Does Boris Back Courts Biased To Tfl?

March 25, 2009 - PRLog -- Victor Lilley, of Hayes, Middlesex, wants to know, amongst other things, what is Boris Johnson’s position, on the continuing allegation that PATAS is not independent, and the continuing defence by TFL and PATAS, that it is.

TFL issue congestion charging penalty charge notices to motorists, and are controlled by  the Greater London Council (GLA). PATAS’s road user charging adjudicator’s hear appeals against those penalty charges, and is run by London Councils, a consortium of the London Boroughs.

Lilley said, ‘The GLA has a strategic role over things such as transport, while the London Boroughs run most of the day to day services. This means London Boroughs are not independent of the GLA. For example, the London Borough of Hillingdon had to ask the Major of London to turn Judge Heath Lane Stadium in Hayes into a housing estate. As London Boroughs are not independent of the GLA, nor is their consortium, London Councils. Therefore, as PATAS is run by London Councils, it is not independent of the GLA. As the GLA controls TFL, then PATAS is not independent of TFL.

The GLA, also pay PATAS’s road user charging adjudicator’s, via the London Councils, according to the Road User Charging Adjudicators annual report 2005-2006 page 10. So the GLA, controls both, the issue of penalties, via TFL, and the payment of adjudicators who judge appeals against those fines. Consequently, PATAS is not independent, because it is dependent on its income from a source (GLA), that controls a defendant (TFL) to appeals that PATAS judges, claims Lilley.

He also argues, that according to the GLA Act 1999, section 16(1), the net proceeds from the scheme (including the income from penalties) in the first 10 years, can only be spent on the Authority (GLA), TFL or a London Borough Council. Consequently, London Councils, the consortium, can benefit from the penalty income, as well, because a London Borough Council is one its members. So PATAS’ adjudicators jobs, depend on their employer, London Councils, whose members can benefit from PATAS dismissing appeals. So PATAS is not independent. The Parliamentary Under-secretary of State for Tribunals and Administrative Justice, who is one of the defendants, is not defending this claim, and by the court rules 16.5(5) the allegation is taken as admitted.



‘TFL have taken over £502m in congestion charge penalty charges  from London motorists, from the start of the scheme until 28 February 2008, which is 41% of the £1.2bn congestion charge income, as a whole, over the same period. £10m a month in penalties have been taken thereafter. This is according to TFL’s figures supplied by them to me’ said Lilley. ‘Given that no reasonable person would pay a fine, rather than just a charge, it follows that the penalty charge scheme, by generating such high levels of fines, is unreasonable.’

He also points out that  ‘It is very easy not to realise you have incurred the charge, or forget you have. Yet TFL do not send a Congestion Charge Notice to the motorist, to pay the charge to avoid the penalty. No, instead, they send you a Penalty Charge Notice for up to 30 times the charge. I see this as unlawful, for example, on grounds of the tort of negligence for non-notification, and by contravening the Bill of Rights 1689, because it is a fine before conviction, and an excessive fine. So it is ultra vires (outside the powers) of what TFL is lawfully allowed to do.’

Lilley, acting as a litigant in person,  is sick of not getting his claim heard. The  case has been going on since his complaint letter to TFL of 10 September 2004. He alleges, that TFL did not answer this properly and PATAS ignored his claim of unreasonable and ultra vires, both on appeal and review. The Uxbridge County Court refused to hear the claim at an expected preliminary hearing, on grounds of no jurisdiction, and at an appeal hearing in the Central London County Court, he was told to come back with more law for ultra vires, but they refused to hear his claim of unreasonableness on the grounds of lack of power. When he came back to that court with more law, they refused to hear it on grounds of no jurisdiction.

Taking these courts to judicial review, the Administrative Court refused to give him more than 30 minutes for the permission to appeal hearing, despite being asked for more time beforehand, and it obviously being  a large case. So it was impossible for Lilley to get a fair hearing, because there was not enough time for his case to be heard.
The judge thought the claim was out of time (put in too late), and despite Lilley rebutting this, it was still judged as out of time, but no reasons were given for the decision. The Judge then managed to find time to judge some of the rest of the claim, despite denying Lilley the time to be heard on those issues.  Also, before the hearing, Lilley read on the Environmental Law website, that the most common excuse for dismissing cases, brought by litigants in persons applying for judicial review, was that the claim was out of time. So that result was predicted. Yet 6 (75%) of the 8 defendants are not even defending the claim, including the Uxbridge and Central London County Courts. These denial of hearings, were on the instigation and encouragement of TFL & PATAS, he claims. He is now demanding a hearing from te Court of Appeal.

As Boris Johnson controls TFL directly, via the GLA, and is PATAS’ road user charging adjudicator’s paymaster, via London Councils, Lilley thinks he should force TFL and PATAS to admit liability to his claim, and work with himself, and the Court of Appeal, to put things right, via a hearing. Apart from taking steps to make PATAS independent, and making the congestion charge penalty charge scheme legal, he should also encourage an independent review of the Administrative Court, whose alleged bias towards TFL & PATAS, brings their independence into question as well, Lilley argues. In a nutshell, he wants to know, is the Mayor going to be part of the problem, or part of the solution?

‘Because of the continuing expense in mounting the case, and the potential risk of £50,000 in costs, which acts as a deterrent to anyone trying to stand up to TFL, Lilley has formed a non-profit company UPFA Ltd (Unfair Public Fines Action) to raise funds to fight the case, defend our rights, and eventually help others in a similar position. So, if you are ‘upfa’ it, donations can be made by sending a cheque to payable to ‘UPFA Ltd’, to UPFA Ltd, at 16 Kingsway, Hayes, Middlesex, UB3 2TY, or alternatively by making credit card payment on www. upfa.org.uk. He also asks readers to take action to encourage others to do the same, by disseminating this information. An electronic copy is available on the web site. As Edmund Burke said ‘All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men and women to do nothing.’
--end--

For further information contact: Victor Lilley, Director, UPFA Ltd
Tel: 020 8573 3911, Email: vlilley@upfa.org.uk.

# # #

UPFA Ltd stand for Unfair Public Fines Action. UPFA has been created to raise awareness, and generate financial and time support to Victor George Lilley, in his claim against Transport For London, the Justice System, and Central Government, regarding the refusal to hear his claim. The claim is, that the London Congestion Charge Penalty Charge scheme (not the rest of the Congestion Charge Scheme), is illegal. It is also to use the results of this case, to help other citizens, businesses and non-profit organisations, to take advantage of it in their claims and concerns over unfair public fines, penalties and charges.
.http://www.upfa.org.uk/