Chris White’s fight against ULEZ expansion continues to gain momentum, with significant progress across multiple fronts.

From challenging procedural errors to advancing environmental justice at the European Court of Human Rights (ECHR), the campaign remains strong. However, we urgently need to raise £2,095 to cover the Supreme Court application fee for the next crucial stage.

 _____________________________________________________________

1. Procedural Failures in the UK Judicial System

The campaign's core arguments have not yet seen a fair hearing due to significant procedural errors, compounded by a pattern of non-disclosure and misrepresentation by Mayor Khan’s legal team. This repeated trend has undermined access to justice and the proper functioning of the judicial process.

i. Mrs. Justice Cockerill’s Decision

• Misrepresentation by Mayor Khan’s Counsel: Mayor Khan’s Counsel misrepresented the procedural status of the case to Mrs. Justice Cockerill, falsely asserting that the claim had already been struck out. This was untrue, as an application to set aside Mr. Justice Cranston’s 13 April 2023 order had been made within the required 7-day timeline.
• Non-Disclosure of Key Facts: The court was not informed of the timely application, leading Mrs. Justice Cockerill to conclude—incorrectly—that the claim had already been struck out.
• Premature Strike-Out: This misrepresentation resulted in the claim being prematurely struck out before the scheduled hearing on 14 September 2023, depriving the claimants of a substantive review of their arguments.

ii. Court of Appeal Ruling by Lord Justice Lewison

• Misrepresentation Repeated by Mayor Khan’s Solicitor: The non-disclosure and misrepresentation continued in the Court of Appeal, where Mayor Khan’s solicitor incorrectly argued that the appellant’s notice for permission to appeal should have been filed within 7 days.
  • This ignored the fact that the appeal addressed the premature strike-out, adhering to the correct 21-day timeframe under procedural rules.
• Criticism for Non-Extension Application: The court criticised the absence of an extension application, even though no such application was necessary under the 21-day timeline.
• Decision Date: On 13 June 2024, Lord Justice Lewison refused permission to appeal, citing:
  • An alleged delay of approximately 5 weeks beyond the 7-day limit (a miscalculated timeframe).
  • The absence of an extension application, which was irrelevant given the correct timeline.
  • A lack of explanation for the purported delay, which did not exist under the 21-day timeline.

iii. Impact of Non-Disclosure and Misrepresentation

This repeated pattern of non-disclosure and misrepresentation by Mayor Khan’s legal representatives directly influenced judicial outcomes, leading to procedural decisions that effectively barred the claim from advancing. As a result, the substantive legal issues and evidence have yet to receive a proper examination in UK courts.

 _____________________________________________________________

2. The Grounds of Our Fight Moving Forward

The campaign is built on substantive evidence that challenges the legal, environmental, and social justifications for the ULEZ expansion. These grounds, supported by the witness statements of Chris White (12 June 2023), Dr. Michael Simons (12 June 2023), and Manvindra Singh Jaiya (12 June 2023), reflect the critical issues that remain unexamined.

i. Breach of Article 6(1) – Right to a Fair Trial

• Chris White highlights that procedural errors denied him a fair hearing. The claim was struck out prematurely, based on misrepresentation, without an opportunity to present substantive arguments.
• Manvindra Singh Jaiya underscores that these procedural failures ignored key legal errors, compounding the denial of justice.

ii. Breach of Article 13 – Right to an Effective Remedy

• Chris White emphasises that the courts’ refusal to engage with critical evidence, such as flawed emissions standards, deprived claimants of any meaningful avenue for redress.
• Manvindra Singh Jaiya adds that the failure to examine these substantive issues leaves unresolved questions about the legality and fairness of ULEZ enforcement.

iii. Breach of Article 8 – Right to Respect for Private and Family Life

• Dr. Michael Simons argues that ULEZ disproportionately impacts vulnerable populations, causing financial strain, social isolation, and reduced access to care.
• Chris White highlights evidence that low-speed policies linked to ULEZ may worsen emissions and negatively affect public health.
• Manvindra Singh Jaiya critiques the scheme’s lack of consideration for these personal and societal impacts.

iv. Violation of Article 1 of Protocol No. 1 – Protection of Property

• Chris White and Dr. Michael Simons highlight how disproportionate financial penalties infringe on individuals’ rights to the peaceful enjoyment of their possessions.
• Manvindra Singh Jaiya demonstrates that these penalties lack a lawful basis, as they rely on flawed enforcement mechanisms and emissions standards.

v. Non-Compliance with the Aarhus Convention and Environmental Law

• Chris Whitecites key research findings that undermine the environmental rationale for ULEZ, including:
  • 20mph Research Study Report (2018): Demonstrates negligible safety benefits and minimal speed reductions.
  • Drivers’ Cognitive Fatigue and Speed Variability Study (2018): Highlights that larger speed variability reduces fatigue and improves vigilance.
  • European Commission Report on Driving Speed and Emissions (2022): Shows low speeds (<30 km/h) produce as much or more pollution as high speeds.
• Dr. Michael Simons emphasises the failure of public consultation processes to meet Aarhus Convention standards, as critical information was withheld or misrepresented.
• Manvindra Singh Jaiya identifies procedural violations, including the absence of meaningful public participation and inaccurate emissions data.

vi. Legal and Procedural Failures in ULEZ Implementation

• Chris White questions the evidence base for ULEZ policies, citing reliance on outdated or irrelevant studies.
• Dr. Michael Simons critiques the lack of due diligence in assessing the scheme’s net health and environmental benefits.
• Manvindra Singh Jaiyaoutlines multiple legal flaws, including:
  • Unlawful use of ANPR cameras in violation of GDPR and the Data Protection Act 2018.
  • Inconsistent application of emissions standards for Euro 5 and Euro 6 vehicles.
  • Failure to obtain necessary authorisations under the Greater London Authority Act 1999.
  • Issuance of invalid Penalty Charge Notices that fail to meet regulatory requirements.

 _____________________________________________________________

3. Parliamentary Ombudsman Takes Action

i. Timeline of Progress

• 10 September 2024: Submitted evidence highlighting key administrative errors in how ULEZ policies were developed and enforced.
• 9 October 2024: Followed up with additional evidence to maintain pressure.
• 10 November 2024: Complaint referred back to the Ministry of Justice for review and resolution.
• 21 November 2024: Her Majesty’s Courts and Tribunals Service (HMCTS) began re-examining the complaint.

 _____________________________________________________________

4. Ministry of Justice Investigation

i. Key Developments

• 26 September 2024: Submitted detailed correspondence outlining flaws in the judicial process, including procedural inconsistencies and errors in handling appeals.
• 24 October 2024: Followed up to ensure the matter was being reviewed comprehensively.
• 28 November 2024: MoJ acknowledged the validity of the concerns and committed to a full review, with findings expected by 13 January 2025.

 _____________________________________________________________

5. Civil Appeals Office: Reopening of Appeal Considered

i. Timeline of Review

• 26 September 2024: Submitted evidence demonstrating significant procedural errors, including failures to address Aarhus cost protections and adherence to proper timelines.
• 10 October 2024: Application sent to a Master for review.
• 24 November 2024: Application remains under active consideration, with a decision anticipated in early January 2025.

 _____________________________________________________________

6. Supreme Court Showdown

i. Recent Progress

• 13 November 2024: Registrar confirmed the application requires a £2,095 fee for admissibility review.
• 20 November 2024: An extension was requested to allow time for raising the necessary funds.
• 6 December 2024: Gained access to the UKSC online portal for filing the application.
• 12 December 2024: Supreme Court Case Manager outlined the criteria for admissibility.

ii. Funding Urgently Needed

To move forward, we urgently need to raise £2,095 to submit the Form 2 application fee. Without this fee, the Supreme Court cannot proceed with reviewing the case.

 _____________________________________________________________

7. Chris’s Case Advances to Europe

i. Key ECHR Milestones

• 7 October 2024: Evidence accepted at Parcelshop.
• 14 October 2024: Evidence delivered to CEDEX, France.
• 19 November 2024: ECHR confirmed the case has progressed to the admissibility stage (Case Ref: 29354/24).

This step could set a landmark precedent for environmental justice, challenging systemic barriers to public participation and transparency.

 _____________________________________________________________

8. Funding Overview

i. King’s Counsel and Solicitor Services

• King’s Counsel Services (January 2023 – August 2024): £16,600
  This funding enabled critical legal expertise from senior counsel, including:
  • Comprehensive case reviews and analysis.
  • Strategic legal guidance.
  • Drafting submissions for the Supreme Court.
  • Representation at hearings.
  • Collaboration with Junior Counsel to strengthen case arguments.
  • Preparation of the ECHR application.
• Junior Counsel Services: £1,325
  • Pre-Action Documents: £375
  • Advice on TfL Reply: £200
  • Witness Statements: £600
  • Supreme Court Applications: £200
  • ECHR Application: £150
• Solicitors’ Services (March 2023 – August 2024): £4,697.91
  This funding covered a wide range of essential legal services, including:
  • Drafting and submitting the Pre-Action Letter.
  • Replying to TfL’s response to the pre-action letter.
  • Filing the N461 Claim Form to initiate judicial review.
  • Updating the Statement of Facts and Grounds to reflect the evolving case.
  • Responding to TfL’s N463 Reply to the claim.
  • Preparing and submitting three detailed witness statements.
  • Filing N244 Application Noticesfor various purposes in the High Court, including:
    • A Leapfrog Application for direct appeal to the Supreme Court.
    • Applications for interim relief, procedural amendments, and evidence submissions.
  • Filing the N161 Appeal Noticeand preparing two bundles for the Court of Appeal:
    • Bundle 1: 522 pages.
    • Bundle 2: 104 pages.
  • Filing an N244 Application Notice in the Court of Appeal to address procedural issues.

ii. Other Costs

• Stop ULEZ Promotion Printing Costs: £412
• Travel Expenses: £90
• Transcripts: £50.93

iii. Total Contributions Used

• Total Contributions: £25,969
  • CrowdJustice Promotion Fund (10%): £2,593.16

 _____________________________________________________________

9. A Brighter Path Forward

i. Why This Matters

ULEZ has exposed critical flaws in governance and judicial processes. Correcting these is about fairness, transparency, and the protection of citizens' rights in policymaking.

ii. The Power of Collective Action

Your support has driven this campaign forward. Together, we've reached the Supreme Court, the ECHR, and launched significant investigations into public accountability.

iii. Looking Ahead

With your continued support, the campaign is poised to:

• Secure a fair review of the case in UK courts.
• Establish legal precedents for fairness and transparency.
• Achieve a landmark decision at the European level, setting a global standard for environmental justice.

iv. How You Can Help

The immediate priority is raising £2,095 for the Supreme Court Form 2 fee. Every contribution matters.

