January 29, 2024, 5:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I believe they can reclaim the VAT, so that knocks it down to
£132,395.42.
That's just 827 PCNs' worth, so not that expensive really.
#Post#: 15572--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: fraser.mitchell
Date: February 13, 2024, 6:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
When you read about judges, you seem to always see the words
"the learned judge" Hm... I don't think all judges are as
learned as we would like to believe.
#Post#: 15573--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: February 13, 2024, 6:34 am
---------------------------------------------------------
For those familiar with Hanlon's razor, High Court Judges are
very intelligent.
#Post#: 15842--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: February 18, 2024, 4:48 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Incandescent link ---
>
> When you read about judges, you seem to always see the words
"the learned judge" Hm... I don't think all judges are as
learned as we would like to believe.
>
--- End Quote ---
The problem with any sort of appellate process is that highly
specialised jurisdictions are subject to the supervisory
authority of judges who might never have looked at an area of
law before. The judge asked counsel for assistance on this odd
"procedural impropriety" concept that was all over the panel
decision as the judge was not sure what the adjudicators were on
about, needless to say Mr Korner was unable to provide any
assistance.
#Post#: 17040--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: March 9, 2024, 8:25 am
---------------------------------------------------------
An important spin-off case:
ETA Register of Appeals
Register kept under Regulation 20 of the Road Traffic (Parking
Adjudicators) (London) Regulations 1993, as amended and
Regulation 17 of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England)
Regulations 2022.
Case Details
Case reference
Appellant
Authority
VRM
PCN Details
PCN
Contravention date
Contravention time
Contravention location
Penalty amount
Contravention
Referral date
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Appeal decision
Direction
Owner.
Reasons
The Appellant was due to attend for a personal appeal before me
today, but has not done so. No explanation has been received by
the tribunal for the Appellant's absence. In the circumstances I
consider it just proportionate to determine this appeal on the
information before me in the absence of the Appellant.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was stopped
where prohibited in a loading and disabled persons box on the
red route outside permitted hours in Borough High Street on 4
April 2023. A penalty charge notice was issued at 08 16.
Following the panel decision in Commercial Plant Services v
Transport for London this appeal must be allowed as this
contravention is not enforceable on the basis of a record
produced by an approved device. No other issue may be
determined.
Decision Date
Adjudicator
Previous decision
Appeal decision
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
The Appellant was represented by Mr I Murray-Smith and the
Enforcement Authority was represented by Mr A Garratt.
This hearing was set down for a review application on 8 February
2024. Mr Garratt made an application on 23 February 2024 for
this review application to be rescheduled to a date that was
suitable to his Counsel because the arguments were too complex
for him to deal with. Further, that the Appellant's
representative had submitted a skeleton argument of some 70
pages on 21 February 2024, and that he would not have time to
deal with the issues raised.
Whilst the skeleton argument was 70 pages, the actual
submissions are contained in fewer than nine pages of
double-spaced script. I did not consider that there was anything
in the skeleton argument that was new or that Mr Garratt could
not address. This was essentially a one issue review application
to decide whether this tribunal had jurisdiction to decide an
application for review. The issue turned on a legal finding made
by Swift J in the High Court case Transport for London, R (on
the application of) v London Tribunals (Environment and Traffic
Adjudicators) [2023] EWHC 2889 (Admin) (“Transport for London”).
TFL had applied for a review of the original decision soon after
it was made on 10 July 2023. No decision was taken as to whether
a review would be heard until the High Court gave its decision
on the substantive issue. After the decision was delivered, TfL
refreshed its application for a review. It is clear, therefore,
that Mr Garrett was on notice that the issue of the
adjudicator’s power to review an error of law would have to be
resolved at a hearing, since the judgment of the High Court in
November 2023 and has had sufficient time to prepare for today's
application for a review.
I refused the application to adjourn on 26 February 2024, and
again today before the hearing commenced at 3pm on 29 February
2024, because I find that it is not in the interests of justice
to delay this matter further.
This is an application by the Enforcement Authority, TfL, for a
review of the decision of Adjudicator Alastair McFarlane (“the
Appeal Adjudicator”), who allowed this appeal on 4 July 2023.
The application is made under paragraph 12, Part 2, Schedule 1
to the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions
(Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 (“the
2022 Appeals Regulations”).
The decision by the Appeal Adjudicator was that, following the
coming into force of the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic
Contraventions (Approved Devices, Charging Guidelines and
General Provisions) (England) Regulations 2022 (“the 2022
Regulations”), and following a decision of a panel of
adjudicators on 26 May 2023, there is no power to serve a
penalty charge notice by post on the basis of evidence from a
prescribed camera device for the contravention of being stopped
where prohibited on a red route, other than when stopped on
single or double red lines. In this case the vehicle was parked
in a loading bay during part of the prohibited time on the red
route in Borough High Street.
The High Court in Transport for London, decided, though, that
the panel decision was wrong and that, following the coming into
force of the 2022 Appeals Regulations, there was power to serve
a penalty charge notice by post on the basis of evidence from a
prescribed camera device for the contravention of being stopped
where prohibited on a red route in a bay in addition to single
or double red lines.
