DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 69988--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: May 4, 2025, 3:18 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Re: Reply #28
I don't consider that the duty under LATOR really affects
whether the signage is adequate. Either it is or it isn't.
Adjudicators make that judgment when assessing an appeal against
a PCN. If an adjudicator allows an appeal, explaining that some
specific signage is defective, the highway authority may choose
to remedy it pronto rather than see what happens at further
appeals. That's what happened in March 2010 with the missing "O"
from "BUS & // (cycle symbol) // ONLY" (appeal 2090587989,
registered 20/11/2009, decided 21/12/2009).
The doctrine of ultra vires and its consequences are the subject
of administrative law. If an action is held to be ultra vires,
that action is void, i.e. it is a legal nullity and has been so
since the action was taken. This creates interesting conundrums
where, as with road markings, secondary actions have been taken
on the assumption that the first action was valid.
Re: Reply #28
Under s. 64(1)(b) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984, DfT
can authorise anything they wish to. Regulation 4 of TSRGD 2016
acknowledges this.
What I find interesting about Shepherds Bush Road is
- Hammersmith & Fulham had an experimental TMO from 2004 and had
implemented the offside bus lane without an authorised sign, so
ultra vires;
- DfT authorised the diagram 958 in 2006 when its position lay
before the start of the lead-in taper to the bus lane, i.e. when
the diagram 958 was being placed in a position which was
consistent with its definition. DfT agreed that the diagram 959
wasn't needed because it would clash with the large direction
sign before the roundabout. They may have felt that, as the bus
lane had already been in use for 18 months, they could hardly
prohibit it. Before 2008 H&F changed the road markings so that
the diagram 958 now lay after the start of the lead-in taper.
H&F assert that that change was within their powers as they
didn't move the diagram 958 from its authorised position and nor
did they move the bus lane. The definition of diagram 958 merely
specifies that it appears before the start of the diagram 1049
so, arguably, H&F are right. But the result is that the sign
now appears before the start of the lead-in taper, so contrary
to what's shown on the sign. This looks dodgy to me, but I can
understand why DfT hasn't given H&F 1 month's notice to remove
it.
#Post#: 70002--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 4, 2025, 6:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bustagate link ---
>
> 2. While Regulation 18 of LATOR places a duty on a highway
authority, that duty cannot be enforced through an appeal
against a PCN.
>
--- End Quote ---
I've not followed this thread that much but the above is
obviously wrong, as per the High Court in Nottingham City
Council, R (on the application of) v Bus Lane Adjudicator & Ors
[2017] EWHC 430 (Admin)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zDNVQoneveLy7MeOINP0iUCl5bXU4XkU/view<br
/>at paragraph 38:
[indent]
38. It is well-established that a failure to comply with the
regulation 18 duty as to signage is a proper ground on which an
adjudicator may allow an appeal against the issue of a penalty
charge notice on the ground that the alleged contravention of
the relevant traffic regulation order did not occur. (See R
(London Borough of Camden) v. The Parking Adjudicator [2011]
EWHC 295 (Admin), per Burnett J. at [50] – [51]).
[/indent]
I don't think a boilerplate approach is in any way, shape or
form sensible, by far the worst appeals / representations I deal
with are where someone has copied and pasted a boilerplate
template that they don't understand. And as soon as any change
is made to the TMO or the signage, the template is immediately
out of date.
#Post#: 70033--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 5, 2025, 5:33 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: cp8759 link ---
>
> [quote author=Bustagate link=topic=6142.msg69952#msg69952
date=1746369540]
> I recognise that this advice is the opposite of that normally
advanced, which is not to reveal your hand until the other side
has shown his. Quite apart from matters of fairness, it is
prompted by London Tribunals' Practice Direction 2024 No. 2
HTML https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Practice%20Direction%2002-2024%20on%20behalf%20of%20ETA%2029%20July%202024.pdf,<br
/>which limits the material which can be added at the appeal
stage.
>
--- End Quote ---
It doesn't, in the notice of appeal you can add whatever you
want. It purports to limit what can be added after the notice of
appeal stage, but most adjudicators ignore it anyway.
[/quote]
In my view, this PD inherently favours the councils.
2 (e) A party’s skeleton argument must be lodged with the
Tribunal at least 14 days prior to the hearing.
And I have written to the CA stating so. Not only that, how on
earth is the unrepresented appellant supposed to know all this,
particularly when the Tribunal publishes you must send in your
evidence 7 days before the hearing? I have a case pending in
which the council only served their evidence 8 days before the
hearing. So, how much time is allowed for me and/or my client to
respond? This also begs the question: am I expected to view the
portal on a daily basis when I have a life and other cases for
which to prepare?
And then there is Bus Lane legislation where the council must
serve their evidence 7 days before the hearing. Upon receipt, is
the appellant supposed to point out errors before the hearing?
Not b****y likely as far as I am concerned. If the officer
required to attend does or does not, I reserve the right to make
further submissions on the day.
I am glad this has been moved into The Flame Pit because that
was the way it was going.
One council engages in tit for tat responses right up to the
11th hour. Also, regarding screenshots of website pages re
payment status, I adduce evidence like 45 minutes before the
hearing to illustrate to the Adjudicator that the council is
publishing an unlawful demand for money even when the appeal has
not even been heard.
Re emboldened quote from cp8759: It would be more constructive
for all of us if all adjudicators followed it to the letter.