To support us, please visit or email us at [email protected] for more ways to help. Together, we can ensure justice prevails.

1. Since our last update of 3 June 2024, there have been significant developments:

2. On 7 June, we wrote to the Court of Appeal suggesting the way forward  ;

3. On 14 June, despite all our hard work, dedication and efforts we received an order out of the blue, from the Court of Appeal, rejecting Chris's case.  However it was clearly based on a so far undisclosed Case Summary (Bench Memorandum) not setting out the correct facts, which was  instigated by Mayor Khan and TfL.

• “ The Appellant’s Notice should have been filed within 7 days after the refusal of permission to apply for judicial review: CPR 52.8 (3) It should, therefore have been filed by 21 September 2023 ....... I refuse to extend time, and accordingly refuse permission to appeal”.

 Complaint to MoJ 

4. On 17 June we raised a complaint with the Ministry of Justice for the Case Summary of facts and law put forward by a Court Lawyer was clearly wrong, and we can state  that with certainty despite it not be disclosed to Chris

5.   The complaint set out that the order being appealed was not sealed and sent out until Monday 25 September 2023.

6. Furthermore the decision being appealed was not a result of a Judicial Review being heard but of a Case Management decision,of Mrs Justice Cockerill that (wrongly) took the view because of Mayor Khan and TfLs submission to the Court on 14 September 2023 that Chris had not made an application to set aside /vary Sir Ross Cranston's Order of 13 April 2023 when Chris had done so on on 19 April 2023.

7.  Therefore Mrs Justice Cockerill had been persuaded the claim had automatically been struck out and reconfirmed that wrong belief and it is that decision we were appealing

8. Furthermore the chronology  we sent by email on 4 December 2023, and that Chris did not ask for an extension of time, because he did not require an extension as the appeal was filed on time  was clearly ignored causing the appeal to be prematurely considered and wrongly dismissed.

Set aside/Reopen Application Court of Appeal  

9. On 21 June we also applied to the Court to set aside/reopen the appeal due to the serious procedural error, and the misrepresenting and non-disclosure, in  brief

• “A challenge to a case management decision which the order is final, the time limit for appealing remains 21 days (see [AC JR Guide 26.4.2] as it this case.
•  Moreover the appeal was filed on 5 October 2023 and there is evidence from CE Filing that it was accepted on 6 October 2023 REF: 1424661696545658542 and as such it is further wrong that it was stated in the decision of 14 June 2024, that the appeal was filed on 3 November 2023 “ 

Supreme Court 

10. On 21 June we chased the Registrar of the Supreme Court about the application we gave updated information on 24 April and which still remains pending.

Court of Appeal 

11. On 25 June the Court of Appeal replied  to Chris's application of 21 June setting out what is required to reopen the appeal.

12. On 2 July we replied setting out the serious procedural error as to why the path is not a black and white a reopening, as that only happens when new evidence is discovered by a party, that could change the outcome of the decision, after the appeal had been properly considered, with a skeleton argument that is cross referenced to the appeal bundle; but this has not happened in Chris’s case

HMCTS (His Majesties’ Court & Tribunal Service) 

13. On 24 July we chased HMCTS about the premature decision of 14 June 2024.

14.  On 14 August 2024 we wrote again the Court of Appeal attaching both the N244 sealed on 29 April 2024 and the N244 of 21 June 2024.

 PHSO

15. On 14 August we filed a complaint with the Parliamentary and Health Service Ombudsman.

User Investigations Team (UIT) HMCTS

16. On 15 August the day after, we received a reply that Chris's complaint of 17 June will be investigated

PHSO

17. Today 20 August 2024 we received a complaint Ref:- C-2144066 from the Paramilitary Ombudsman that the investigation of the complaint process has been initiated 

Going forward 

 18. As at today we have 3 outstanding routes;

• Complaint with the Parliamentary Ombudsman that the appeal Case Summary  put before the Judge, was wrong and from now on it must in keeping with the principles of Open Justice be sent to the parties for agreement  as is already done in the Court of Appeal Criminal Division  -see Criminal Practice Direction  2023 section 10.6.3 ;  
• Setting Aside/Reopening in the Court of Appeal;
• Supreme Court to consider the admissibility of the Leap Frog appeal from the High Court

19. We will continue to exhaust all legal routes to challenge the ULEZ expansion not only because Chris's argument that secondary legislation the Greater London Low Emission Zone Charging Order 2006, " the 2006 Order" cannot mandate primary legislation, the Greater London Authority Act 1999 but also because of the undertaking given by Mayor Khan on 11 September 2023 stating; 

“TfL has existing processes for refunding payments of the ULEZ charge. As a result, if Interim relief is not granted, but the ULEZ expansion is ultimately quashed, TfL is in a position to refund the amounts it has collected to those who paid the ULEZ charge. I am authorised to say that TfL will do so voluntarily in that event.”

20. However, the next stages of two of these three processes, will require a top up of funds, most of which has been expended since we began in March 2023.

21. We will be setting a breakdown of costs so far in our next update, so you will all know what needs to be achieved our Stage 3 goal and why a target of £31,500 has been catapulted .

Aarhus Convention claim

22. There is another legal route we are investigating which addresses the two Courts so far overlooking Chris's Aarhus Convention claim, the crux of which is we obtained several Expert Reports from around the World in 2023 that confirmed that at 20 mph the CO2 from a vehicle is higher than at 30 mph; we will confirm the position of that third legal route at the next update. 

https://publications.parliament.uk/pa/ld201617/ldselect/ldsecleg/114/11403.htm

Pledges 

23.Without your pledges and support we could not continue and our whole team thanks you in advance and remember if you want to contact us please do so on [email protected]

1. On 26 April 2024 we filed an application for permission from the Court of Appeal to have Christopher White’s case considered by the Supreme Court.

2. On 13 May 2024, the Civil Appeals Office issued the application we filed.

3. On 23 May 2024, the Civil Appeals Office advised

“Your application for permission to appeal is now ready to be referred to a Lord/Lady Justice” 

4. Case Management also requested that any amendments are done and submitted, by 30 May 2024.

5. On 30 May 2024, we reminded the Civil Appeals Office of the 26 April 2024 application. Once we are updated, we shall update you all.

How did we get here.

6.  Mayor Khan’s Legal Team applied to have Christoper White’s legal team disqualified, in an attempt to stop our fight for justice.

7. On 13 April 2023, Sir Ross Cranston, who sat as a part-time High Court Judge, granted Christopher White permission to apply for judicial review, after the London Borough of Hillingdon -v- The Mayor of London and Transport for London Case was concluded.

8. As mentioned on 26 April 2024 Chris applied the Court of Appeal for a certificate, so that he might ask the Supreme Court Justices, the following question: 

Whether the Mayor of London’s decision to expand ULEZ was unlawful in that, the Mayor Khan’s stated objective in making the decision to impose road charging, was namely:

 “...to clean up London’s toxic air and tackle the climate emergency”

 Refunds of ULEZ PCN’s

9. As reported in our Update 26, on 11 September 2023, Mayor Khan has promised the Court, though one of his lawyers, that if the Court declare his expansion of ULEZ was unlawful, he would refund PCN charges paid by motorists.

10. Ms Christina Calderato (Director of Transport Strategy and Policy at TfL) on behalf of Mayor Khan, had said this:

“TfL has existing processes for refunding payments of the ULEZ charge. As a result, if Interim relief is not granted, but the ULEZ expansion is ultimately quashed, TfL is in a position to refund the amounts it has collected to those who paid the ULEZ charge. I am authorised to say that TfL will do so voluntarily in that event.”

Disqualification Appeal outcome. 

11. Christopher White and his legal team believe that the Supreme Court decision will lead with refunds being made by Mayor Khan as promised

Going forward 

12. Your continuing help, pledges and encouragement will make the challenge in the Supreme Court possible.

13. If you have any information or questions, please email us at [email protected] 

THE SPOKEN WORD AND THE WRITTEN WORD. 

1. Since our previous update, we have now received;

i) a copy of the word-processed transcript, showing what was said by Philip Coppel KC for Chris said to the Judge in the High Court, during the hearing on 14 September 2023;

ii) Most importantly Mr Coppel at line 2 page 66 said this;

“ My Lady, I ask for permission to appeal.  The reason I do so is that the court's conclusion for dismissing the challenge in relation to Ground 1 is founded on a mistake and the mistake is that the claimant did apply to set aside the  Cranston order, that was done on 7th July.  It is in the bundle at page 97, our bundle.  That has not been dealt with by the court and that was the premise on which your Ladyship found that the automatic strike out should take place and, with that mistake, the basis for your Ladyship's judgment falls away.” 

2. On our last update we received;

i) a copy of a word-processed transcript, of what the Judge said, when announcing her decisions- the Judgement.

