DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: The Flame Pit
*****************************************************
#Post#: 89346--------------------------------------------------
U. Ithsham of Newham Council is dishonest and tells lies
By: ivanleo Date: September 10, 2025, 8:39 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Not my words, but those of learned adjudicator Jack Walsh (as he
then was) in the costs decision in Temitope Opayemi v London
Borough of Newham (2250001505, 3 May 2025)
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1hpp7rCkKpPGZ_AQyJklxOMCZGG_V3hQL/view<br
/>(italics and underlining in the original, my bold):
[indent]
I refer to my decision on Mr. Opayemi’s appeal. I also refer to
my decision in agreeing to hear Mr. Opayemi's application for
costs, communicated to the enforcement authority (EA) on my
instruction on 25 April 2025, in which I said:
“I expect the attendance as a witness of, or a detailed witness
statement from, U. Ithsham, the author of the enforcement
authority (EA)'s notice of rejection of Mr. Opayemi's
representations, as to the factual circumstances in which those
representations were rejected, leading to Mr. Opayemi's appeal.
In the absence of the attendance as a witness of, or a detailed
witness statement from, U. Ithsham, I am likely to draw an
adverse inference as to how those representations were dealt
with, and as to the honesty of U. Ithsham's belief in the truth
of the assertions of fact made by U. Ithsham in the notice of
rejection.”
The EA has had the opportunity of making representations in
respect of this costs application and has done so. It did not
provide a representative for the costs hearing, or seek an
adjournment so that one could attend.
I do not know the sex of U. Ithsham and so, in those
circumstances, I will refer to the person where necessary,
intending no disrespect, as ‘they’.
Regulation 6(1) of the Road Traffic (Parking Adjudicators)
(London) Regulations 1993, which governs the procedure for the
adjudication by this tribunal of appeals against PCNs for moving
traffic contraventions, reads as follows, with my underlining:
“6.- Power to require attendance of witnesses
(1) The adjudicator may require the attendance of any person
(including a party to the proceedings) as a witness, at a time
and place specified by him, at the hearing of an appeal and
require him to answer any questions or produce any documents in
his custody or control which relate to any matter in the
proceedings…”
I took the view that Regulation 6(1) did not permit me to
require the attendance of U. Ithsham at the hearing of this
application for costs because, it seemed to me, that paragraph
applied only to the hearing of “an appeal”. I had of course
determined Mr. Opayemi’s appeal at an earlier hearing.
Regulation 5(2) is, however, more broadly drafted. It reads, as
far as is relevant, and with my underlining:
“5.- Further representations
…(2) The adjudicator may invite a party to deliver to the proper
officer representations dealing with any matter relating to an
appeal within such time and in such a manner as may be
specified.”
I consider that representations concerning a costs application
fall within Reg. 5(2) because they deal with “a matter relating
to an appeal”. My invitation - indeed it was expressly rather
more strongly as an expectation - for representations in the
manner of oral evidence or a witness statement from U. Ithsham
fell within Reg. 5(2).
The adverse inference to the possibility of which I had
expressly drawn the EA’s attention is in Reg. 5(3) and reads:
“(3) Where a party fails to respond to an invitation under
paragraph (2), the adjudicator may (without prejudice to any
other powers he may have) draw such inferences as appear to him
proper.”
The EA clearly received my decision agreeing to hear Mr.
Opayemi’s costs application. It responded to it on 28 April
2025. The EA did not state that U. Ithsham would be attending
the hearing of the costs application today and that did not in
fact transpire. No witness statement from U. Ithsham has been
provided by the EA. Nor did the EA seek an adjournment of the
costs hearing in order that U. Ithsham could attend, or in order
that a witness statement could be provided.
Instead, the EA responded as follows (which response I reproduce
in full):
“The PCN was issued because the vehicle in question failed to
comply with a prohibition on certain types of vehicle (motor
vehicles).
The 'No Motor Vehicles' sign at the entrance to Royal Albert Way
complies with the vehicle prohibition sign diagram 619, as
specified in the Traffic Signs Regulation and General Directions
2016 (Schedule 3, Part 2, Item 12). This sign indicates a
complete ban on motor vehicles and does not need to display
operational times.
