PATAS TEST CASE

The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) admitted today that a test case may be needed to ensure that justice for a driver is received - even though it ruled against it on appeal.

Exclusive to TheBigRetort
In a BigRetort exclusive, "John Paul Morgan -v- Transport for London (the Authority) sat yesterday at PATAS. The Appellant's concerns surrounded his right to halt in a junction box where traffic in front dictated.

The Adjudicator
Andrew Harman, representing PATAS wrote, "The adjudicator, having considered this appeal on the basis of written and personal evidence from the Appellant and written evidence from the Authority, has refused the appeal." The prohibition is set out in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002, Schedule 19, Part 2, Paragraph 7, in which it is claimed:
'...no person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles.'

But where were the stationary vehicles?
There were no stationary vehicles at the point Morgan's vehicle entered the box, and so the reason for the adjudicator's refusal makes confusing reading. Mr Andrew Harman explained when he wrote: "The prohibition is silent as to whether such stationary vehicles have to be inside or outside the box junction." In this case there were no vehicles stopped in or outside the box, the problem occured later when free-flowing traffic, acknowledged by the adjudicator, was unexpectedly forced to stop inside the box.

A test case?
However, it is what Harman's adjudication went on to say that drives a coach and horses through the junction box 'theory': "The test to be applied is, in law, the state of the traffic when the driver enters the box junction." An admission that the law on this has not been fully tested, something that will find some interest amongst many drivers who have fallen foul of previous 'rulings'.
Morgan stated 'Transport for London (TfL)and PATAS take the interpretation of the regulation on what the law is silent on. In other words what it does NOT say rather than what it does. Which does not seem reasonable.' He believes the statement by PATAS points the way to judicial review.

Silent prohibition, a new term in the English language
So will Morgan be putting the yellow junction box theory to a legal test?
He believes this may be unnecessary. 'I feel certain that the law has made things much simpler than that. It's reasonable to assume that the prohibition is not silent, just misinterpreted... by those who profit most.'

Is PATAS impartial?
PATAS and the London Councils (aka TfL) share the same suite of offices, and the former is paid by the latter, which Morgan feels may affect its impartiality.
Of course, TfL may continue to fine drivers for a contravention that the regulation - the law - is silent on. And PATAS, viewed by Morgan as the monkey to its organ grinder, may continue to rubber stamp the PNCs on appeal because of this, but the road ahead looks pretty bumpy indeed.

Making a monkey out of justice
Coincidentally, Morgan discovered that PATAS is named after the monkey which avoids dense forests... surely this cannot be the reason why it cannot see the wood for the trees?

FINES SCAM CHALLENGE

The Morgan -v- Transport for London appeal took place today at PATAS (the Parking And Traffic Appeals Service). In a surprise move, adjudicator Andrew Harman dispensed with previous TfL 'evidence', and decided to consider video footage instead - made available by the Authority only after the fine was disputed. (See earlier post Lewisham Scam-Cam below.)
But why should the adjudicator choose to decide the merits of the case on the video footage alone? Is it because the photograph TfL presented of the vehicle 'stopped' on the junction box was in fact a snap of a car moving?
The adjudicator claims he does not need to consider the still photograph - in effect evidence of wrongdoing or cock up by TfL - because video footage alone is (now) 'enough' evidence. But the video footage was not what TfL supplied in support of its case against me.... Despite this, the PATAS adjudicator was unable to reach his deliberations at the Hearing, and instead claimed that he needed to view the video footage again - even though he had done so twice that day in my presence.
But let's not lose sight of the regulations in this matter. [7] [1] "no such person shall cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles". [Emphasis added.]
The video reveals that there were no stationary vehicles when my vehicle entered the box. It appears, however, that this may be open to further 'interpretation' by TfL. According to the PATAS adjudicator TfL may (and does) say... 'You should not enter the box if anything (whatsoever) causes you to stop within it.'
Asked how PATAS adjudicators maintain an impartial position - given that the organisation shares an office suite with the ALG Transport & Environment Committee - Harman claimed that this would not affect his decision making.
The Parking and Traffic Appeals Service (PATAS) claims that it "aims to provide a fast, efficient and quality service....[through] panels of independent adjudicators." Coincidentally, it considers appeals against Penalty Charge Notices issued by ALG (now known as "London Councils")whilst also coincidentally being on its payroll...

[Ed's note.. The organisation shares more than an acronym with the Patas Monkey photographed above. Erythrocebus patas is ground-dwelling, should normally avoid dense forests... and, like its namesake PATAS, junction boxes.]

NUDE CYCLISTS PROTEST CONGESTION CHARGE

In a protest against congestion charges, naked commuters road into the nation's capital on Saturday - on bicycles.

