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.]

Comments

James O'Brien: LBC presenter secret buy-to-let millionaire - Exclusive update

The Ayatollah of the Airwaves, James O’Brien, is still raging at the radio ether. His current demons: pensioner investors and... buy-to-let. “It’s not the politics of envy to say they need their wings clipped,” he declared last week. In fact, if you hit the numbers and can’t get through it’s probably because he’s still banging on about landlords and second-home ownership. Time to take a peek then at the former landlord-turned-gamekeeper’s own dirty “deeds“. A BIGRETORT EXCLUSIVE In 2014 AD, the Archbishop of Canterbury Justin Welby held a head-to-head with presenter James O’Brien; who isn’t usually lost for words let's face it. But whilst His Grace fielded phone-calls from LBC devotees, sat at the other end of the wireless alongside him was not the station's usual attack dog - instead, in somewhat subdued genuflection, was old motor mouth himself. Choirboy O'Brie...

Lewisham Council POCA Prosecution: Job Ad Reveals Mandate To 'Maximise Income'

From Borough of Sanctuary to dystopian world — Lewisham Council places landmark restaurant on the POCA grill. THE BIG RETORT… Some days, when I pass the grimy windows at Laurence House in Catford, I swear I can hear the sound of someone desperately singing from the floors above: “You’ve gotta pick a POCA or two, boys…” Lewisham once styled itself a Borough of Sanctuary. But today it feels more like a borough for bounty hunters — where local businesses and good neighbours aren’t nurtured, but criminalised for profit. The game is called POCA . In plain English, the Proceeds of Crime Act works like this: after a criminal conviction is secured, a prosecuting authority can ask the court to treat unexplained money or assets as “criminal benefit” unless proved otherwise. The trawl through the person’s past can prove costly, both mentally and financially, as it stretches back six years from when proceedings commence . The court then sets a “benefit” figure and an amount ...

Convicted: How Councils prosecute for profit

What’s happening in Labour-run Lewisham today has left me thinking. I once believed in the ideals of the Labour party: justice, fairness, and accountability – but, not now. These are just the empty sloganeering of an elite few in Lewisham's town hall and Parliament. In truth, Lewisham is not a borough of sanctuary but a place for Pocaneering . Ordinary residents—entrepreneurs, good Samaritans, and hardworking immigrants—are being treated not as part of the community, but as financial targets . All in the name of planning enforcement. All under the guise of legality. And all tied to the toxic incentives of the Proceeds of Crime Act (POCA) . The sand and cement storefront scandal – Criminalised Let’s begin with local DIY shop owner Kevin Bottomley, reported here under KJ Building Supplies and our successful campaign Save KJs. He was selling small quantities of sand and cement from his shop's driveway – the kind of side hustle long part of Lewisham life, helping neighbours avo...

THE BIG RETORT

Total Pageviews

Search This Blog