This sign is an illuminated electronic LED sign, which activates
during the specified hours of 22:00 to 03:00, as per the Traffic
Management Order. The illumination ensures high visibility at
night, even without street lighting. Evidence of the location
and signage was provided in the evidence pack.
Due to the recent time change, which moved the clock forward by
an hour, the signage failed to illuminate as expected. This
oversight should have been identified by the issuing officer and
later addressed by Officer U Ithsham.
Officer U Ithsham has acknowledged their error in judgment and
will undergo training to prevent such occurrences in the future.
We sincerely regret the inconvenience caused to the Appellant.
The Appellant is requesting compensation of £250.00 for the time
spent capturing evidence to contest the case. While we
understand the effort required, we believe this could have been
undertaken en route to the Appellant's work, as their trade
involves driving a taxi.
We apologise for the error, recognise the inconvenience caused,
and propose a compensation of £50.00, which we believe to be
fair under the circumstances. We respectfully request the
Adjudicator to consider this proposal.”
Although the EA’s acknowledgment of an error and offer of
compensation is to be welcomed, in my opinion the EA
considerably understates the gravity of what actually occurred
here.
In his representations to the EA Mr. Opayemi said (as far as is
relevant and with my underlining):
"At the time that this PCN was issued and studying from the
video/photo evidence taken by your camera, there was no sign
been displayed that meets the code 52m [no motor vehicles]. The
sign displayed was only showing speed limit of 40mph only.”
Mr. Opayemi was indeed correct. The EA’s own evidence clearly,
obviously and undeniably showed that the speed limit sign was
showing and that the ‘no motor vehicles’ sign was not. Even the
most fleeting view of the CCTV footage, or the stills taken from
it which were embedded in the PCN, demonstrate that to be the
case. It follows, and I find on the balance of probabilities,
that anyone who considered Mr. Opayemi’s representations and
looked at the footage or the still images could not conceivably,
genuinely have believed that ‘no motor vehicles’ signage was
present and that an enforceable contravention had occurred.
Conversely, the logical corollary of that is that no-one who
(for whatever reason) believed that that signage was present,
that a contravention had occurred and that Mr. Opayemi was
liable for the PCN, could conceivably have considered his
representations or looked at the EA’s own footage or still
images.
Yet, in the notice of rejection of those representations, U.
Ithsham, of the EA’s Customer Relations Team, made the following
assertions of fact that I consider to be relevant:
“Your comments and the evidence have been reviewed in accordance
with Schedule 1 of the London Local Authorities and Transport
for London Act 2003”
“… the signs at the location are clear. You would have driven
past warning signs informing you of the restricted route ahead.”
“…we have investigated your case and have not found any grounds
for cancellation.”
“having taken all aspects of this matter… into consideration, no
justification for cancelling the penalty charge has been found”
Each and every one of those assertions of fact was untrue. It is
inconceivable that the consideration, review and investigation
referred to in the notice of rejection actually took place.
It would have been open to the EA to cause U. Ithsham to attend
the costs hearing or otherwise provide evidence, if it was in
fact the case, that they did not themselves carry out the
consideration, investigation and review to which the notice of
rejection refers but that another employee of the EA purported
to have carried out those tasks and then informed U. Ithsham of
the results. In those circumstances, in which the other employee
would of course have misled U. Ithsham, it might be the case
that U. Ithsham nonetheless had a genuine belief that the
assertions of fact made in the notice of rejection were true. It
is also logically possible that U. Ithsham might have been
thinking of another set of representations when saying that the
consideration, investigation and review took place.
But there is no evidence to either effect. Those scenarios are
pure speculation. They are also inherently unlikely.
In the correspondence of 25 April 2025 I expressly referred to
the adverse inference that might be drawn from an absence of
evidence from U. Ithsham. I said that in the absence of such
evidence, “I am likely to draw an adverse inference as … to the
honesty of U. Ithsham's belief in the truth of the assertions of
fact made by U. Ithsham in the notice of rejection.
I do draw that inference. I find on the balance of probabilities
that the reason there is no evidence from U. Ithsham to the
effect that they genuinely believed in the truth of the
assertions of fact made in the notice of rejection is because
that was not the case.
