Considering all the hard work going on in London and elsewhere to introduce buses which are emission-free at the point of use, we couldn’t help but raise an eyebrow at an email concerning another transport sector which landed in CBW’s inbox, sent on behalf of Howard Cox, the Reform UK London Mayoral Candidate, Founder of the FairFuelUK Campaign and the Secretary to the APPG for Fair Fuel for Motorists and Hauliers. It concerned the case of London scaffolding company owner Noel Willcox, who had won ‘a court ruling’ that low emission zone signs in London, and by inference ULEZ signs, ‘are not lawful.’
“The central issue in his appeal against fines for his commercial vehicles entering LEZs is whether the Low Emission Zone signs are authorised and provide adequate information as to the Low Emission Zone Scheme,” the email reads, going on to explain that independent tribunal that decides appeals against congestion charging penalties and low emission zone penalties in London heard Mr Willcox’s appeal. Adjudicator Graeme Wallington ruled: “I accept the Appellant’s submissions that if the signs are not authorised and do not provide adequate information of the charging scheme then no charge or penalty is payable. Despite having adjourned this appeal to allow TfL the opportunity to submit evidence upon these points, TfL produced no evidence as to either the Low Emission Zone signs being compliant with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 nor the Traffic Signs Manual or that the signs are otherwise authorised as Non-Standard Traffic Signs or as to the adequacy of the information contained on the signs. In these circumstances, I cannot be satisfied that the Low Emission Zone signs are authorised and lawful.”
[wlm_nonmember][…]By subscribing you will benefit from:
- Operator & Supplier Profiles
- Face-to-Face Interviews
- Lastest News
- Test Drives and Reviews
- Legal Updates
- Route Focus
- Industry Insider Opinions
- Passenger Perspective
- Vehicle Launches
- and much more!
“TfL has therefore failed to establish that the contraventions occurred and that the PCNs were lawfully issued. I therefore allow the appeal and direct that the PCNs be cancelled.” According to the email, TfL did say that signage was signed off in 2008.
Founder of FairFuelUK and London Mayoral Candidate for Reform UK Howard Cox said: “They may have recently won a judicial review, but TfL have been unequivocally told in this London Transport Tribunal ruling; their existing LEZ signage is unlawful which must mean the latest new ULEZ signs cannot be legal either. As you’d expect, TfL are trying to convince us all, they are in the right and the signs are legal…
Traffic law specialist ‘Mr Loophole’ Nick Freeman is quoted as saying: “While Noel’s victory is not binding on other courts, I believe the case of Elevation Access Ltd v TfL can be used by other drivers hit with penalties and fines to appeal. Because this was a hearing at the first level it is not legally binding. But it is what’s known as ‘persuasive’, which means it can be used in other cases. I believe the tribunal made the right ruling and TfL have got it wrong. In my view there is insufficient information on the signs. They don’t comply with the regulations.”
We can’t help but thinking that the money might be better spent on complying than trying to find loopholes around the legality of the signs, though there will always be some who, for a myriad of reasons, prefer that approach. Personal mobility, for work or pleasure, will always be contatious, but whether or not the signs are correct (and although it makes for a good story, it’s also hard to believe that an organisation such as TfL might not have considered such a thing), surely it’s for the greater good for people to comply with the spirit of the legislation, and a sad indictment of the state of affairs that people would rather spend sums of money trying to avoid it than on cleaning up the environment. What do you think?
[/wlm_ismember]