3. Anyone who has made a donation before today, can request by email a free copy of both documents.

4. Anyone who is making a donation for the first time after reading this update- and makes a donation, can also request by email, a free copy of both documents.

Going Forward

5. We shall now be able to make progress because as we said in our last update;

“ Once we receive the proceedings transcript, the appeal will be able to progress in the Court of Appeal along the application with the Supreme Court, as highlighted in our last update on 14 January 2024 “ .

6. With the serious issues about ULEZ and Mayor Khan, still being raised, we and Chris White thank you all, for your continued support.

7. The following articles, (in case you may have missed them), will be of interest;

“ Doubts raised over Sadiq Khan's clean air claims”

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68533703

"MP's move to reverse London Ulez expansion runs out of Commons time"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-68627852

"London Mayor Sadiq Khan rules out Ulez changes"

https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-68645199

11 Feb 2024 

1. On Monday 5 February 2024 the approved  judgment of 14 September 2023 was finally released;

 2. On Friday 9 February 2024 we have chased again the transcript of the evidence  of the proceedings of 14 September 2023 with the Administrative Court in which Chris White has mentioned  what was said by Lord Justice Nugee in Amin v Amin (Dec’d) [2020] EWHC 2675 (Ch), at paragraph [23]:.the importance of the evidence transcript , when challenging a Judge's decisions on the facts .

3. Once we receive the proceedings transcript, the appeal will be able to progress in the Court of Appeal along the application with the Supreme Court, as highlighted in our last update on 14 January 2024 .

4. We thank you again for your continued support

14 Jan 2024

1. On Tuesday 13/01/2024, we replied to the Registrar of the Supreme Court, about furthering the process to have the question first raised with Mr Justice Cockerill on the 28/09/2023 pursuant to S. 12 Administration of Justice Act 1969, answered by the Supreme Court {UKSC}.

2. We did not give an update about this question and the process we had engaged in, as we wanted to know the outcome before we advised all Chris White's supporters.

3. On 7/10/2023 we received a copy of  Cockerill J’s decision not to issue a certificate either refusing or granting permission.

4. On 23/10/2023 we first wrote to the UKSC and a productive exchange of correspondence has since ensued to have the following question decided:

“Whether the issue of a protective costs order, through the Aarhus Convention or through a Protective Costs Order on its own, not having been considered by the Administrative Court, was an error in the proper conduct of judicial review proceedings, which takes the issue outside the provisions of CPR 52 and raises a point of general public importance for consideration by the Supreme Court.”

5. The question when decided by the UKSC, will look at the impact of the Aarhus Convention on Chris White's case and of all Greater (and Inner) Londoners who are presently or will be effected by the health risks of the mandatory 20 mph, whole of London, wide zone. 

6. Once this is being decided, the UKSC may also wish to look at the underlying primary legislation and the legality of the secondary legislation that enabled Mayor Khan to make this " 20 mph London wide zone" law .

7. When we receive an approximate decision date, as to when the UKSC will consider the question, we will explain more why the White claim raised Aarhus. 

Meanwhile in the Court of Appeal:

8. On 5/01/2023 Chris had to raise a complaint with HMCTS as to why his 20/09/2023 N244 application for the approved transcript of the judgment and transcript of the evidence was taking so long to process

 "Dear Chris White  

Thank you for your complaint. We’ve given it given reference  52712158 If you want to provide us with any additional information about your complaint, you can do so at any time by replying to this email. It’s important you do not change the subject line when replying to this email.

We’ll look into your complaint as soon as we can. We aim to respond to your complaint within 10 working days. NOTE: Please do not edit the subject line when replying to this email"

9. From a most recent email we expect the transcript of the judgement at the very least by the end of January to the middle of February. 

10. Sometimes the not fit for purpose procedural rules, seem to be blocking our way, but we do not and will not give up and have now raised concerns with the current secondary legislation adopted by the Court of Appeal,  with the Chair of the Civil Procedure Rules Committee. 

11. Once we are over those hurdles, a Lord or Lady Justice of Appeal will decide if Chris White is granted permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

Compelling reasons why Chris White should be granted permission, include:

(a) Mayor Khan has promised to refund all the ULEZ charges to those in Greater London; if after it went live on 29/08/2023, the Courts say that he was wrong;

(b) 100's of 1000's of motorists along with the people connected to those motorists still need to know if ULEZ was ever lawful.

12. Chris and our team, thank you for your unwavering continued support 

• On 17/11/2023 as requested by the Civil Appeals Office on 14/11/2023 we replied to confirming the email address of [email protected]
• On 20/11/2023, we chased the Civil Appeals Office to chase the High Court for transcripts of the evidence and judgment of 14/09/2023.
• On 30/11/2023 a homeless charity (instead of our organisation) received an email containing a Dismissal List letter from the Civil Appeals Office.
• On 3/12/2023 the charity found us on the web and told us of the email they received. They reported the email they received to the Information Commissioners Office for a breach of the General Data Protection Regulation (GDPR)
• On 4/12/2023 we wrote to the Civil Appeals Office requesting the removal of the appeal from the Dismissal List
• On 5/12/2023 we received an email from the Civil Appeals Office stating;
  

“The case was placed in the dismissal list for failure to file a complaint core bundle and an amended appellant’s notice.  The compliance date is 08 December 2023.  If a core bundle and amended appellant’s notice are not filed by 4pm on 08 December 2023, the matter is at risk of being dismissed with costs.”   

• On 7/12/2023 Chris filed an N244 application notice to remove the case from the Dismissal List that included the following grounds

“ To the man of the Clapham omnibus, it serves no purpose and is a waste of court resources and the appellant’s for Case Progression to force an appellant to prepare an appeal bundle that cannot be put in front of a Lord or Lady Justice until the judgment on appeal has been supplied . In this case the Transcript of Evidence, also which is essential to show how the Respondents Counsel had stated Mr White did not make an intime application when in fact he did on 12/7/2023, resulting in the Judge being misled to make a wrong decision but the Judge not then appreciating the fact.

The Civil Procedure Rule Committee [email protected] need now be informed to issue a new Practice Direction that "An appeal bundle must be filed 14 working days after the day the official judgment has been received by the Appellant/the Appeal Court " The reasoning behind this is simple; a Skeleton Argument cannot be drafted until a transcript of the judgment is available; here an N244 filed 20/9/2023” 

• On 11/12/2023 we received the email below

From: Civil Appeals - CMSC <[email protected]>

Sent: 11 December 2023 13:14

To: [email protected]

Subject: Priority: CA-2023-001927 White v Khan . Matter No. CO.830.2023

Importance: High

Dear Sir/Madam,

Please note Master xxxxxxxx xxxxxx- has asked me to convey the following message:

“…This matter has been removed from the dismissal list.  To enable the Civil Appeals Office to consider your request to defer filing a bundle until the transcript of judgment is available please either:

1.       Provide evidence that you have ordered and paid for the transcript of judgment: or

2.       Complete and return the attached form so that the Civil Appeals Office can consider whether a transcript at public expense can be provided.

Your application notice will not be issued as this case has been removed from the dismissal list and a request for an extension of time to file a bundle pending the receipt of the transcript does not require a formal application.

Please respond to this direction within 3 days”

Regards

xxxxxxxx xxxxxx

Case Manager

The Court of Appeal Civil Division | The Royal Courts of Justice l Strand l London l WC2A 2LL l DX 44456 STRAND

For information on how HMCTS uses personal data about you please see:

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/hm-courts-and-tribunals-service/about/personal-information-charter

• On 12/12/2023 we replied as follows;

From: [email protected] <[email protected]>

Sent: 12 December 2023 16:33

To: 'Civil Appeals - CMSC' <[email protected]>

Subject: RE: Priority: CA-2023-001927 White v Khan . Matter No. CO.830.2023

12/12/2023

Good afternoon

Thank you for your email of yesterday, the 11th.

Thank you for removing the case from the Dismissal List placed there for reasons, including that, it did not have a transcript of the judgment.

Please find the attached email from the Administrative Court of Friday 06/10/2023, issuing and attaching Chris White’s N244, he filed on 20/09/2023, for the transcript of the judgment and transcript of evidence of 14/09/2023.

Best wishes

xxxxxxxx xxxxxxxxxx

S.U.E.Org

0345-520-8802

Next Steps 

Despite the inaccuracies from the court service that Chris White is being subjected to, we are unwavering in; 

i) having the appeal granted by consent, soon after the transcript of evidence and the judgment has been disclosed because it will officially show how TfL misled the Judge on 14/09/2023

ii) having an application issued by the Supreme Court on the lack of a decision on the Aarhus Convection costs protection, which we are waiting for a reply to; and

iii) preparing a collateral challenge to the unlawfulness of all of ULEZ secondary legislation, that as yet has not been decided.

We thank you all for you continued support and pledges and we will keep you updated to Chris’s progress.

14  November 2023

We have today received an email from the Civil Appeals Office which is below the Chronology of the filing and receiving the Appellants Notice .

There has been an unusually long delay due to several mishaps at the Court of Appeal office.

Chronology

On 5/10/2023 the appeal was filed with the Court 

On 6/10/2023 , an email came through from CE Filing ,the online filing system that the N161 had been approved. 

On 6/10/2023 an issue arose from the Fees Office, but they sent an email to an address that has nothing to do with the Chris White team--we only learnt of this mishap, after Chris made a complaint on 29/10/2023, about not receiving a reply to our 4 previous emails and the delay.

After filing the N161, we then chased the Civil Appeals Registry  on the following dates ;

9/10/2023

21/10/2023

24/10/2023

27/10/2023

29/10/2023- Complaint 

2/11/2023

On 6/11/2023, it was confirmed by the Fees Office that the N161, the Appellants Notice would be issued; and on 

9/11/2023 the N161 received the " seal" .

