THE BIG RETORT

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.'...

T he 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...

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]

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 ap...

John Paul Morgan -v- Transport for London ("the Authority") Tuesday, 19 th 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 ...