It is significant that the Chief Adjudicator had previously
refused TfL’s application for a review of the panel decision.
Swift J considered, as part of TfL’s application for judicial
review, whether the Chief Adjudicator even had the power to
entertain the application.
In the judgment of Swift J. at paragraphs 26 to 28 "... the
Chief Adjudicator was wrong to conclude that a review on the
interests of justice ground could consider the legality of an
adjudicator’s decision applying the principles relevant on an
application for judicial review. Properly understood, paragraph
12 of Schedule 1 to the Appeal Regulations provides no such
jurisdiction. Decisions of adjudicators are susceptible to
judicial review. If the losing party wishes to challenge a
decision on the basis it was wrong in law the correct route is
by application for judicial review to this court, not an
application under paragraph 12 for a review on the interests of
justice ground.
27. In this case the Chief Adjudicator ought to have refused
Transport for London’s application for review under paragraph 12
because the interests of justice ground for review does not
permit review on the basis that the decision in question was
wrong in law. Transport for London’s challenge to the Chief
Adjudicator’s decision on the review application therefore
fails.
28. The application for judicial review of the adjudicators’
decision of 26 May 2023 is allowed with the consequence that the
decision allowing the appeals of the 4 interested parties are
quashed and will be replaced by a decision dismissing each of
those appeals."
The High Court therefore plainly decided that the Chief
Adjudicator had no jurisdiction to entertain TfL’s application
for a review because that application alleged an error of law by
the panel, which was not amenable to review by another
adjudicator and could only be put right by judicial review.
I do not accept the argument by Mr Garratt that a review in this
case would not be on a point of law, and that it could somehow
be argued that it was a question of fact or concomitant on the
judgment in the Transport for London case. What Mr. Garratt for
TfL is saying is, in reality, that the Appeal Adjudicator made
an error in interpreting the 2022 Regulations so as to conclude
that TfL had no power to serve a PCN by post. That is an alleged
error of law, not of fact. Indeed, it was the same error of law
made by the panel the application for review of which the Chief
Adjudicator should not, according to the judgment of the High
Court, have entertained.
The ruling by Swift J was one that was sought by TfL, which was
the only legally represented party in the High Court
proceedings. If TfL contended, as it now contends, that the
effect of paragraphs 26 to 28 of the judgment was not as it
appears on the face of those paragraphs, or if there was any
ambiguity about it, that was a matter that could and should have
been raised before Swift J before judgment was formally handed
down.
The application for a review is refused.
#Post#: 17092--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: March 10, 2024, 12:08 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
It is worth noting there are approximately 900 outstanding
review cases which are affected by this decision.
Mr Garrett helpfully stated at the hearing that a review should
be allowed to proceed because it would be in the public interest
for TFL to collect the money from those penalties, and that if
TFL could not collect the money it would have to look at other
ways of raising revenue.
So much for only enforcing for traffic management purposes...
#Post#: 17172--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: guest968
Date: March 12, 2024, 9:38 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Is it not simply the case that if parking/waiting/stopping/bus
lane/etc restrictions are indeed in place for genuine traffic
management reasons, and justifiably need to be enforced for that
reason, that the costs of marking/signing/enforcing/etc should
covered by the fines levied for contraventions?
i.e. if TfL need money to implement traffic management schemes
and are denied the fines then yes, of course they'll need to get
the money from other sources.
Of course we need to be vigilent in making sure that traffic
management measures are genuinely needed, and not put in place
simply to raise revenue for general purposes, but if they are
genuine then it seems to me to be very much in the public
interest for the costs of any law enforcement processes to be
defrayed as much as possible by making the law-breakers pay, not
the law-abiding taxpayer.
#Post#: 17174--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: andy_foster
Date: March 12, 2024, 9:49 am
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thief-taker
#Post#: 17177--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: DWMB2
Date: March 12, 2024, 11:17 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Scientist and Saint link ---
>
> very much in the public interest for the costs of any law
enforcement processes to be defrayed as much as possible by
making the law-breakers pay
>
--- End Quote ---
I'd argue it is equally (or even more) in the public interest to
make sure that TfL are themselves following the law and relevant
procedures when enforcing.
If they were doing so, these appeals to the tribunal would
surely fail, and thus they wouldn't be 'denied' the associated
revenue.
#Post#: 17178--------------------------------------------------
Re: TFL judicial review
DIR By: guest968
Date: March 12, 2024, 11:30 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: DWMB2 link ---
>
> I'd argue it is equally (or even more) in the public interest
to make sure that TfL are themselves following the law and
relevant procedures when enforcing.
--- End Quote ---
Couldn't agree more, but this Mr. Garrett's fatuous suggestion
that the review should be allowed because TfL need the money
doesn't mean that the money isn't needed and isn't being put to
good use.
[edit]Modified because how I described Mr. Garrett in the
original post got changed by a mod to "****", which made it look
like I'd called him something far worse than what I actually
did, and thus made me look bad[/edit]
*****************************************************
Page 6 of 7
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page