Brixton Liveable Neighbourhood and LTN schemes - improvements for pedestrians and cyclists

[thebackrow]

Article in the Telegraph about the court case.

Council faces calls to refund every LTN fine after admitting it introduced schemes 'illegally'

Lambeth Council has blamed its unauthorised closure of roads in South London on an 'administrative error'

www.telegraph.co.uk

Looks like the council made an error in installing the Oval LTN but the article doesn’t say what the consequences are.

The judge in the case says it doesn't mean the fines aren't valid which kind of negates the headline.

"Mr Justice Kerr, who will rule soon on the case in the coming weeks, insisted that because Oval Triangle LTN is now law ‘road closed’ signs should be obeyed."

 

[edcraw]

The judge in the case says it doesn't mean the fines aren't valid which kind of negates the headline.

"Mr Justice Kerr, who will rule soon on the case in the coming weeks, insisted that because Oval Triangle LTN is now law ‘road closed’ signs should be obeyed."

Yeah - I noticed that, though not to sure how to read it.

Don't want to read too much into it but if this is what OneLambeth are briefing a friendly journalist about I wonder what thay says about the rest of the case.

 

[edcraw]

Don’t know what this means though. Lambeth contacted them to agree the Oval LTN was illegal?

 

[chowce5382]

Yeah - I noticed that, though not to sure how to read it.

Don't want to read too much into it but if this is what OneLambeth are briefing a friendly journalist about I wonder what thay says about the rest of the case.

Have a read of this. It was a complex legal point about exactly what a judge could or couldn’t say as a matter of law in relation to an executive authority admitting that they had acted unlawfully.

Ouster clause - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

 

[edcraw]

Have a read of this. It was a complex legal point about exactly what a judge could or couldn’t say as a matter of law in relation to an executive authority admitting that they had acted unlawfully.

Ouster clause - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

I’m not sure I understand any of that Wiki page to be honest.

Do you know what OneLambeth means by the tweet above?

 

[chowce5382]

I’m not sure I understand any of that Wiki page to be honest.

Do you know what OneLambeth means by the tweet above?

Lambeth contacted us before the case with a document admitting that they had imposed the Oval LTN unlawfully. We agreed and countersigned the document agreeing it was unlawful. When we got to the hearing, lambeth then didn’t want the document to be part of the case so relied on the Outser clause and said that judge couldn’t opine on the document and therefore officially record, and as a matter of law and couldn’t make it part of court proceedings, that it was unlawful as that could possibly impact whether they could keep the money from fines resulting from an unlawfully imposed traffic restriction.

 

[edcraw]

Lambeth contacted us before the case with a document admitting that they had imposed the Oval LTN unlawfully. We agreed and countersigned the document agreeing it was unlawful. When we got to the hearing, lambeth then didn’t want the document to be part of the case so relied on the Outser clause and said that judge couldn’t opine on the document and therefore officially record, and as a matter of law and couldn’t make it part of court proceedings, that it was unlawful as that could possibly impact whether they could keep the money from fines resulting from an unlawfully imposed traffic restriction.

I can't see why they would want to agree the Oval LTN was unlawful before going to court.

 

[chowce5382]

I can't see why they would want to agree the Oval LTN was unlawful before going to court.

Because they looked at the manner in which they implemented it and realised that it was unlawful so effectively wanted to settle before the case. They relied on the ouster clause to ensure that the judge couldn’t formally agree that it was unlawful and have to recorded by the court that it was.

 

[edcraw]

Okay, cheers.

 

[cuppa tee]

That’s the opening paragraph of The Times article - not a comment from a poster on here!

yes I was saying the article is pushing the dualistic thinking, it’s not that simple.

 

[edcraw]

Ferndale monitoring is delayed because of the vandalism- from their Q&A today.

 

[Gramsci]

Because they looked at the manner in which they implemented it and realised that it was unlawful so effectively wanted to settle before the case. They relied on the ouster clause to ensure that the judge couldn’t formally agree that it was unlawful and have to recorded by the court that it was.

So effectively the Council are using ouster clause to keep this bit of information out of public domain. This isn't good.

