On Mar 26, 6:26*pm, Mizter T wrote:
On 26 Mar, 16:38, Vic Lilley wrote:

Motorist denied court hearings, asks Mayor where he stands

A London motorist has written to the Mayor of London for an answer,
over his alleged unlawfulness of the Parking and Traffic Appeals
Service (PATAS) and other courts, in denying him a hearing, against
his alleged illegality of Transport for London (TFL)’s Congestion
Charge Penalty Charge Scheme (but not the rest of the congestion
charging scheme). He is doing this, because he thinks, he is being
denied justice and right, by oppressive and unconstitutional action by
servants of the government, as he cannot get heard in the courts, and
thinks the Mayor is partly responsible.

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. *When a tribunal acts
judicially it must follow certain unwritten rules of *common law known
as natural justice. Natural justice includes *the rule *against bias
‘no man may be a judge in his own cause.’ *An appeal before PATAS
would normally include the Claimant, the motorist, appealing against
the penalty charge, and TFL, the Defendant, who issued the penalty
charge. As PATAS is not independent of TFL, it is operating
unlawfully. It is immaterial whether a judicial decision is, in fact,
biased, because ‘Justice *should not only be done, but should be
manifestly and undoubtedly be seen to be done.’ ‘

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.

The Mayor is the head of the GLA. *As the claim is a legacy of the
previous administration, but now the responsibility of the current
Mayor, Boris Johnson, the motorist wants to know, what the Mayor is
going to do about it. This is especially, as Lilley is currently
demanding, that his claim be heard in the Court of Appeal.

‘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.

‘We are supposed to be protected from not getting a hearing by; the
common law natural justice rule, Audi alteram partem (‘hear the other
side’); Magna Carta 1215 & 1297; and the Human Rights Act 1998,
Article 6. Also, from bias, by the natural justice rule ‘no man may be
a judge in his own cause,’ and more recently, the Constitutional
Reform Act 2005, section 3, in which the Lord Chancellor and the
Ministers of the Crown *are suppose to ‘uphold the continued
independence of the judiciary. The right to a hearing, and the
independence of the judiciary from the government (the legislative and
the executive, local or central), is fundamental to our constitution.
‘So this long drawn out case has become an oppressive and
unconstitutional action by the servants of the government, and what
started off as a claim for just £45, has turned into one of £12.4m, in
exemplary damages.’ said Lilley.

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?

‘I also want, and need, your reader’s support,’ said Lilley. ‘What I
am doing is for your reader’s benefit as well. Something similar, *or
worse, could happen to them, if they do not take action to stop such
denial of justice and right. Please realise this is not just about
penalty charges, but also the more general issue of not being able to
get a hearing, fines before conviction, and excessive fines. This
issues go back centuries, and our ancestors have fought and died to
give us rights against them. ‘

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: .

Note to Editors: Sub judice and Contempt of Court.
I am not a lawyer but this is my opinion:-

The sub judice rule regarding media comment is constrained by the
Contempt of Court Act 1981, according to ‘The sub judice rule,’ House
of Commons Library, Standard Note: SN/PC/1141, 31 July 2007.

The Contempt of Court Act 1981 does not apply in this case *because:-

1. P1s1: The Strict Liability Rule
1.1 ‘As tending to interfere with the course of justice in particular
legal proceedings’
1.1.1 Does not apply, because publication is not interfering with the
course of ‘justice,’ but trying to get a case heard that the courts
are refusing to hear, which is an injustice.
2. P2 s4 Contemporary reports of proceedings
2.1 ‘—(l) Subject to this section a person is not guilty of contempt
of court under the strict liability rule in respect of a fair and
accurate report of legal proceedings held in public, published
contemporaneously and in good faith.’
2.1.1 This depends on your interpretation of the word
contemporaneously. The date of last decision in the courts was 30
January 2009. This depended on previous decisions going back to 2004.
This applies if you view that as contemporaneously.
3. P3 s5 Discussion of public affairs
3.1 ‘A publication made as or as part of a discussion in good faith or
other matters of general public interest is not to be treated as a
contempt of court under the strict liability rule if the risk of
impediment or prejudice to particular legal proceedings is merely
incidental to the discussion.’
3.1.1 This applies because there is no risk of impediment or prejudice
to particular legal proceedings, because there is already impediment
or prejudice to particular legal proceedings, by the case not being
heard, and publication seeks to alleviate that.
4. P3s6(a)
4.1 ‘Nothing in the foregoing provisions of this Act. (a) prejudices
any defence available at common law to a charge of contempt of court
under the strict liability rule;’
4.1.1 Natural Justice is common law.
4.1.2 A rule of natural justice is Audi alteram partem (‘hear the
other side’) This is a right to be heard. This claim has not been
heard. Therefore this act cannot prejudice that common law right.

Victor G Lilley
Director, UPFA Ltd.

I think you've got them bang to rights, your logic is completely
clear, absolutely impeccable and totally and utterly faultless. Are
you going to consult a lawyer or might that dilute your argument?

What's the plan - judicial review? Appeal to the House of Lords, or
the European Court of Human Rights? General Assembly of the UN? ICRC?

Have you considered writing to the Queen?

Thank you very much for your positive response, especially the bit
about being completely clear.
I have consulted lawyers a little at the beginning but would need a
team of lawyers now, and as you suggest it appears it might be counter
productive at this stage. I have a paralegal support network and
everyone has provided gems on the way.

I have already been to judicial review and and am currently demanding
a hearing with the Court of Appeal, which you would see in the release
with a second reading.

I will take it as far as it needs to go, and yes I have thought of
writing to the Queen.