DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: News / Press Articles
*****************************************************
#Post#: 3988--------------------------------------------------
Daily Mail: ULEZ expansion as signs for Low Emission Zone are ru
led ILLEGAL
By: Grant Urismo Date: August 28, 2023, 8:00 am
---------------------------------------------------------
It seems that the argument I've made on Pepipoo in the past that
a sign saying something like "Ultra low emission ULEZ zone" does
not sufficiently convey the details of the restriction to
motorists has been used successfully in court by well known
lawyer Nick "Mr Loophole" Freeman:
HTML https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12452271/A-blow-ULEZ-expansion-plan-Scaffolder-wins-legal-ruling-signs-ultra-low-emission-zones-sister-scheme-not-lawful.html
The Daily Mail article is short on legal detail (and long on
Khan-bashing), and this is actually a case about existing LEZ
signage not ULEZ expansion signage despite the headline, but it
does say "TfL insisted the signs were deemed lawful by the
Department of Transport more than a decade ago and said it is
investigating why certain evidence was not submitted." which
hints to me that perhaps the Secretary of State did not actually
sign off on the signs at all!
I expect this isn't the last we'll hear of Elevation Access Ltd
v TfL.
#Post#: 3990--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daily Mail: ULEZ expansion as signs for Low Emission Zone ar
e ruled ILLEGAL
By: ivanleo Date: August 28, 2023, 8:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
The ULEZ signs are most definitely authorised, see
HTML https://www.dft.gov.uk/traffic-auths/?search=ulez
The LEZ signs are pre-2011 so they're not online, but I'm sure
an authorisation for those signs exists as well.
Of the fact that Nick Freeman didn't pick up any of this, well
make of it what you will.
#Post#: 3996--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daily Mail: ULEZ expansion as signs for Low Emission Zone ar
e ruled ILLEGAL
By: DancingDad Date: August 28, 2023, 10:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
"TfL insisted the signs were deemed lawful by the Department of
Transport more than a decade ago and said it is investigating
why certain evidence was not submitted."
Investigation found that someone mucked up and the person has
now been promoted...sorry retrained....
Can't seem to find the case in LT registers...anyone??
I suspect that adjudicator was faced with an appeal citing the
signage and evidence that didn't address but relied on
"template" evidence.
Which will no doubt be remedied if it goes to review
#Post#: 4005--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daily Mail: ULEZ expansion as signs for Low Emission Zone ar
e ruled ILLEGAL
By: ivanleo Date: August 28, 2023, 11:59 am
---------------------------------------------------------
9210516529
It can't go to review because new evidence can only be
introduced if it was not available and its existence could not
have been reasonably foreseen prior to the original hearing,
i.e. it has to be new / unexpected evidence. Otherwise in every
case where the authority loses for failure to produce the TMO,
they could win on review.
It's exceptionally rare to get a review based on new and not
foreseeable evidence, I've only relied on that ground once.
#Post#: 4008--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daily Mail: ULEZ expansion as signs for Low Emission Zone ar
e ruled ILLEGAL
By: Grant Urismo Date: August 28, 2023, 1:20 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I expect Nick Freeman might be touting for business at the
judicial review stage, which I would very much like to see. The
secretary of state may well have signed a piece of paper that
says a sign with the five* words "Ultra low emission ULEZ zone"
conveys the existence of a charge and directs motorists to the
TFL website, but that doesn't make it true.
Given the camera authorisation fiasco, I wouldn't be too
surprised if TfL had actually forgotten to get the LEZ ones
authorised.
*Or four, if you take into account the fact that ULEZ isn't
actually a word**
** Unless you're Macedonian, in which case it is a word which
translates to 'Get in' or Finnish in which case it translates to
'Get out'... which doesn't help much.
#Post#: 4009--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daily Mail: ULEZ expansion as signs for Low Emission Zone ar
e ruled ILLEGAL
By: John U.K. Date: August 28, 2023, 2:11 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Sounds very much like this case (multiple PCNs), decided Oct
2021
9210516529
No mention of Nick Freeman
UNless this is a further case?
Could simply be that Mr Noel Willcox decided to share his win
with the Mail, who asked Nick Freeman for an opinion?
#Post#: 4049--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daily Mail: ULEZ expansion as signs for Low Emission Zone ar
e ruled ILLEGAL
By: DancingDad Date: August 29, 2023, 5:48 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=John U.K. link=topic=447.msg4009#msg4009
date=1693249878]
Sounds very much like this case (multiple PCNs), decided Oct
2021
9210516529...........
[/quote]
The conclusion in that case very much says that either TFL
dropped the ball or the signs were not authorised, especially as
the case was adjourned to give TFL chance to submit evidence on
that very point.
"25. The central issue in this appeal is whether the Low
Emission Zone signs are authorised and provide adequate
information as to the Low Emission Zone Scheme. I accept the
Appellant’s submissions that if the signs are not authorised and
do not provide adequate information of the charging scheme then
no charge or penalty is payable. Despite having adjourned this
appeal to allow TfL the opportunity to submit evidence upon
these points, TfL has produced no evidence as to either the Low
Emission Zone signs being compliant with the Traffic Signs
Regulations and General Directions 2016 nor the Traffic Signs
Manual or that the signs are otherwise authorised as
Non-Standard Traffic Signs or as to the adequacy of the
information contained on the signs.
26. In these circumstances, I cannot be satisfied that the Low
Emission Zone signs are authorised and lawful. TfL have
therefore failed to establish that the contraventions occurred
and that the PCNs were lawfully issued. I therefore allow the
appeal and direct that the PCNs be cancelled."
#Post#: 4068--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daily Mail: ULEZ expansion as signs for Low Emission Zone ar
e ruled ILLEGAL
By: ivanleo Date: August 29, 2023, 1:00 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
I'm pretty sure the signs are authorised and TFL, or rather
their contractors at Capita, simply didn't include the relevant
evidence.
#Post#: 4162--------------------------------------------------
Re: Daily Mail: ULEZ expansion as signs for Low Emission Zone ar
e ruled ILLEGAL
By: Hippocrates Date: August 30, 2023, 2:49 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
TfL has been approached for further comment. :-*
*****************************************************