But, as we know, they never followed Martin Wood's PD re
admission of evidence less than three days before the hearing
constituted a reason for allowing the appeal. On has recently I
believe. The only other one , Mr John Lane (now sadly retired)
did as well.
Finally, I have spoken with several members of the Tribunal call
service who were unaware of this PD.
Very very finally, if my petition were signed, much of this
would be resolved by councils having to attend all hearings in
moving traffic. Mickey Mouse and kangaroos could observe free of
charge. Clearly, originally the Tribunal was set up to deal with
relatively simple matters like signs and lines. Now that people
have become more savvy, largely due to forums such as this (only
this one in my opinion), it has become a far more educational
experience for all concerned.
#Post#: 70051--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 5, 2025, 7:23 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> In my view, this PD inherently favours the councils.
>
--- End Quote ---
Of course it does.
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> And I have written to the CA stating so. Not only that, how on
earth is the unrepresented appellant supposed to know all this,
particularly when the Tribunal publishes you must send in your
evidence 7 days before the hearing?
>
--- End Quote ---
As they say, the litigant who represents himself...
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> I have a case pending in which the council only served their
evidence 8 days before the hearing. So, how much time is allowed
for me and/or my client to respond? This also begs the question:
am I expected to view the portal on a daily basis when I have a
life and other cases for which to prepare?
>
--- End Quote ---
To be fair, appellants can get a no-questions-asked reschedule
as of right by simply calling up the Hartlepool call centre,
while authorities need to apply for one and often their
applications for reschedules are denied.
--- Quote from: Hippocrates link ---
>
> And then there is Bus Lane legislation where the council must
serve their evidence 7 days before the hearing. Upon receipt, is
the appellant supposed to point out errors before the hearing?
Not b****y likely as far as I am concerned. If the officer
required to attend does or does not, I reserve the right to make
further submissions on the day.
>
--- End Quote ---
Look at paragraph 48 of KU (A Child) v LCC [2005] EWCA Civ 475
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Onh_YWE38hzj9CFiYXfZip3W-ibccdrv/view:
[indent]
The status of a practice direction has been authoritatively
delineated by Hale LJ in Re C (Legal Aid: Preparation of Bill of
Costs) [2001] 1 FLR 602 at para 21, May LJ in Godwin v Swindon
Borough Council [2001] EWCA Civ 1478 at [11], [2002] 1 WLR 997,
and Dyson LJ in Leigh v Michelin Tyre plc [2003] EWCA Civ 1766
at [19]-[21], [2004] 1 WLR 846. It is sufficient for present
purposes to say that a practice direction has no legislative
force. Practice directions provide invaluable guidance to
matters of practice in the civil courts, but in so far as they
contain statements of the law which are wrong they carry no
authority at all.
[/indent]
#Post#: 70068--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: May 5, 2025, 10:18 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Re: Reply #31
The point which I was making was that if an adjudicator holds
that a highway authority has failed to carry out its duty under
LATOR, this merely relieves the appellant of having to pay the
PCN. The authority does not have to change its signage. It may
choose to do so, as Harrow did on Camrose Avenue in 2010.
While the Secretary of State has powers to require the removal
of non-authorised signs and can rescind the authorisation of
signs which have been specially authorised, he or she does not
have the power to direct the authority to place any signs. I
suppose a writ of mandamus might do it, but I can't see it
happening.
#Post#: 70069--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Southpaw82
Date: May 5, 2025, 10:28 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bustagate link ---
> I suppose a writ of mandamus might do it
>
--- End Quote ---
2004 called…
#Post#: 70070--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 5, 2025, 10:37 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bustagate link ---
>
> Re: Reply #31
>
> The point which I was making was that if an adjudicator holds
that a highway authority has failed to carry out its duty under
LATOR, this merely relieves the appellant of having to pay the
PCN. The authority does not have to change its signage. It may
choose to do so, as Harrow did on Camrose Avenue in 2010.
>
--- End Quote ---
For the purpose of getting PCNs cancelled, it's better that they
don't change the signage. That way you eventually can get costs
orders against the council. Suggesting that the council should
be incentivised to do everything correctly is somewhat misguided
IMO.
If the council does everything by the book, has perfect signage,
a perfect website, notices of rejection that show they have
properly and fairly considered each and every issue raised in
the representation, and a motorist with such a PCN comes here
for advice, what then?
#Post#: 70105--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Bustagate
Date: May 5, 2025, 4:02 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Re: Reply#31
I attach my first piece of boilerplate. If it's not wanted, I'll
take it elsewhere.
[attachment deleted by admin]
#Post#: 70121--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: ivanleo
Date: May 5, 2025, 5:28 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: Bustagate link ---
>
> Re: Reply#31
>
> I attach my first piece of boilerplate. If it's not wanted,
I'll take it elsewhere.
>
--- End Quote ---
To be honest it looks pretty good, but I suspect that to get a
substantive decision you'll need to argue it yourself at a
hearing.
#Post#: 70172--------------------------------------------------
Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Appeal 2250053451
DIR By: Hippocrates
Date: May 6, 2025, 5:05 am
---------------------------------------------------------
+1. IMO [member=3617]Bustagate[/member] should offer his
services as a representative, not just for this location but
globally on this forum.
*****************************************************
Page 4 of 5
DIR Previous Page
DIR Next Page