I find on the balance of probabilities, on the basis of all the
evidence and the inherent likelihoods, that U. Ithsham made the
assertions of fact in the notice of rejection without a genuine
belief in their truth. That is to say, the assertions of fact
were not merely untrue, they were knowingly or recklessly false
statements which the law would treat as dishonest and deceptive
(Derry v. Peek (1889) 14 App. Cas. 337) and which might, not
unfairly, be called lies.
It is unlikely that U. Ithsham lied because they knew that there
were no ‘no motor vehicles’ signs present and that that the
contravention could not have occurred. It is more likely that
they lied about having considered Mr. Opayemi’s representations
and having reviewed and investigated the evidence because they
could not be bothered to carry out those tasks. It is the less
egregious of the two alternative untruths, but it is serious
nonetheless. It is particularly serious because the lie occurred
in the context of an attempt by U. Ithsham’s employer, this EA,
to extract a £130 penalty from a member of the public who was
not in fact liable for it, because the requisite signage was not
present. I am afraid that trying to deceive a member of the
public, who is entitled to rely on the good faith of the EA as a
public authority, is more than a mere “error of judgment”. I do
not understand what “training” is necessary; one does not
require “training” to tell the truth in formal documents issued
by an EA as part of the statutory enforcement process for PCNs.
The EA document of 28 April 2025 also reveals that there is a
further guilty party here, albeit unnamed. The “issuing officer”
was clearly seriously negligent in thinking that the vehicle’s
owner was liable for a PCN in the absence of the requisite ‘no
motor vehicles’ sign.
In light of my findings above, which form the factual basis for
the question whether to award costs, it is quite obvious that
the decisions to issue the PCN, to reject Mr. Opayemi’s
representations and to resist his (inevitable) appeal were each
wholly unreasonable. It is plain that I should exercise my
discretion to award costs. Indeed, it is hard to imagine a
clearer case for the award of costs against an EA.
I have, throughout, been impressed with the clarity and
moderation with which Mr. Opayemi made his representations and
presented his appeal to this tribunal, both in writing and
orally. Part of the reason he made his appeal was to act in the
public interest so that other unsuspecting members of the public
were not ‘caught out’ as he – but for his tenacity – would have
been.
Mr. Opayemi initially sought the sum of £250 in costs but, when
we went through his costs carefully in the hearing, I think Mr.
Opayemi accepted that they were in fact somewhat lower than
that. Mr. Opayemi works as a professional driver of an
‘executive’ car, which means that whilst his vehicle costs are a
little higher, his earnings are greater than a ‘typical’
professional driver. He will often get bookings for higher value
fares, to airports, for example. Driving to the location and
taking photographs of the scene took 40 minutes during which
time, he told me, he lost out on likely around £60 of net
earnings, taking into account the costs of running the car. I do
not accept the EA’s argument that Mr. Opayemi could somehow have
stopped and taken pictures whilst also earning a fare. Actually
making the appeal and uploading the photographs took around 30
minutes. Applying the same yardstick, that incurred lost
earnings of around £45. I consider those times entirely
reasonable. I accept Mr. Opayemi's evidence.
In assessing the costs incurred I have disapplied the starting
point in the Civil Procedure Rules r.46.5(4)(b) and
corresponding Practice Direction of £19 per hour. That is
because Mr. Opayemi has, on the balance of probabilities, proved
financial loss. Rather, I have applied the principles concerning
the recovery of litigant-in-person costs that are to be found in
the decision of the Senior Courts Costs Office (Master James) in
Spencer v. Paul Jones Financial Services Limited (Case
HC-2013-000044, 6 January 2017) and, in particular, paragraph
[66] of that decision.
Every so often an appeal has the effect of properly holding an
EA to account. Mr. Opayemi is one such appellant. In this case,
very poor practice was exposed because of a fortuitous
combination of the changing of the clocks and Mr. Opayemi’s
sense of justice. I trust that this EA (and others) will never
again falsely claim that representations have been considered
when they have not been.
I have no hesitation in awarding Mr. Opayemi the very modest
costs of his appeal, namely £105.
[/indent]
Anyone wanting to observe District Judge (Magistrates’ Courts)
Walsh's fine work can see him at Willesden Magistrates’ Court:
HTML https://www.judiciary.uk/appointments-and-retirements/district-judge-magistrates-courts-appointment-walsh/
#Post#: 89370--------------------------------------------------
Re: U. Ithsham of Newham Council is dishonest and tells lies
By: stamfordman Date: September 10, 2025, 10:42 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Mr Mustard has a series on Newham. He's up to no 21.