14/11/2023, we have received the document attachments in the email below and we have now sent the documents to  Mayor Khan and TfL Legal 

Civil Appeals Office's email 

N161- Appellant's Notice 

United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC)

On 23/10/2023 Chris also made an Application to the United Kingdom Supreme Court (UKSC) regarding an "order" that was issued on 17/10/2023 for a Leap Frog Appeal.

On 8/11/2023 we chased this with the UKSC.

The background to the request to the Judge for a Leap Frog appeal certificate, was that at the hearing on 14/09/2023 she overlooked the Aarhus Convention protection.

On 22/09/2023, the order from that hearing was sealed but it again made no mention to the Aarhus Convention protection.

The issue that Chris has for the UKSC to resolve is a “certificate” granting or refusing the Leap Frog has still not been signed by the Judge. As soon as we have a definitive reply, we will update you.

Going Forward

In the next update, we will set out Chris White's ;

a) Grounds for Appeal and

b) Facts of theAppeal (& why TfL Legal should consent to permission being granted)

We have been preparing two other legal proposals to put to Mayor Khan, which we will share with you, soon after they have been sent to him.

We thank you all for you unwavering support.

1. On Thursday 5 October 2023 Chris White filed an Appeal with the Civil Appeals Office for the Court of Appeal against the decision of Mrs Justice Cockerill made on Thursday 14 September 2023.

2. On Friday 6 October 2023 we received from the Registry Office of the Court of Appeal (Civil Division) the following;

“This is a notice to inform you that the filings filed in Case No. CA-2023-001927 Matter No. CO.830.2023 have been accepted by the Clerk on 06-10-2023 10:42.”

3. Facts of the appeal relied on by Chris in support of his application for permission to appeal, are stated in brief paragraphs, including this:

3.1.  The Times newspaper of 26 August 2023 article page 18 headed “Clearing the air as ULEZ row rages” by Andrew Ellson; which appeared again on 29 August 2023 with the title “ULEZ expansion: do Sadiq Khan’s ‘toxic air’ claims stack up?”

shows that this is a case for strong encouragement by the Court, for the parties to attempt Alternative Dispute Resolution.

4. Grounds of Appeal include:

4.1.  The decision made on 14 September 2023 by Mrs Justice Cockerill, (triggered by TfL Legal and their counsel) that the Representative Claimant, Mr Chris White’s Judicial Review Claim had already been "automatically struck out " for non-compliance with Sir Ross Cranston’s 13 April 2023 order, was;

i) wrong in fact, 

ii) wrong in law and,

iii)      unjust for serious procedural irregularity

Compelling reasons why the White appeal should be heard

4.2. The facts relating to why White had complied with Sir Ross Cranston’s order, include:

4.2.1. On 13 April 2023, Sir Ross Cranston had given Mr White permission to apply for judicial review on his grounds of application 1 and 5;

4.2.2. On 20 April 2023 Mr White made an application, to set aside Sir Ross Cranston's order, lift the stay and renew the grounds of appeal of 2, 3, and 4, with new grounds 6 and 7 at an oral hearing;

4.2.3. On 12 July 2023 Mr White made a further application to list his 20 April 2023 application because of the delay;

 4.2.4.  On 17 July 2023, TfL Legal sent a letter to Administrative Court setting out their position on the 12 July Application and that it should be referred to Mr Justice Swift, who was hearing the Hillingdon Claim;

4.2.5.  On 20 July 2023 Mr Justice Swift directed that Mr White’s 20 April and 12 July 2023 applications were to be listed at a Judicial Review hearing, to be listed after he gave judgment in the Hillingdon claim CO/642/2023. Mr White’s arguments on grounds 1 and 5 along with the renewed grounds of 2, 3 and 4 and new grounds 6 and 7 would be considered at this new rolled-up hearing. 

4.2.6. On 2 August 2023 the Admin Court issued a letter stating that Mr White’s Judicial Review hearing would take place within 8 weeks, i.e. by Wednesday 27 September 2023; 

4.2.7. On 24 August 2023 Mr Justice Sweeting in reply to the N463 urgent Interim Injunction application, directed that the issue raised by TfL Legal (for the first time) on 24 August 2023, on whether the claim had been already “struck out”, was to be decided at the Judicial Review claim hearing.

4.2.8. Mr Whites statutory right for an oral hearing of his Judicial Review claim is still waiting to be listed, as per; 

a) Mr Justice Swift's directions; and

b) Mr Justice Sweeting directions 

4.2.9. The White case raises issues as to the sovereignty of Parliament and lawfulness of Mayor Khan’s decision to expand ULEZ and that the Aarhus Convention protection applies to the Judicial Review challenge by Mr White’s Representative Claim. 

Stage 1 Permission to appeal 

5.  We will update you as to progress of the stage 1, permission to appeal, is decided on paper, which on succeeding, will be followed by stage 2, the appeal hearing.

6. For the 1^st stage we are now forecasting the funding for the preparation of Chris White’s Skeleton Argument, to set out why permission to appeal should be granted and we aim to do this by 20 October 2023.

Transcript of proceedings and judgment ordered

7. On 6 October 2023, we ordered a copy of the transcript of the hearing and judgment given on 14 September 2023 and once we receive them will make them accessible

The White claim is your claim 

8. All of us in the Chris White team thank you for your continued support and pledges, as without your pledges we would not be in the Court of Appeal. Please continue informing others, who may still not know that that this site continues to seek fairness for the people.

1. On Thursday, 14 September 2023, after a number of mistakes in the proper conduct  of  proceedings in the High Court, the Judge , Mrs Justice Cockerill gave her judgment.

2. The mistake include that, by non-disclosure and assertions from Kings Counsel for Mayor Khan and TFL, the High Court Judge was misled, believed and decided that, Chris White’s Representative Claim for Judicial review of Mayor Khan’s 24 November 2022 decision to extend  ULEZ, had been automatically dismissed, because of an" alleged" failure by Chris to either:

i) do what Sir Ross Cranston's order of 13 April 2023 directed Chris to do, 

or

ii) make an application to change what the order required Chris to do and the date by when, it required him to do it.

12 July 2023 Application 

3. However, Chris had made an application, not only on 20 April 2023, for an oral hearing, to set aside the order of 13 April 2023 ,and lift the stay on the claim and have the claim listed to be heard, but Chris also made another application on 12 July 2023, because the Court did not process the 20 April 2023 application. 

[Please see Update 16 - on July 15, 2023]

4. Chris’ new additional legal team member, for the Interim Application, was Mr Phillip Coppel KC, who did an excellent job and  after the Judgment was given, asked the Judge for permission to appeal to the Court of Appeal.

4.1. The ground for appeal was because of the clear mistake, caused by the representations of TfL and Mayor Khan to the Court: the Judge had not known of the 12 July 2023 application, which had been made and acknowledged in writing by TfL Legal  in their letter of 17 July 2023 to the Admin Court headed  "TfL letter to Court responding to White application 17 July 2023 "

5. The Judge refused permission to appeal, but Chris is glad to say:

(a) The Judge promised in open Court, to put her reasons for refusing permission to appeal, in writing;

(b) Chris is working on ways to reach an agreement with Mayor Khan to fix the mistakes; also, to suspend the enforcement of ULEZ charges and fines, until the Judicial Review claim is properly heard on its merits and/ or file an ULEZ  PCN appeal in the London Tribunals, to make a decision on Chris’ argument that ULEZ is unlawful.

London Tribunals 

( https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/) 

(c) However, if Mayor Khan cannot be persuaded, Chris believes that he will have to:

i) make an application to have a test case about ULEZ PCN fines, decided in the London Tribunals, on grounds including that

 “no penalty charge is payable under the charging scheme” 

and /or 

“the penalty charge exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case’

 i.e., ULEZ is unlawful. 

[Please see Update 23- on August 25, 2023]  

and

Court of Appeal

( https://www.judiciary.uk/courts-and-tribunals/court-of-appeal-home/) 

ii) by Thursday 5 October 2023, Chris will make an application for permission to appeal, direct to Court of Appeal and for that Court to hear and decide the Judicial Review claim, at an oral hearing.

6. Chris’s hearing on 14 September 2023, has been reported by LBC and Associated Press and we are all very grateful for their attendance at Court 3 on Thursday afternoon.

https://www.lbc.co.uk/news/move-to-reverse-ulez-expansion-high-court/ 

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/sadiq-khan-high-court-ulez-harold-hill-labour-b2411760.html 

Chris’ Court Supporters

7. A big thank you to all supporters who attended Court on Thursday, 14 September 2023, before Mrs Justice Cockerill.

8. If we have you contact details, we could send you advance details of any Court hearing dates and our email address is [email protected] 

9. Once we receive a reply from TfL, to our proposal to a test case at the London Tribunals, and staying all recovery in the meantime, we will update this site.

1. On 13 September 2023 at 15.00 the  Royal Courts of Justice Daily Cause List was updated listing the White case as 2nd of the Administrative Court cases for 14 September 2023 in Court 3 at 2.30 pm before Mrs Justice Cockerill 

2. AC-2023-LON-000939 The King (on the application of WHITE) v TRANSPORT FOR LONDON and another

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/royal-courts-of-justice-cause-list/royal-courts-of-justice-daily-cause-list#administrative-court-daily-cause-list

3. Your continued support is essential, especially tomorrow for the Court and the media to be aware that the challenge to the unlawful ULEZ expansion is very much alive.

1. On 11 September 2023 at 9:54 am, TfL Legal sent us a witness statement of Ms Christina Calderato (Director of Transport Strategy and Policy at TfL) along with a N244 application notice asking the Judge hearing the case this Thursday 14th to allow her statement to be relied upon by TfL, despite TfL knowing that if they were going to reply to the injunction they should have done so by Friday 25 August 2023.
   
