Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: When does it become a criminal act to issue a PCN?
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
generaldbody
Hi All

Ref successful appeal from Paulee in Kidbrook Road Bus Lane 2012 Appeal

I'm not sure if this is the right forum but I was wondering if action could be taken against either TfL and/or Greenwich Borough officers/execs if they continue to allow PCNs to be issued when PATAS have adjudicated that the "Bus Lane" is not a Bus Lane?

I refer to the following:

http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/l_to_o/miscond..._public_office/
http://www.parliament.uk/documents/commons.../snpc-04909.pdf

What do we have to do to stop PCNs being issued when they "know" that their issue has been deemed illegal? Should the Authority not discontinue until they have successfully appealed the PATAS decision?

If the appropriate execs(?) are informed of the illegality of issuing PCNs for an illegal (say) "Bus Lane" are they not committing a criminal offence "Misconduct in Public Office"?

Thanks

GDB
emanresu
AS I recall they use the PATAS/TPT point of view - each case on its merit!
EDW
Complain to the Authority first off.

If a case goes to patas then the app' can ask for costs on grounds that pursuing scheme known to be unlawful is wholly unreasonable.
generaldbody
Who is the Authority the London Borough (Greenwich) or TfL?
StevieG81
I recieved my PCN from TFL
hcandersen
I suggest you write to Steve Allen who I understand is the Managing Director, Finance at Tfl:

http://www.tfl.gov.uk/corporate/about-tfl/1434.aspx

However, although you would address your letter to him as MD, Finance, I suggest your first para. makes it clear that you are sending the letter to him in what you understand is his role as TfL's section 151 Officer and that if he is not the designated officer would he ensure that the letter is passed to the correct person.

Without going into detail, a public authority's s151 officer is charged, under statute, with the proper governance of the authority's affairs. The post sits outwith the managerial structure of any public body in as much as it is independent of management and member interference.

And tell him that TfL are unlawfully enriching themselves etc. etc. and that unless the authority ceases to serve PCNs and collect penalties to which it is not entitled you will raise the matter with the authority's auditor as a formal objection to the authority's formal accounts.


HCA
generaldbody
[i wrote this before I saw hcandersen's post #6 above]

ok - I understand that to challenge a TfL issued PCN one must challenge TfL :-)

maybe I just don't understand the relationship between TfL who seem to "enforce" an "illegal" Bus Lane and the Borough who created said Bus Lane.

I am right that the Borough creates and implements the TMO which is the basis in law for TfL being able to issue PCNs- yes?

So my question is designed to determine whether any one person is (criminally) negligent and who that person might be - for starters anyway...

hcandersen
AIUI, criminal is part of criminal law whereas negligence is a matter for civil law.

If you think you can pin the action on a person, then IMO you're barking up the wrong creek and your paddle is as much use as a chocolate teapot, or something like that.

I thought you were interested in stopping this wrong persisting. IMO it would take from now to Christmas for you to find that your other target is a mirage.

You can either spend a small amount of time achieving a tangible outcome or engage in endless and ultimately pointless and ineffective correspondence. Your choice.

HCA
EDW
You must first complain to TFL.

If you are unhappy with reply then you complain to the Local Govt Ombudsman.

Nothing to do with criminal law.
generaldbody
"I thought you were interested in stopping this wrong persisting" - I am indeed.

I appreciate your comments. My initial question, rather than being a point to action, was more of an exploratory venture, a discussion point, because it seems to me that (according to FOI requests) this particular "Bus Lane Camera Trap" has netted TfL(?) around £2m over the last few years and if PATAS has adjudicated on many occasions that the "Bus Lane(s)" in question are in fact not Bus Lanes. If the issuing authority's S151 has been informed of this fact then for his authority to continue to issue PCNs for it is illegal then he is negligent? If the learned people who visit this site agree and pressure is brought to bare upon the person who is ultimately responsible for this injustice then perhaps the injustice will stop?

If action follows as a natural conclusion to the discussion then excellent! If the PCNs stop too - even better!

On the point you raise about civil/criminal law: I thought that this would come under criminal law? If I have read the CPS guidelines correctly - if a responsible Public Officer is aware of an act either unlawful or which could be considered a breach of the public trust (and/or others) then if he fails to prevent it with the powers that are within his gift then he is negligent - whether he is negligent and can be charged with the offence "Misconduct in Public Office"?
clark_kent
QUOTE (generaldbody @ Wed, 12 Sep 2012 - 22:43) *
PATAS has adjudicated on many occasions that the "Bus Lane(s)" in question are in fact not Bus Lanes. If the issuing authority's S151 has been informed of this fact then for his authority to continue to issue PCNs for it is illegal then he is negligent?


It would also follow that on many occasions PATAS have said it is a legal bus lane, so Tfl can argue they are entitled to enforce it.
generaldbody
I can see that.

So is there an authority that can adjudicate the differing adjudications?

Or a body that can determine whether those strips of highway are or are not Bus Lanes?
clark_kent
QUOTE (generaldbody @ Wed, 12 Sep 2012 - 22:51) *
I can see that.

So is there an authority that can adjudicate the differing adjudications?

Or a body that can determine whether those strips of highway are or are not Bus Lanes?



It is a bus lane the traffic order states that, what you are arguing is that the signage is not adequate to allow enforcement as such.
generaldbody
I appreciate that the following (however absurd) seems to be the situation for this specific location:

One PATAS adjudication that finds with a set of arguments, say my original case reference in post #1 (linked here again) that the bus lane is illegal is just for that case not for every case at that location & offence. Therefore if I've understood this then a subsequent PCN going to PATAS with the same/identical arguments could be rejected?

If so this sounds like luck of the draw, adjudicator having a bad day, didn't get any last night... So legal precedent has no basis at PATAS?

Incandescent
QUOTE
So legal precedent has no basis at PATAS?


Pretty much ! This is the elephant in the room, (as another of our posters calls it). English law is based on precedent, and ability of defence to defend "by way of case stated" i.e an earlier and similar case. However, that does not stop you from quoting earlier cases. Any adjudicator completely ignoring earlier cases is foolish as a review can then be claimed "in the interest of justice". The same circumstances should NOT have different outcomes. Basic justice really
bama
This another of the elephants n the room - there is a herd of them.
precedent does not apply. Its not a judicial process, merely quasi-judicial.
In the words of the MOJ adjudications " have the character of courts".
i.e. its just an impression/act. Just as Anthony Hopkins isn't really Hannibal Lecter.

Adjudicators can ONLY make findings of fact - and then apply the (limited) law.
As there is no appeal by way of case stated (another elephant, this on vies for being the leader of the herd) they are free to find just about anything and to contradict each other. And they do.
hcandersen
But back to TfL.

IMO, the s151 Officer would, as a minimum, be required to investigate your complaint (given that you have an adjudication decision(s)) and he would do this by referring the matter to TfL's own legal dept who would give the issue a rapid review given the implications of your claim.

One step at a time and IMO TfL's s151 is your first one.

HCA
bama
agreed
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.