HTML https://lbbspending.blogspot.com/2025/09/newham-council-are-cheats-21.html
#Post#: 89383--------------------------------------------------
Re: U. Ithsham of Newham Council is dishonest and tells lies
By: Hippocrates Date: September 10, 2025, 11:09 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Serendipity:
HTML https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-12554559/Labour-run-council-forced-apologise-wrongly-accusing-two-motorists-forging-defective-parking-fines.html
HTML https://uae.emmlegal.com/our-people/jack-walsh/
#Post#: 89394--------------------------------------------------
Re: U. Ithsham of Newham Council is dishonest and tells lies
By: Southpaw82 Date: September 10, 2025, 11:54 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Ouch.
#Post#: 89428--------------------------------------------------
Re: U. Ithsham of Newham Council is dishonest and tells lies
By: Hippocrates Date: September 10, 2025, 3:05 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://drive.google.com/file/d/1U7y7eo2n_5D-eB4wu7nod_yqVYiYc9js/view
#Post#: 89441--------------------------------------------------
Re: U. Ithsham of Newham Council is dishonest and tells lies
By: mickR Date: September 10, 2025, 5:29 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
bloody hell
#Post#: 89443--------------------------------------------------
Re: U. Ithsham of Newham Council is dishonest and tells lies
By: Hippocrates Date: September 10, 2025, 6:32 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
HTML https://www.judiciary.uk/appointments-and-retirements/district-judge-magistrates-courts-appointment-walsh/
At a hearing some time ago, Mr Teper said he would go far. He
was right.
#Post#: 89565--------------------------------------------------
Re: U. Ithsham of Newham Council is dishonest and tells lies
By: Korting Date: September 11, 2025, 3:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Ideally Mr Ithsham should be prosecuted for making false
statements and attempting to pervert the course of justice.
Perhaps people could get together to fund a private prosecution.
#Post#: 89567--------------------------------------------------
Re: U. Ithsham of Newham Council is dishonest and tells lies
By: ivanleo Date: September 11, 2025, 3:59 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=Korting link=topic=8005.msg89565#msg89565
date=1757623435]
Ideally Mr Ithsham should be prosecuted for making false
statements and attempting to pervert the course of justice.
[/quote]
Sadly the moving traffic legislation was drafted during more
innocent times when it wasn't considered imagnable that a
council officer would tell lies, while there is a specific
statutory offence for making false representations against a
London moving traffic PCN, there is no statutory offence for
making false statement in support of one. The Traffic Management
Act has remedied this and for parking (and moving traffic & bus
lanes outside London) there is an offence that goes both ways,
so in principle a council officer can be prosecuted for making
false representations to the tribunal under that legislation.
Perverting the course of justice is a specific intent crime and
U. Ithsham would have a bomb-proof defence: his counsel just
needs to stand up and say that U. Ithsham is a moron and had no
idea what he or she was doing, such that the required intent
could not have been held.
#Post#: 89589--------------------------------------------------
Re: U. Ithsham of Newham Council is dishonest and tells lies
By: Korting Date: September 12, 2025, 3:55 am
---------------------------------------------------------
[quote author=cp8759 link=topic=8005.msg89567#msg89567
date=1757624343]
[quote author=Korting link=topic=8005.msg89565#msg89565
date=1757623435]
Ideally Mr Ithsham should be prosecuted for making false
statements and attempting to pervert the course of justice.
[/quote]
Sadly the moving traffic legislation was drafted during more
innocent times when it wasn't considered imagnable that a
council officer would tell lies, while there is a specific
statutory offence for making false representations against a
London moving traffic PCN, there is no statutory offence for
making false statement in support of one. The Traffic Management
Act has remedied this and for parking (and moving traffic & bus
lanes outside London) there is an offence that goes both ways,
so in principle a council officer can be prosecuted for making
false representations to the tribunal under that legislation.
Perverting the course of justice is a specific intent crime and
U. Ithsham would have a bomb-proof defence: his counsel just
needs to stand up and say that U. Ithsham is a moron and had no
idea what he or she was doing, such that the required intent
could not have been held.
[/quote]
And here I was thinking that ignorance of the law was no excuse.
*****************************************************
DIR Next Page