Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

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

chowce5382 said:
It’s really not a hobbyhorse, not for me and certainly not for Sofia. I’m not sure how going through this is fun/enjoyable but your opinion.

I understand the tax payer points. It think it works out at about £0.03 per head of the population or, if looking at figure as a % of income on fines, it’s 0.000015%. Hardly an imposition but , as I’ve said, it’s completely up to them. Personally I wouldn’t enforce if I was them just for humanitarian reasons. If I wasn’t part of this, I’d also be fine with the sacrifice of £0.03 and wouldn’t see it as a massive imposition.
Click to expand...

I’d rather Lambeth spent nothing on legal fees and spent all of this money on something useful.

Alex
 
chowce5382 said:
Interesting insight. However you’re wrong on one point, at the end of the day they know full well that Sofia is legally liable so, if costs aren’t met, their only recourse is against her. Interesting that you say that it’s fucking disgraceful behaviour for a council against a resident but then seem to say that it’s fine for them to recover those costs…esp when you look at the 5-6m in fines that have benefited from. Personally I’d take the political route and write it off
Click to expand...
I've never been particularly convinced by the strength of the case and even whether it would have been all that effective had it been won. But on balance I support Lambeth's decision making processes being challenged and not just when there is 100% chance of success. Sofia either chose or was chosen to head up this challenge, as is required by the JR process. I am currently the name on a parked JR so have some idea of the obligations and risk and hopefully she was too.

The example I gave above was Lambeth using face to face intimidation to frighten residents so as to discourage them from having their complaints heard in court in order to protect the council from being found in the wrong. In another case recently (a leasehold tribunal) the council brought in five barristers against a single mum and tried to win on a technicality (IIRC a response being a matter of hours late - caused by their own fannying). The adjudicating panel had to ask Lambeth whether hey were trying to find a fair price for the lease extension or rinse the resident for every penny they could and adjourned the hearing to allow the resident to get legal representation (in the end Lambeth back-tracked out of court). But these are small cases where people tend to represent themselves and have little idea what to expect. In your case (or Sofia's case), the hearing was had and the council won fair and square (or as fair and square as can be in the court process). I find it staggering that anyone going into a JR, with all the high level legal advice that you need in order to do so, would do so without being prepared for the other party to claim from them the costs which they are entitled to claim as a result of winning the case.

There are many things wrong with the JR system and the expense is one of them. But it is the system we have. Until another one is found it seems daft to take action under this system and then shout "unfair" when it is properly followed but didn't go the way you hoped. I get no satisfaction from her having lost but a "Lambeth cruelly claims costs awarded to them in court against disabled woman" campaign would be cringeworthy.
 
Rushy said:
I've never been particularly convinced by the strength of the case and even whether it would have been all that effective had it been won. But on balance I support Lambeth's decision making processes being challenged and not just when there is 100% chance of success. Sofia either chose or was chosen to head up this challenge, as is required by the JR process. I am currently the name on a parked JR so have some idea of the obligations and risk and hopefully she was too.

The example I gave above was Lambeth using face to face intimidation to frighten residents so as to discourage them from having their complaints heard in court in order to protect the council from being found in the wrong. In another case recently (a leasehold tribunal) the council brought in five barristers against a single mum and tried to win on a technicality (IIRC a response being a matter of hours late - caused by their own fannying). The adjudicating panel had to ask Lambeth whether hey were trying to find a fair price for the lease extension or rinse the resident for every penny they could and adjourned the hearing to allow the resident to get legal representation (in the end Lambeth back-tracked out of court). But these are small cases where people tend to represent themselves and have little idea what to expect. In your case (or Sofia's case), the hearing was had and the council won fair and square (or as fair and square as can be in the court process). I find it staggering that anyone going into a JR, with all the high level legal advice that you need in order to do so, would do so without being prepared for the other party to claim from them the costs which they are entitled to claim as a result of winning the case.

There are many things wrong with the JR system and the expense is one of them. But it is the system we have. Until another one is found it seems daft to take action under this system and then shout "unfair" when it is properly followed but didn't go the way you hoped. I get no satisfaction from her having lost but a "Lambeth cruelly claims costs awarded to them in court against disabled woman" campaign would be cringeworthy.
Click to expand...
We were all completely aware and have the money to pay. I’m just pointing out that enforcement is up to them.
 
chowce5382 said:
We were all completely aware and have the money to pay. I’m just pointing out that enforcement is up to them.
Click to expand...
Whether or not they need to enforce it is up to whether Sofia abides by the court ruling. If she decides not to hand over funds raised for this purpose then of course Lambeth will need to make the decision whether to enforce.

I can't see any logical argument for them to write it off. If they did write it off what would Sofia do with the cash in the fund? It is presumably ringfenced (the fund I manage is) so fund further legal action?

You say that in their position you would write it off - why?
 
Rushy said:
Whether or not they need to enforce it is up to whether Sofia abides by the court ruling. If she decides not to hand over funds raised for this purpose then of course Lambeth will need to make the decision whether to enforce.