Not saying that anyone should be banged up for this. But imo it should have been allowed in court that implementation was unlawful.It would have put it on public record.

Typical of Council to use legal means to stop scrutiny of their decision making process. They can get quite bullish in court.

Point of JR is to look at these issues.

 

[edcraw]

So effectively the Council are using ouster clause to keep this bit of information out of public domain. This isn't good.

Not saying that anyone should be banged up for this. But imo it should have been allowed in court that implementation was unlawful.It would have put it on public record.

Typical of Council to use legal means to stop scrutiny of their decision making process. They can get quite bullish in court.

Point of JR is to look at these issues.

"They should follow the law."

"No, not that law!"

 

[chowce5382]

"They should follow the law."

"No, not that law!"

Yup, right out of the council playbook in this case. Do something unlawful then rely on the law to ensure that it can’t be recorded by the court

 

[edcraw]

Yup, right out of the council playbook in this case. Do something unlawful then rely on the law to ensure that it can’t be recorded by the court

If you take them to court you can’t really argue about them using the law to defend themselves.

We’re very much hearing one side of it here though, from what you choose to share (you hadn’t mentioned this part of the case before) and OneLambeth briefing a journalist & paper that both appear ideological opposed to LTNs.

 

[chowce5382]

If you take them to court you can’t really argue about them using the law to defend themselves.

We’re very much hearing one side of it here though, from what you choose to share (you hadn’t mentioned this part of the case before) and OneLambeth briefing a journalist & paper that both appear ideological opposed to LTNs.

Was just pointing out the irony in your statement. Not point dwelling on it as you didn’t get the basis of the ouster clause. I suppose I would make the differentiation between using the law to defend themselves (which they rightlyfully did) and admitting that they acted unlawfully then using the law to ensure that court couldn’t record that they did. I would assume contrition and then moving on would be the best course.
The journalist got the public record of the case which you can also look at and that’s how he got the story. You can tell because he quotes verbatim what was said by the relevant parties

 

[sleaterkinney]

Yup, right out of the council playbook in this case. Do something unlawful then rely on the law to ensure that it can’t be recorded by the court

You’re saying that drivers who drive through a road closed sign should be let off in this case because of an admin error, or are you just going for the “unlawful” headline?

 

[chowce5382]

You’re saying that drivers who drive through a road closed sign should be let off in this case because of an admin error, or are you just going for the “unlawful” headline?

If the order put in place which legally enforced the ability to give the fines is unlawful (and is was) then it follows that, as a matter of law, those fines had no basis in law. I don’t see why this would be a controversial point and would apply to any form of unlawful act by an executive as acts as a general protection for the population

 

[thebackrow]

It is confusing isn't it? chowce5382 has repeatedly said onelambeth want this to be decided by the court and they'll accept the judgement. The judge said that because Oval Triangle LTN is now law ‘road closed’ signs should be obeyed, yet the Telegraph are reporting OneLambeth as calling for fines (issued for breaking road laws) should be refunded and their twitter account continues to encourage people to appeal their PCNs.

 

[chowce5382]

It is confusing isn't it? chowce5382 has repeatedly said onelambeth want this to be decided by the court and they'll accept the judgement. The judge said that because Oval Triangle LTN is now law ‘road closed’ signs should be obeyed, yet the Telegraph are reporting OneLambeth as calling for fines (issued for breaking road laws) should be refunded and their twitter account continues to encourage people to appeal their PCNs.

Not really confusing tbh. For the period of time that it was unlawful, the fines are unlawful. Once the council implemented it lawfully then the fines are lawful. That seems pretty easy to understand. Not sure why this is even an issue.

 

[thebackrow]

So one Lambeth accept that the Oval LTN is lawful? Which presumably means the EQIA is sufficient as well?

 

[chowce5382]

So one Lambeth accept that the Oval LTN is lawful? Which presumably means the EQIA is sufficient as well?

Not sure if you’ve been reading the case, if you had you know that we were not challenging Oval due to timing so don’t know why you’re asking about it here. Furthermore, you can enact a restriction yet still fall foul of not meeting the obligations under the EA.