   
2. The importance of the statement is that TfL have given an undertaking that if the Court finds that ULEZ is unlawful, they will voluntarily refund the charges, which Ms Calderato states ULEZ in the expanded Greater London Area (GLA) is collecting up to £822,000 per day, excluding fines.
   
   
3. This is the first time that TfL have ever given any undertaking, which was not given in the Hillingdon 5 Councils’ case, let alone TfL conceding that ULEZ may be unlawful.
   
   
4. We reproduce below the relevant paragraph of her witness statement;
   “TFL’S ABILITY AND WILLINGNESS TO REFUND ANY WRONGLY IMPOSED ULEZ CHARGES
   TfL has existing processes for refunding payments of the ULEZ charge. As a result, if Interim relief is not granted, but the ULEZ expansion is ultimately quashed, TfL is in a position to refund the amounts it has collected to those who paid the ULEZ charge. I am authorised to say that TfL will do so voluntarily in that event.”
   
   
5. Ms Calderato goes on to state that TfL continues to estimate that it will receive up to £300 million in additional revenue in the first full year of operation from ULEZ in the GLA.
   
   
6. We will update tomorrow with the Court hearing time and thank you for your continued support especially in telling others about the White case and this campaign to stop up to 65,750 drivers per day facing this unlawful ULEZ charge.in the GLA.Samsung Secure

25 Aug 2023

1. At 18:31 today the Admin Court sent out the Order of Mr Justice Bourne which we have produced below.

2. We will update this site with any further developments and we thank you for your continued pledges and support .

25 Aug 2023

1. At 15 42 the Court sealed the N244 application. It confirms Mr White's application for renewal of his application for an injunction has been issued by the Court. We now await an appointment with a Judge.

2. Mayor Khan could still shift the ULEZ expansion date from 29 August 2023 to 29 September 2023.

3. We will update this site over the weekend and we thank you for your continued pledges and support

YOUR London Needs YOU

24 Aug 2023 

1.   On 24 August 2023 at 17:54  an email from the Admin Court sent out  an order from the Judge, Mr Justice Sweeting  who said

“The application for an interim order suspending the implementation and  commencement of the expansion of the London Ultra Low Emission Zone (“ULEZ”) is refused

 Reasons; ULEZ expansion is due to go live in less than a week. The Claimant has been aware of the commencement date for many months. A materially identical application for interim relief was rejected by Sir Ross Cranston by paragraph 3 of the order of the 13th of April 2023. There is no material change in circumstances or additional basis for granting interim relief. The application is not urgent and does not make out any arguable case for interim relief” 

25 Aug 2023

2.   On 25 August 2023 at 10:14 , an application Claim No. -AC-2023-LON-000939. was sent to the Court, TfL and the Government Legal Dept, requesting  for an oral renewal of the refusal of the Interim Injunction is  urgently listed by teams/skype was requested, stating;

".I make this request for an oral hearing, this being the correct procedure; to renew the application orally in the Administrative Court, as established by the Court of Appeal in (R (MD (Afghanistan)) v Secretary of State for the Home Department [2012] EWCA Civ. 194; [2012] 1 WLR 2422 per Stanley Burnton LJ at [19]-[24].”

As the injunction is to stop the unlawful ULEZ expansion beginning on Tuesday 29 August 2023, I am happy for the Court to list the hearing via teams/skype on an urgent basis.

Leading Counsel has advised that the short point on ULEZ expansion being unlawful is this:

“1. The Decision of the Mayor to expand ULEZ was unlawful in that the Mayor’s stated objective in making the decision to impose road charging namely; “...to clean up London’s toxic air and tackle the climate emergency”, but that was not an objective mandated by section 295 of, or Schedule 23 to, the GLA Act 1999: given its stated objective, the Decision could only be lawfully made following a suitable amendment to section 295 of, and Schedule 23 to, the GLA Act 1999.”

Please see paragraph 1 of my Amended Statement of Grounds which I attach but was also, attached to the N463 Form “

Mayor Khan warned - ULEZ decision  Unlawful.

4.   If Mayor Khan now chooses to charge ahead on the 29 August 2023, while Chris White’s request for an oral hearing is pending, knowing as Mayor Khan and TfL now does, the White line of attack, and how White ‘s Leading Counsel has articulated the unlawfulness of the scheme from April 2019, then it cannot be said against White, that he has left it too late.

5.   The position may be that Mayor Khan and TfL have assumed a risk of pressing ahead with the ULEZ expansion only to have it withdrawn by the High Court, Court of Appeal or Supreme Court and having to repay and give compensation to all those owners of motor vehicles either scrapped for an under value or unlawfully charged.

                         23 August 2023 Amended Statement of Grounds 

24 Aug 2023

At 15:11 we received by email from  Urgent Applications the  sealed N463  with additional Claim Number AC-2023-LON-000939.

We thank you for your pledges and with your continued support, we will have the opportunity not just to stop ULEZ expansion but to STOP ULEZ.

We will update this site with the result of the on paper decision 

YOUR London Needs YOU

23 Aug 2023 

1) At 16;:58 a further application using Form N463 was filed requesting a urgent application to suspend ULEZ for 31 days , from 29 August 2023 , to begin not before 29 September 2023 or further order.

2) The reason why the application now should be granted by a Interim Urgent Applications Judge  is the White judicial review claim not only has not been heard but raises arguments that include; 

a) ULEZ in its entirety is unlawful – see Amended Statement of Grounds takes account of the judgment of Mr Justice Swift in CO/642/2023 [2023] EWHC 1972 (Admin)

b) the Aarhus Convention Article 6(1) (b) and therefore Article 9 (2) does apply which has the affect that if ULEZ began the environment would be harmed according to the findings by the European Commission Report “ Impact of driving conditions and driving - ULEV – EC Public 23 May 2022

c) Moreover the European Commission Directive 2003/35/EC (“the Public Participation Directive”) supports an interim stay by the Court to the rollout by TFL of the expansion of ULEZ to the GLA to keep the status quo engaging the Environmental Impact Assessment Directive (85/337), as amended by the Public Participation Directive

d) Moreover public funds would be saved and protected because if after the substantive hearing or if the matter is referred to the appeal court who declares that the ULEZ decision was ultra viries , and there is no suspension, TfL would be liable potentially for millions of pounds in refunds/compensation, as has happened in press recently under 

"TfL 'broke law' and Sadiq Khan may have to refund £70m to fined London drivers”; 

https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/1799264/sadiq-khan-refund-motorists-70-million-pounds-london

e) Furthermore if the suspension is not granted the public affected by the ULEZ expansion could have a legitimate defence to all ULEZ Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued from driving in the Greater London Area  by stating that payment is being withheld until the White v Mayor of London and TfL case CO/830/2023 is heard, and the court process i.e. appeal process, is exhausted; a process that could see this claim decided by the Supreme Court .

3) The extract from the Amended Statement of Grounds is as follows  

" 11. That the objective of the Expansion Scheme may be laudable does not make the Scheme lawful.

12. In short, the decision to make the Expansion Scheme:

(1) is founded on an erroneous interpretation of s 295 of and Sch 23 to the GLA Act 1999;

(2) constituted an exercise of the power in s 295 (to establish and operate a scheme for imposing charges in respect of the keeping and use of motor vehicles) other than for the purpose for which that power was conferred; and 

(3) was animated by an irrelevant consideration, namely “...to clean up London’s toxic air and tackle the climate emergency.”

As such, the decision to make the Expansion Scheme was unlawful "

24 Aug 2023

We will update this site with the outcome of the urgent injunction decision that should be received by 17.00 on 24 August 2023.

9 August 2023 

1. On August 9th at 15.48 Mr Chris White made a paper application to the High Court, for an injunction to stop Mayor Khan’s ULEZ expansion from starting on the 29 August 2023.

2. Even if a temporary injunction is granted, stopping the roll out of the ULEZ expansion would not mean the end of the matter, because we still have to wait for the case to be heard, and on our evidence, as to why we say the ULEZ expansion is unlawful.

3. Reasons why Mayor Khan would be wise to stop the ULEZ expansion, include:

 (a) the overwhelming NO to ULEZ expansion result of the public consultation Mayor Khan approved and people being mislead by the misinformation as to deaths and other health issues;

(b) documents we have requested but have not as yet received, because Mayor Khan must prove ;

(i) his powers to expand ULEZ;

(ii) the arrangement TfL have with the DVLA;

(iii) the arrangement TfL have with the ULEZ camera contractors;

(iv) public money being spent or  wasted, under the supervision of Mayor Khan, when there are alternatives to scrapping vehicles.

4. Thank for your continued pledges and support in telling others about this site and the White case.

5. We look forward to updating you as soon as there is more news.

2 August 2023

We are pleased to announce that we are making progress 

On Wednesday 2 August 2023 at 11:38 we received by email a Directions Order and the Renewal letter below;

28 July 2023 

1. At 10.00 am on Friday 28 July 2023 the Judgment in CO/642/2023 the Hillingdon ( 5 Councils) v The Mayor of London and TfL was handed down; 

2. The Hillingdon claim did not succeed at this stage, but there are 21 days from today to appeal to the Court of Appeal 

3. There is now only the Chris White claim standing in the High Court to stop Mayor Khan that asks for an injunction to suspend the 29 August 2023 rollout.

4. We look forward to more people pledging even small amounts. but why not follow Tony's example of donating 1 ULEZ charge, that Khan will take from you every day. if he is not stopped

5. We thank our generous donors and all the supportive Groups who encourage their members to support this claim as they have.