I can't see any logical argument for them to write it off. If they did write it off what would Sofia do with the cash in the fund? It is presumably ringfenced (the fund I manage is) so fund further legal action?

You say that in their position you would write it off - why?
Click to expand...
Incorrect. The court ruling is as a result of filing of a petition by Lambeth. Not the other way round
 
chowce5382 said:
Incorrect. The court ruling is as a result of filing of a petition by Lambeth. Not the other way round
Click to expand...
Rushy said:
Whether or not they need to enforce it is up to whether Sofia abides by the court ruling. If she decides not to hand over funds raised for this purpose then of course Lambeth will need to make the decision whether to enforce.

I can't see any logical argument for them to write it off. If they did write it off what would Sofia do with the cash in the fund? It is presumably ringfenced (the fund I manage is) so fund further legal action?

You say that in their position you would write it off - why?
Click to expand...
Lambeth have a very bad reputation for the way they behave in legal cases. Recent examples where they take residents up to the day of trial, make them incur costs, then drop the case only to lodge another one a week later on slightly different points of law knowing that the residents just don’t have the money to cover endless legal costs thus bleeding then dry without them actually getting to court. All so they can tear down flats and replace them with private buildings.

Writing off something like this costs them nothing (esp against the income from LTNs). It would go some way towards trying to improve their standing. It’s a PR thing but, as I’ve said, totally up to them. It would have completely foxed us and allowed them to control the narrative and come across as the caring council for almost no cost. If I was putting myself in their shoes I’d look at the PR cost benefit and would have tagged OneLambeth, stating that they have done this and point out that it’s hardly the actions of a vile dictator
 
chowce5382 said:
Lambeth have a very bad reputation for the way they behave in legal cases. Recent examples where they take residents up to the day of trial, make them incur costs, then drop the case only to lodge another one a week later on slightly different points of law knowing that the residents just don’t have the money to cover endless legal costs thus bleeding then dry without them actually getting to court. All so they can tear down flats and replace them with private buildings.

Writing off something like this costs them nothing (esp against the income from LTNs). It would go some way towards trying to improve their standing. It’s a PR thing but, as I’ve said, totally up to them. It would have completely foxed us and allowed them to control the narrative and come across as the caring council for almost no cost. If I was putting myself in their shoes I’d look at the PR cost benefit and would have tagged OneLambeth, stating that they have done this and point out that it’s hardly the actions of a vile dictator
Click to expand...
Tbh, it’s a shame they can only claim back 10k of the taxpayers money that was spent fighting this. I wonder what their total costs were?.

There is no narrative going against them, did you miss the elections recently?
 
chowce5382 said:
Writing off something like this costs them nothing (esp against the income from LTNs). It would go some way towards trying to improve their standing. It’s a PR thing but, as I’ve said, totally up to them. It would have completely foxed us and allowed them to control the narrative and come across as the caring council for almost no cost. If I was putting myself in their shoes I’d look at the PR cost benefit and would have tagged OneLambeth, stating that they have done this and point out that it’s hardly the actions of a vile dictator
Click to expand...

Only OneLambeth calls Claire Holland a ‘vile dictator’s - why should the council doing anything to favour your completely unhinged nasty campaign?
 
chowce5382 said:
Lambeth have a very bad reputation for the way they behave in legal cases. Recent examples where they take residents up to the day of trial, make them incur costs, then drop the case only to lodge another one a week later on slightly different points of law knowing that the residents just don’t have the money to cover endless legal costs thus bleeding then dry without them actually getting to court. All so they can tear down flats and replace them with private buildings.

Writing off something like this costs them nothing (esp against the income from LTNs). It would go some way towards trying to improve their standing. It’s a PR thing but, as I’ve said, totally up to them. It would have completely foxed us and allowed them to control the narrative and come across as the caring council for almost no cost.
Click to expand...
Yes - they have a bad reputation. They regularly behave like cunts. I don't disagree with you. But they won his case on the point of law. So why expect them not to take costs where they are available to them to take? You say it costs them nothing not to. It costs them £10,000 not to.

If I was putting myself in their shoes I’d look at the PR cost benefit and would have tagged OneLambeth, stating that they have done this and point out that it’s hardly the actions of a vile dictator
Click to expand...