When asked by TheBigRetort what caused one male cyclist to rise that morning (he was on a lady's bike), he responded: 'TfL... It's taken the shirt off my back.' [Photo, Marie Accomiato]

London Congestion Charges - boycott

Opening my mail today, I was surprised to receive a Penalty Charge Notice from my old chums TfL. This time the picture claimed to show my car at an entry point to London's Congestion Zone. (The picture shows the vehicle on an arrow that displays no "C" or other road markings. But is this 'evidence'?)

Little did I realise that as I took the wrong exit on a roundabout, and headed along Newington Causeway instead of the New Kent Road, I was about to be 'mugged' by TfL - again. (See Lewisham Scam-Cam below...)

The wrong exit error took a few seconds to correct... but too little too late, in Livingstone's London: "You are liable to purchase a Congestion Charge for any use of the Congestion Charging Zone, regardless of the duration." And being "unaware" is a defence that falls on deaf red ears. After all, as many of you realise by now, it's all about revenue.
So have you been caught out by an overzealous TfL? Think the law has been applied too strictly in your case? If you're now hopping (mad) onto public transport then you can fight back with a big retort... FINE THE FINER.
If someone profits from your loss unfairly - and let's face it these are huge and sometimes unfair profits - why not simply boycott the goods and/or services of those involved? Remember, by taking your business elsewhere, you ensure that your voice in London is heard - and in this instance by Capita Group Plc.
[See link for more on spy cameras. http://www.spy.org.uk/wtwu.htm.]

CAPITA is responsible for operating the Central London Congestion Charging Scheme on behalf of TfL. Remember... if you can deny them profit - in any way - then you will have gained.
Post details, along with loss of revenue to Capita and its fatcat directors and shareholders here @TheBigRetort.
REMEMBER, BE FAIR. Only deny them what has been taken from you - including increased penalty charges. TheBigRetort will tally up the final shortfall to Capita in a later blog.
But don't forget TfL... you can make a difference there too... by boycotting its transport and other services up to the value of your fine(s) you can ensure that your protest is heard - remember, post at TheBigRetort when you do.

THE BUSINESSES TO AVOID (but only if you feel that you have been treated unfairly):

Local Shops or Post Offices, both receive kickbacks for their part in the traffic fines scandal.

TfL - Transport for London

Capita Business Services
Providing an integrated range of business process outsourcing and professional services to clients in the UK and Ireland.

Capita Commercial Services
Market leader in providing outsourced administration and support services to the general insurance sector and affinity partnerships.

Capita Symonds
Providing a comprehensive range of project management, telecommunications engineering and construction related consultancy services.

Capita IRG
Share registration and employee share scheme administration services.

Capita Trust Company

Corporate trustees and providers of trust and administration services.

Capita Life & Pensions

Administration and customer services for life and pensions operations.

Capita Life & Pensions Regulated Services

Administration and customer services for life and pensions regulated operations.

Constructionline

The UK's register of pre-qualified local and national construction and construction-related suppliers.

Quay Software Solutions Ltd

Veredus

Specialist provider of senior-level recruitment consultancy, public and private sectors.

[If you have any suggestions to add to the list, or think a company may be placed in error, contact TheBigRetort. A list of appointments by Capita Board members to follow in a later blog.]

LEWISHAM SCAM-CAM

John Paul Morgan

-v- Transport for London ("the Authority")

Tuesday, 19th June, 2007 at 12.00pm

DRIVERS BEWARE.... A Penalty charge notice issued by Transport for London (Contravention code 31, Entering and stopping in a box junction when prohibited) contains two pictures which allegedly show a vehicle stopped in the box - mine. In the 12 seconds it was allegedly there, the light from its headlights could have been to the moon and back nine times - but it was afternoon and they were off.

So could this be why TfL has variously demanded fines somewhere between £50-£150?

With little memory of events, I decided to revisit the scene. This time, just to make certain, I went on foot. After a few minutes I realised that I was not the only driver being legally mugged (no other word for it really) but one of many caught by a Transport for London's 'scam-cam'.

Did you know that 95% of foreign vehicles are not pursued for a traffic offence? (The reason why many of them happily sit in a yellow junction box I suppose.)

And, contrary to why the yellow box junction was sited there in the first place, traffic has slowed?

A Transport for London (TfL) study has revealed, far from easing congestion, camera-regulated yellow boxes are reducing the flow of traffic - severely. Since their inception in 2004, 100,000 drivers have been fined £100 each. The camera box junctions were intended to reduce congestion. However, the penalty for crossing the line without a way out has made many drivers too cautious. The average number of cars passing through camera junctions every hour fell by 150, or four per cent. Cars blocking traffic fell by 23 per cent. Jeroen Weimar of TfL told the Times. "We are concerned by the results because the justification for the cameras was that they would improve traffic flow." TfL said that it would continue monitoring and attempt to improve traffic flow, removing cameras if necessary.

It remains to be seen if this has any baring on the camera-covered yellow box junction at Goldsmith's College.

Watch this space....