6. When you make a pledge of what you can, you will know in your heart and mind that you are fighting the good fight and we now have the chance to succeed,

7. This is a fight for freedom and you can keep Greater London free.

The Judgment 

8.   The Hillingdon judgment is here  https://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/format.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/1972.html

Thursday 20 July 2023 

On Thursday 20 July 2023 at 16:16 we received the following correspondence from the Court:

“The papers in this matter have been referred to Mr Justice Swift who has directed that I write to the parties as follows:

 (a)       Mr Justice Swift will consider the 12 July application after the judgment in CO/642/2023 is handed down; and

(b)       The Claimant’s renewed application for permission on grounds 2-4 and the other matters included in the 20 April application will need to be considered at a hearing (in the usual way).  Subject to any submissions the parties might wish to make on procedure, the Judge considers that any/all remaining submissions on grounds 1 and 5 will be best made at the same hearing, so that all outstanding decisions on permission to apply for judicial review can be taken together      

In the circumstances, and subject to the views of the parties on procedure the List Office will shortly contact the parties for available dates for a hearing to consider the Claimant’s renewed application for permission to apply for judicial review.  Every effort will be made to list the hearing as soon as possible and the parties are asked to note that the Planning Court does not normally take counsel or legal representatives’ availability into account when listing such applications.

Directions for the filing of a Hearing Bundle, Skeleton Arguments and an Authorities Bundle for the hearing will follow shortly.” 

Anti-ULEZ Groups unite

It is now time for everybody who is against the proposed ULEZ expansion, to support the Chris White judicial review claim. CO/830/2023

There is still time for more groups and organisations, to join the many who have become Representees of this Representative Action.

With your pledged support, we will be able to properly challenge Mayor Khan and his unlawful scheme , when this claim is heard in the High Court.

Wednesday 12 July 2023.

1. On the morning of Wednesday 12 July 2023, just 5 working days after the Hillingdon claim was heard on 4 and 5 July 2023 at the Royal Courts of Justice, pushing for progress, Robin Tilbrook of Tilbrook’s Solicitors, filed on behalf of Christopher White the Representative Claimant in CO/830/2023 a Form N244 Application Notice with the High Court

Thursday 13 July 2023

2. On the afternoon of Thursday 13 July 2023 we were advised that Mr Justice Swift had received a copy of the 13 April 2023 Order of Sir Ross Cranston on the Christopher White claim. 

Friday 14 July 2023. 

3. Yesterday, Friday 14 July 2023, early afternoon the Court issued Christopher’s N244, which was then shortly afterwards served on: 

i) the Mayor of London and 

ii) TfL (the Defendant's); also, 

iii) the Department of Environment Food and Rural Affairs; 

iv) the Department for Transport and 

v) the Secretary of State for the Home Department (the Interested Parties); 

with 17 pages of reasons why, Mayor Khan should now properly consider the Grounds of Christopher's barrister, Robert Griffiths KC and think again as to what is in the best interests of the people in Greater London.

Background to the  N244 of 12 July 2023

4. In Christopher's N244, he has asked the Court for a hearing, so that the Court might consider his earlier Application Form 86B; this is a form that had to be and was filed within 7 days of the 13 April 2023 Order, that was made on paper by a Sir Ross Cranston, without an oral hearing,.

5. In the 20 April 2023 Form 86B, Christopher asked that additional to the 2 Grounds that Sir Ross granted permission for judicial review on, and the other 3 Grounds that had been refused, are reconsidered at an oral hearing; Christopher also asked that the Judge hearing the case make a new Court order to:

1) Set aside the 13 April 2023 Order; 

2) Lift the stay;

3) Suspend the rollout of ULEZ into the Greater London Area on 29 August 2023; 

4) Direct that independent air quality testing is actually carried out in each of the Greater London Area Councils that the proposed ULEZ expansion would affect if it came into being ; 

5) Give directions for the Parties to attempt Alternative Dispute Resolution of the claim and those directions should include the Mayor, reopening the Have Your Say consultation; 

6) Direct that, if ADR does not succeed, the 3 Grounds on which were not given permission to argue might be considered at an oral hearing along with 3 new grounds; 

7) Direct a proper hearing of Christopher’s Representative Claim should then follow – with now 8 Grounds, that include 2 Grounds that had been granted permission; 3  refused Grounds and 3 new Grounds due to disclosure from TfL after the claim had been issued on 23 February 2023; 

 8) Request that the Court Lawyer in the Christopher White claim send to the Clerk to Mr Justice Swift, the Judge in the Hillingdon case who heard it on 4 and 5 July 2023, a copy Christopher’s N244 Application Notice..

A Public Court Hearing 

6.  When the Admin Court issues a Hearing Listing Date for the N244, we will  announce it on this site and set out all 8 Grounds of Christopher White's Representative Action for all those who are Representees, against and affected by Mayor Khan's planned ULEZ expansion. 

Monday 12 June 2023 

1. On Monday 12 June 2023 we filed 3 (three) witness statements from our team in CO/830/2023 White v The Mayor of London and TfL setting out evidence and facts that go to the core of Mayor Khan’s ULEZ expansion tax,

2. Whether Mayor Khan and TfL reply or not, we will be briefly setting out the evidence which supports that the decision of the 25 November 2022 was unlawful, breached a legitimate expectation, and was for an improper purpose.

3. Furthermore, the bad faith in the consultation that White alleged but was refused, was vindicated by the High Court on 26 May 2023 in the Hillingdon claim, which was granted as a renewed ground on the questionable consultation [see 4/6/2023 update" ]

Friday 16 June 2023 

4. On Friday 16 June 2023, we along with TfL Legal received an email from the Administrative Court Office King's Bench Division in CO.830.2023 White v The Mayor of London and TfL; stating:

"Please be informed that the renewal notice [20/04/2023] and grounds are currently with the case lawyer who will make a renewal directions order which will be sent by the List office once it has been made”.

5. We await the Listing date for the refused grounds to be heard, after which we will have a separate hearing for all the grounds that have been granted permission. 

6. The White claim may yet be joined to the Hillingdon claim, as TfL Legal asked the High Court on 5 April 2023, with the renewed grounds hearing listed before, during 4 and 5 July 2023 or after.

7. However the Hillingdon (5 councils’) claim could see a delay in that case having a judgment being given, until that Judge hears and considers all the grounds in the White claim, as requested by TfL and our team- see below ;

Friday 26 May 2023

1.   On Friday 26 May 2023 we were invited by the High Court to sit in on delivery of the Judgement at 2.30 pm,  on the renewed application of the Hillingdon (Bexley, Bromley, Harrow, Hillingdon and Surrey) claim CO/642/2023 v Mayor of London and TfL to renew two grounds of challenge Ground 2 Consultation and Ground 5: Consideration of consultation response -.

2.   Permission was granted on Ground 2 – which is the same as Ground 3 and Ground 4 in the Chris White claim Ground 3: inadequate consultation; as a matter of law, the consultation fell short. Ground 4 -nature of consultation-the claimant alleges that the consultation was a sham and unlawful for not following the majority preference in the consultation.

3.     We will be filling evidence by Monday 12 June 2023 in the White claim and will summarise here after we file.

4.     Below is an extract of the Note of the judgment  we took, that is relevant to Hillingdon’s Ground 2 and Whites Ground 3 and 4  

CO/642/2023- Friday 26/05/2023

" ..........(A) The consultation will be unfair and unlawful where the consultation paper is “materially misleading …also confused that it does not reasonably allow a proper and effective response” : Help Refugees Ltd, R (on the application of) v The Secretary of State for Home Department & Anor [2018] 4 WLR 168 at paragraph 90 (ii)

(B) the presentation of information “.must be complete, not misleading and must not involve failure to disclose relevant information”  ;  The Electronic Manufacturers Association Petsafe Ltd v the Secretary of State for Environment, Food and Rural Affairs [2019] EWHC 2813  Admin at paragraph 142. 

(C) “ in determining whether non disclosure of information renders a consultation unlawful’ , relevant considerations include “ 1) , the nature and potential impact of the proposal put out for consultation 2) the importance of the information to the justification for the proposal and for the decision ultimately taken 3) whether there was a good reason for not disclosing the information and for whether consultations were prejudiced by non disclosure, “  R (Law Society) v The Lord Chancellor [2018] 1 WLR 1649, at paragraph 73 .

(D) in relation to the 4^th such consideration, it is relevant “ whether the nondisclosure has prejudiced consultees by depriving them of the opportunity of making representations which it would have been material for the decision maker to take into account” :  Law Society at paragraph 74.

(E) A consultation process which demonstrates a high degree of disclosure and transparency serves to underline the nature and importance of the exercise being carried out. Thus non disclosure nondisclosure even in the context of such a process can limit the ability of a consultee to make an intelligent response to something that is central to the appraisal it says “  : Save Our Surgery Ltd, Regina (on The Application of) v Joint Committee of Primary Care Trusts: EWHC 439 Admin; “   

(F) If fairness requires the release of information, the court should be slow to allow administrative considerations to stand in the way of its release. close quotes save our surgery at paragraph 27, (viiii)  and

(G) The mere fact that information is quote significant does not mean that fairness necessarily requires its disclosure to consultees. What fairness requires depends on the context and the particular circumstances. Eisai Ltd, R (on the application of) v National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) [2008] EWCA Civ 438 at paragraph 26 and 27.

Having regard to those principles ground two, Mr. Jaffey KC has been at pains to demonstrate that a comprehensive reading of the relevant documentation makes clear that sufficient information had been provided on the basis of which consultees and stakeholders could understand the basis for the reference compliance rate which had been far from unintelligible in my judgement, the contrary proposition is reasonably arguable, not least having regard to the various and separate locations of the material to which Mr. Jaffey pointed in seeking to make good that submission.