Personally, I'd look at that cost benefit of that as zero. One Lambeth is as polar and blinkered as the loony LTNvangelists. Writing costs off for them is (quite rightly) not going to convince anyone of anything. It seems remarkably naïve to believe that it would. In fact, I think Lambeth Legal probably quite likes being seen as intimidating and ruthless.
 
chowce5382 said:
Incorrect. The court ruling is as a result of filing of a petition by Lambeth. Not the other way round
Click to expand...
You are agreeing with me, you Rodney. The court has made a ruling in Lambeth's favour. Whether or not Lambeth need to enforce it is up to whether Sofia abides by the court ruling. If she decides not to hand over funds raised for this purpose then of course Lambeth will need to make the decision whether to enforce.
 
edcraw said:
Why is Ian Armstrong saying you haven’t raised it yet then?
Click to expand...
It’s simple. We have the money to pay the legal costs of Lambeth which fall due on 31st. Then there is are fees for our solicitor. All legal fees just two different buckets. I hope that helps to explain
 
Rushy said:
Yes - they have a bad reputation. They regularly behave like cunts. I don't disagree with you. But they won his case on the point of law. So why expect them not to take costs where they are available to them to take? You say it costs them nothing not to. It costs them £10,000 not to.



Personally, I'd look at that cost benefit of that as zero. One Lambeth is as polar and blinkered as the loony LTNvangelists. Writing costs off for them is (quite rightly) not going to convince anyone of anything. It seems remarkably naïve to believe that it would. In fact, I think Lambeth Legal probably quite likes being seen as intimidating and ruthless.
Click to expand...
That’s a fair view. I’m not saying that they shouldn’t I’m just saying its an option. We have expected to pay hence why we have raised the money
 
Rushy said:
You are agreeing with me, you Rodney. The court has made a ruling in Lambeth's favour. Whether or not Lambeth need to enforce it is up to whether Sofia abides by the court ruling. If she decides not to hand over funds raised for this purpose then of course Lambeth will need to make the decision whether to enforce.
Click to expand...
No, my point is that Lambeth didn’t need to file to have that ruling in the first place. I’m talking about the step before the one you are. Point of legal process, if you didn’t know the system it’s not always entirely transparent exactly which party has to do what at whichever time. Hope that helps explain
 
chowce5382 said:
It’s simple. We have the money to pay the legal costs of Lambeth which fall due on 31st. Then there is are fees for our solicitor. All legal fees just two different buckets. I hope that helps to explain
Click to expand...
No it doesn’t explain it. He says you haven’t raised the legal costs Sofia owes the council.

C28181CD-D67D-45CB-A781-DFF167516381.jpeg
 
chowce5382 said:
No, my point is that Lambeth didn’t need to file to have that ruling in the first place. I’m talking about the step before the one you are. Point of legal process, if you didn’t know the system it’s not always entirely transparent exactly which party has to do what at whichever time. Hope that helps explain
Click to expand...
But they DID file it. As they are entitled to do. And the court ruled in their favour. Whether or not Lambeth need to enforce it is up to whether Sofia abides by the court ruling. If she decides not to hand over funds raised for this purpose then of course Lambeth will need to make the decision whether to enforce.
 
I was reading one of the reports that the decision on whether to permanently approve the tulse hill LTN is taking into account and it had a few recommendations, such as changing the traffic light phasing at the junction of water lane and tulse hill and introducing a yellow box at the junction of Josephine and water lane. I haven’t got the link I’m afraid but it’s on Lambeth’s website
 
chowce5382 said:
Writing off something like this costs them nothing (esp against the income from LTNs).
Click to expand...

You like to keep mentioning the income from the LTNs.

Is it just because you think that an appropriate use for it is to fund JRs or is this part of the general strategy of mentioning it as often as possible to try and focus people on the idea that the council is making loads of cash from these schemes, and maybe that's really what this is all about, an underhand scheme to fleece motorists?

The way it looks to anyone who's generally supportive of the LTNs is that it's made up of voluntary payments from people who want to try and ignore the traffic restrictions. If this provides the council with some revenue then why object. I'd be interested to know how much it offsets the costs of implementing and maintaining the various measures necessary to protect Lambeth residents from unhindered vehicle use. Including of course the costs of the continual vandalism and sabotage of cameras etc.

Actually I really wish that councils were allowed to keep revenue from speed cameras too. Then we'd see more speed cameras, more revenue that go towards public services, and maybe even a slight reduction in drivers who believe they can drive around whatever speed they feel like with virtually no concern about any consequence.
 
Here’s a letter regarding Tulse Hill LTN and further improvements. Crossing of Tulse Hill at Crassi than Gardens would be very welcome as well as improving the streets where the shops are on Upper Tulse Hill & Elm Park.

Still crazy that some still can’t see what an obviously good thing LTNs are and what cars everywhere!

262E953F-FC2C-4AFA-A932-FDBE06A65C50.jpeg2A9AB412-648A-4956-B4C0-3F0400BDA416.jpeg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

editor
Cyclist killed in Brixton
2
Replies
32
Views
1K
T & P
T & P
blameless77
After work pint in Brixton?
Replies
12
Views
744
editor
editor
editor
It's a grim Christmas around Brixton: no lights, no tree and no funfair
Replies
1
Views
730
skyscraper101
skyscraper101
editor
Coronation (and anti Coronation events this weekend in and around Brixton
Replies
5
Views
795
Gramsci
Gramsci
editor
Homophobia in Brixton
2
Replies
38
Views
5K
Tulster218
T
Back
Top Bottom