 

[thebackrow]

Not sure if you’ve been reading the case, if you had you know that we were not challenging Oval due to timing so don’t know why you’re asking about it here. Furthermore, you can enact a restriction yet still fall foul of not meeting the obligations under the EA.

I've not, and you've been seemingly unwilling to actually detail it. I would be interested to - presumably you could share it?

Asking about the Oval LTN because it was being discussed as a result of a One Lambeth tweet about the court case that mentioned it...and because the judges comment (in the Telegraph story) referred to it.

 

[chowce5382]

I've not, and you've been seemingly unwilling to actually detail it. I would be interested to - presumably you could share it?

Asking about the Oval LTN because it was being discussed as a result of a One Lambeth tweet about the court case that mentioned it...

You can approach the court for a transcript. Worth doing if you want to go through the arguments in finer detail.

The tweet was relating to the unlawfulness of the fines following the unlawful implementation. Wasn’t relating to EQIAs which was why I questioned you asking about that one specifically.

 

[thebackrow]

But the judge said they were legal and should be obeyed, and you’ve said you will defer to the judges decision which you already seem to be disagreeing with.

do you have the court transcript? It seems likely you do

 

[chowce5382]

But the judge said they were legal and should be obeyed, and you’ve said you will defer to the judges decision which you already seem to be disagreeing with.

do you have the court transcript? It seems likely you do

But the judge said they were legal and should be obeyed, and you’ve said you will defer to the judges decision which you already seem to be disagreeing with.

do you have the court transcript? It seems likely you do

Please re-read my post at 8.17. There was a period where they were unlawful and so were the resulting fines. This really isn’t a difficult concept to understand unless you’re wilfully trying not to.

I don’t have a transcript as I listened to the case. Feel free to approach the court though to get one

 

[thebackrow]

Please re-read my post at 8.17. There was a period where they were unlawful and so were the resulting fines. This really isn’t a difficult concept to understand unless you’re wilfully trying not to.

I don’t have a transcript as I listened to the case. Feel free to approach the court though to get one

I see - that's not clear from your social media which suggests Oval is 'illegal' (which is different from unlawful isn't it?) and doesn't mention a time period.

Also talks about 'profiteering' which is a strange way to refer to fines issued to drivers for breaking road laws and ignoring signs.

Don’t know what this means though. Lambeth contacted them to agree the Oval LTN was illegal?

View attachment 274586

 

[chowce5382]

I see - that's not clear from your social media which suggests Oval is 'illegal' (which is different from unlawful isn't it?) and doesn't mention a time period.

Also talks about 'profiteering' which is a strange way to refer to fines issued to drivers for breaking road laws and ignoring signs.

As I’ve said, I have nothing to do with that account, which is why I’m answering your questions here. I’ve explained the position in my post above which, if you re-read it again, might serve to enlighten and dispel this confusion

 

[thebackrow]

As I’ve said, I have nothing to do with that account, which is why I’m answering your questions here. I’ve explained the position in my post above which, if you re-read it again, might serve to enlighten and dispel this confusion

Ok, I think the issue is that your unwillingness to actually call out an account (that claims to represent the group you are a part of) on any of the more outlandish claims and attacks on individuals it makes, and the contrast between your tone here and the inflammatory speech you made at the protest in central Brixton, and for that matter the inflammatory and just plain false statements you made in your first posts on here (which you've not removed) suggests that account does represent your position.

 

[chowce5382]

Ok, I think the issue is that your unwillingness to actually call out an account (that claims to represent the group you are a part of) on any of the more outlandish claims and attacks on individuals it makes, and the contrast between your tone here and the inflammatory speech you made at the protest in central Brixton, and for that matter the inflammatory and just plain false statements you made in your first posts on here (which you've not removed) suggests that account does represent your position.

you are welcome to your opinion of what you think the issue is. I think the issue is something different (I.e unlawful actions by the executive). Give our divergence of opinions we should probably leave it there as you seem to be emotionally and possibly professionally invested in these schemes and I doubt that we’ll ever see eye to eye.