It is arguable that the material provided was not presented in such a way as to provide a clearer picture susceptible of an intelligent response by consultees and stakeholders. Similarly, it is reasonably arguable that at least some further information relating to the ANPR data of which news had been made, perhaps in part anonymized, or subject to confidentiality and or other restrictions, or to have been provided in order to enable an intelligent response. And that in light of its importance to the decision to be taken, there had been no need for a specific request to such effect.

It may be that at the substantive hearing, the defendants and interested parties submissions will provide that they will inevitably do so such that the claimant should be refused permission to advance this limb of ground to for the sake of completeness, I do not accept that the issue, albeit in general terms has been raised for the first time in these proceedings, or that the absence of a specific request for the relevant data should itself preclude the issue from proceeding to a substantive hearing........".

Ed Gregory on 27 May 2023 at London Bridge speaking with Politoons@UkPolitoons 

A.   FOI -TfL advertising budget for proposed ULEZ expansion =£450,523.35          

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can confirm that we hold some of the information you require. You asked:

1. Please supply a) the dates and times of when the adverts took place b) exactly with who they took place with?

Details of advertisement platforms, dates and press/radio titles are included in section 3 of the consultation report, available at:

https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/15619/widgets/58629/documents/34558

2. What was the costs of the publicity campaign of the consultation

In 2022 TfL ran a public consultation from [22] May- [29] July on the next proposed ULEZ expansion. When we run a consultation we look to raise awareness of this with all of the diverse communities that may be impacted by the proposed changes. By doing so we hope to receive feedback from these communities to help us in making the best decisions regarding the future of our projects, programs and policies for London’s transport. A key part of raising awareness, particularly where a proposal impacts people over large parts or all of London, is how we use marketing to promote the consultation. For these large consultations we often use press, digital and radio advertising to ensure communities are aware of what we are consulting on, when we are consulting and how to respond to a consultation. The table below provides the breakdown by month and includes some media activity related to the outcome of the consultation in December 2022 for all actual spend.

                                  Total                                                  £450,523.35 

3. Please supply a copy of the email as if it were being sent to me at this address

A copy of the Customer Relationship Management (CRM) email is available in Appendix B of the consultation report, available at:

https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/15619/widgets/58629/documents/34534

4. Please advise:

a) Were the email settings set to request a read receipt? 

No.

b) If the emails did request a read receipt , how many receipts were received?

Not applicable.

c) How many bounce backs were received?

3,952 emails were undeliverable.

d) How many email replies were received?

The CleanAirYourView inbox received 4,608 email responses, including those from stakeholders. We also received a total of 11,868 emails from five separate organised responses, organised by five different campaign groups. The exact breakdown of emails per organised response is included in the consultation report. We do not actively monitor replies to bulk emails so we do not hold this information for the CRM email.

e) How many jpeg attachments were in the email?

We did not include jpeg attachments within the CRM email.

If this is not the information you are looking for, or if you are unable to access it for any reason, please do not hesitate to contact me.

________________________________________________________________________

B.   FOI- TfL advertising budget for proposed expansion

= £9,000,000                          

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can confirm that we do hold the information you require. You asked for:

1. It has been stated by TfL that the extensive works for the ULEZ expansion are estimated at £159.5 million 

The estimated final cost to deliver the expanded scheme was reported in November 2022 as £159.5m. However, since this time we have undertaken further design work and now expect the costs to be in the range of £130-140m.

2. Please advise of the breakdown of that figure at 1:

1. how much for cameras 
2. how much for signage 

The current estimated total cost to supply and install the ANPR cameras and associated supporting infrastructure for LW-ULEZ is in the range of £45-50m. The current estimated total cost to supply and install signs and associated supporting infrastructure for LW-ULEZ is in the range of £18-24m.

     c. how much for advertising 

The Marketing and Campaign budget allocated for the ULEZ expansion into outer London boroughs is £9m.  [emphasis added]

In January 2023, TfL launched a multi-channel campaign targeting Londoners and home counties drivers to raise awareness and to explain who is affected, where the expanded zone will operate and how the scheme operates including hours of operations, daily charge and how to pay. The campaign aims to encourage vehicle checking to help drivers prepare ahead of when the scheme expands from 29 August 2023.

Activity is running across TV, video on demand, radio, local and pan-London press, national specialist press e.g. What Van and What Car, and national press, a radio and local newspaper content partnership, digital display, messaging on Waze, a wayfinding app, social, roadside posters, and petrol pump nozzle advertising. In addition to advertising, emails are being sent to customers registered to TfL’s database, leaflets and letters detailing the expansion are being distributed to households in the outer London expansion area as well as being distributed face to face in high footfall areas. DVLA letters are also being sent to owners of non-compliant vehicles seen in the outer London expansion area to help provide options in advance of the expansion date.

The media activity will enable TfL to reach over 3.3m vehicle owners in London, 6 or more times as well as 6.5m vehicle owners in the home counties, six or more times so those who drive in London are aware of the upcoming expansion including boundary and how the scheme operates. [emphasis added]

3.  Please advise of the penalty clause for the cameras ordered in April 2022, if they were cancelled in say a) 1 month from order , 3 months , 6 months, 9 months 12 months, 15 months etc 

In the event of a cancellation of any camera order, the terms would be subject to the date of the cancellation. We have not cancelled any orders to date.

4. Please advise of a) the exact date the order for cameras was made b) how many were ordered , c) the company( ies) who accepted the order(s) 

In March 2022, the Mayor announced his intention to consult on proposals for expanding the ULEZ to operate London-wide. A consultation on London-wide ULEZ proposals with a start date of 29 August 2023, took place between May and July 2022, and the expansion was later approved by the Mayor (with modifications) on 24 November 2022.

As a result of the March announcement TfL followed the usual procedures to ensure preparedness in the event that the proposals to expand the ULEZ scheme London-wide were to be confirmed by the Mayor following consultation.

Given the timescales involved if the consultation proposals were to be confirmed, TfL took steps to prepare for the contingency of an approved scheme. This included placing orders of critical components and materials that have long lead-in times based on current market conditions. Orders were placed on terms that allow them to be cancelled or the equipment re-used elsewhere. Orders were placed from April 2022 onwards.

Yunex Traffic UK are TfL’s term contractor for the Detection Equipment and Infrastructure contract, and supply and install all Automatic Number Plate Recognition (ANPR)  [emphasis added] cameras for all TfL Road User Charging Schemes.

If this is not the information you are looking for please do not hesitate to contact me."

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

C.   FOI- Questions 3 & 4 not fully answered 

We have asked for TfL to reconsider and fully answer questions  3 and 4 above and await their reply.

Tuesday 2 May 2023

1.     On Tuesday 2 May at 2023  the Administrative Court Office advised that Application of 20 April 2023 in  CO/830/2023 -R (Chris White) v 1) The Mayor of London 2) TfL, and Interested Parties (1) The Secretary of State Defra, (2) The Secretary of State Department of Transport (3) The Secretary of State for the Home Department, is waiting to be processed and listed for a hearing.

2.      The Application requests that the Order made on Thursday 13 April 2023, which stayed the White claim until 14 days after the Hillingdon claim CO/642/2023 R (The London Borough of Bexley,, (2) London Borough of Bromley, (3) London Borough of Harrow, (4) London Borough of Hillingdon, (5) Surrey County Council)  v The Mayor of London and Interested Party TfL, is decided, is lifted and both claims are joined and heard together. 

Friday 5 May  2023

2.       On Friday 5 May 2023, the Administrative Court Office have further advised that the papers are with the case lawyer.

3.     We await a sealed copy of the Application being returned and once it has we will publish all 7 Grounds and the other applications made including renewing the interim injunction of the rollout of the expansion of the ULEZ cameras in all the other councils who have not issued a Judicial Review claim.

Application filed with Admin Court Office to lift the stay 

1. At 13:25 on 20 April 2023 Tilbrook Solicitors filed with the Admin Court Office, an Application in CO/830/2023 -R (Chris White) v 1) The Mayor of London 2) TfL, and Interested Parties (1) The Secretary of State Defra, (2) The Secretary of State Department of Transport (3) The Secretary of State for the Home Department.

2. The Application requests that the Order made on Thursday 13 April 2023 by Sir Ross Cranston sitting as a High Court judge, with respect is varied and the White claim CO/830/2023 is heard at the same time as the Hillingdon claim CO/642/2023. This was not only requested by White but also by TfL Legal in their letter of 5 April 2023 to the Admin Court and also confirmed by the Admin Court Office was meant to have been considered at the same time by the Judge but was not due to an administrative error.

3. We have asked for the stay to be lifted on Grounds 1 and 5

Ground 1: scheme ultra vires (unlawful) ; 

• To lift the stay on Ground 1, in that the legal base and procedural requirements for the ULEZ scheme are that as a matter of law the consent of the Secretary of State for Transport was required for the scheme’s application to trunk roads.

Ground 5 -not all drivers compensated

• To lift the stay on Ground 5, as though poverty is not a protected characteristic under s.4 of the Equality Act 2010, Ethnicity (race) and Age are. The Defendants come close to conceding in their 5 April 2023 Acknowledgment of Service to the White claim, that the scheme will disproportionately affect members of the ethnic minorities and the aged; indeed, it will. Moreover, poverty is now recognised by the United Nations as “povertyism” in the same way as racism and sexism,

 Grounds 2,3,4,6,7.

4. We await confirmation from the Admin Court Office of the listing of the Application, at which time we will set out all 7 Grounds, to vary the order at an oral hearing, along with the details of several other applications made within yesterday’s application.

1. At 14.08 on 12 April 2023, online press reported

 “HIGH COURT RULES ULEZ EXPANSION JUDICIAL REVIEW TO GO TO TRIAL”

2.   At 13:35 on Thursday 13 April an Order was made by Sir Ross Cranston sitting as a High Court judge, on CO/830/2023 -R (Chris White) v 1) The Mayor of London 2) TfL, and Interested Parties (1) The Secretary of State Defra, (2) The Secretary of State Department of Transport (3) The Secretary of State for the Home Department, which in summary stated ; 

• The application for permission to apply for judicial review on grounds 2, 3 and 4 is refused.
• The claimant’s application for permission on grounds 1 and 5 shall be stayed pending a final decision of this Court on the judicial review, CO/642/2023  [Hillingdon claim] 

          Ground 1: scheme ultra vires (unlawful) ;  

          Ground 2:  irrationality of the scheme

          Ground 3:  inadequate consultation

           Ground 4:  nature of consultation

           Ground 5: not all drivers compensated

3.       The White case challenges the ULEZ scheme on two similar but three  different grounds to that in the Hillingdon claim

4.     The Mayor and Transport for London have made it clear in documents lodged with the Court that they are seeking to bring Greater London into line with the World Health Organisation (WHO) standards which have no legal force in Britain and go far beyond EU legal standards. The Mayor is entitled to his views but cannot lawfully treat Greater London as though it were similar to a Republic State, nor can he pursue his own foreign policy.

5.     As presently advised the Secretary of State for Transport is it seems supporting the Mayor and TfL, that is to say the Government have only recently stated that they are intending to resist the White claim which would imply they are backing ULEZ expansion in the High Court whilst pretending to the public that they are opposed.

6.     We are seeking urgent clarification from the Minister – Londoners are entitled to know where the Secretary of State stands. Londoners are also entitled to know whether the Minister was consulted by his officials.

7. The Claimant in the White case (CO/830/2023) will  on 20 April 2023 be asking the High Court to lift the stay and for the White claim to be heard at the same time as the Hillingdon claim (CO/642/2023) and for some of the refused grounds to be reconsidered at a hearing in open court.

https://youtu.be/48RgwGv9SjQ 

https://hansard.parliament.uk/commons/2023-01-12/debates/AC04E372-84A7-47C9-B7AC-F4B323B9C498/BusinessOfTheHouse 

On 12 January 2023 Gareth Bacon Conservative MP for Orpington asked the Government:

"Just before the Christmas recess, my hon. Friend the Member for Dartford (Gareth Johnson) secured an excellent Westminster Hall debate to discuss the Mayor of London’s appalling plan to expand the ultra-low emission zone to outer London. That will do nothing to improve air quality, and it will be economically disastrous for poorer people in outer London constituencies such as Orpington, and for those living outside Greater London. It is simply a cash grab, the Mayor has no mandate to do it, and it is overwhelmingly opposed by people in outer London. Will my right hon. Friend encourage colleagues across Government to consider withholding funds from Transport for London until the Mayor decides to withdraw that insane plan, and may we have a related debate in Government time? "

Penny Mordaunt Conservative MP for Portsmouth North, Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Commons answered for the Government:

"I thank my hon. Friend for raising this important issue. Whatever the merits or otherwise of setting up such a scheme, to do it at a time when businesses are recovering from a pandemic—this obviously affects not only businesses in London, but also those in surrounding areas, with tradesmen and others who will be coming in for materials or to do jobs, and I know it has had a hugely detrimental impact on many firms. I will raise the issue with the Secretary of State, but I encourage my hon. Friend also to raise it at Transport questions on 19 January."

_______________________________________________________________________

On 3 April 2023 , the Department of Transport confirmed that the Government's funding for TfL cannot be used for the ULEZ expansion 

https://questions-statements.parliament.uk/written-questions/detail/2023-03-28/175670#  

Hansard (HC Deb, 3 April 2023, cW) UIN 175670,

On 28 March 2023  Mr Louie French Conservative Old Bexley & Sidcup Commons asked the Department for Transport:

"To ask the Secretary of State for Transport, with reference to the oral contribution of the Parliamentary Under-Secretary of State for Transport of 20 December 2022, Official Report, column 73WH, whether Government funding was used by Transport for London to purchase ULEZ cameras before the consultation started in April 2022."

On 3 April 2023 Mr Richard Holden Conservative North West Durham Commons and  Parliamentary Under Secretary of State (Roads and Local Transport)  answered:

"Transport in London is devolved to the Mayor and TfL, and it is their responsibility to manage and oversee the transport network. This includes decisions with regards to road schemes which charge users. The Mayor of London announced his decision to expand the ULEZ on 25 November 2022 following a public consultation.

Prior to the Mayor’s announcement, Government had been clear, via the August 2022 longer-term funding settlement, that funding cannot be used to cover the cost of implementing the new (or any future) scheme; this includes the purchasing of cameras."

Mayors powers being reviewed  by House of Lords

1.  On 20 March 2023 Lord Moylan put to the House of Lords an amendment to the Greater London Authority Act 1999, and other elected Mayor legislation, by the Levelling-up and Regeneration Bill, to reduce the powers of every elected Mayor, and give it back to the full council of ;

(a) a district council,

(b) a county council, or

(c) a London borough council, 

that would be  affected by the decision of their Mayor, with the last say being made by that full council, which could then vote to retrospectively amend or cancel the decision of their Mayor .  

HL Bill 84 -Volume 828: debated on Monday 20 March 2023 

Committee (6th Day) (Continued)

8.38pm

Lord Moylan

(Con)

1) My Lords, in moving Amendment 176, I will speak also to Amendment 178B, both of which are in my name; I am grateful to the noble Lords who have given them their support.

2) In our discussion of the Bill, we have had much debate on the powers of mayoral authorities and the balance between upper-tier authorities—local authorities, regional authorities and mayoral authorities—and those lower down the chain. These amendments continue that debate in a different way. With noble Lords’ agreement, I will start by speaking to Amendment 178B; I will come to Amendment 176 after that.

3) Amendment 178B is very brief and technical but has quite a lot of effect. It amends the Greater London Authority Act to allow the assembly to amend the mayor’s budget by an absolute majority, rather than requiring a two-thirds majority, as now. Although it is drafted to apply to London, if granted this would have a wider effect, because there are other metropolitan mayoral authorities with similar arrangements for the scrutiny and passing of a mayoral budget. I will speak about London, from my experience, and the other matters can be taken later.

4) When the Blair Government set up the Greater London Authority through the 1999 Act, they were wedded to the idea that it should have a very strong mayor—a sort of Nietzschean super-figure bestriding the capital and, crucially for our purposes, able to impose his or her own budget on London, even if opposed by a majority in the elected assembly. No reason was ever given for this, as far as I understand, and it entailed a significant denial of the norms of democracy. When he was mayor, Ken Livingstone, who had a certain sense of irony, used to sit in the public gallery of the assembly when his budget was being debated. Every time he lost a vote and there was a majority against, he would give a little chuckle and declare a triumph, because although 50% or even 60% of the members were voting against that provision in his budget, it had no effect because they could not achieve a two-thirds majority.

5) When it was set up, it was explained that the Greater London Authority’s powers were strictly limited to it being a strategic authority for London; it was not meant to be a delivery authority. The mayor did operate four functional bodies in addition: Transport for London, the Metropolitan Police, the fire and rescue authority and the London Development Agency. Although the architecture around the development agency later changed slightly, that position remained. However, the powers of the mayor have increased very significantly. As the Government have made clear in discussion on this Bill, the intention is to increase the powers of mayors in other parts of the country as part of their devolution and levelling-up approach.

6) We are seeing mayors accumulate more powers and larger budgets. For example, the Mayor of London is now responsible for the housing budget for London, which is billions-plus. These powers are being accumulated but the co-decision and scrutiny functions that go with them are not being kept up to date. In fact, the Government recognise this. It may not be government policy yet, but I even saw in a newspaper that the Government were speculating on increasing the scrutiny of elected mayors by setting up panels of local MPs to scrutinise what they were going to do. There is no need to do this: the assembly exists. The scrutiny body is there already: it needs empowerment, which this amendment provides. I am putting a burden on my noble friend by inviting her to explain why we should be denying democracy in our great cities and urban areas—such a burden that quite possibly she will decide to agree with me. I look forward to that very much indeed.

7) Turning to the question of balance of powers, we come to Amendment 176, which is drafted to cover the whole country and is not specific to London. However, I will speak of it in London terms because of my own experience and allow noble Lords to draw parallels with other areas. It relates to the ULEZ charge—a power the mayor has in fact had since the foundation of the Greater London Authority; road user charging was in the Greater London Authority Act as far back as 1999. It has been expanded in geographical terms. Under Ken Livingstone, it was small and very focused. There was a low emission zone around Heathrow Airport and a congestion charge around just the very centre of London. It has been expanded to include not only inner London, which has already been delivered, but outer London as well—the current proposal—into areas wholly different from inner London and best understood by their own elected councils. Yet, they have no say.

8) This amendment would give councils that say, not just in London but in other parts of the country. It would give a power of co-decision with local councils in the extension of a road user charging scheme— ULEZ in this case. It would require that that decision be made in full council. It would not be a decision of the executive arm—for example, the cabinet or the locally elected mayor. It would also be retrospective, so that existing schemes would have to be subject to such a vote in order to continue. It would also ensure that local councils have regard to their air quality duties under the Environment Act when making their decisions. Nobody is in favour of poor air quality; it is a question of how to get there.

8.45pm

9) Of course, Londoners and those in adjacent counties value clean, healthy air, but they are groaning under the proposed burden of a rushed ULEZ imposed during a cost of living crisis. A wholly inadequate scrappage support scheme is attached to it which, large parts of outer London, is not strictly necessary because of their very different, almost rural characteristics. This is evidenced from TfL’s own impact assessment of what ULEZ is going to achieve. Residents look to their local councils to express their voice. Our job is to empower them to do this.

10) This measure is supported by members of the Liberal Democrat party and Liberal Democrat councils, and the ULEZ proposal has been opposed publicly by Labour Party Members of the other place. I hope that my amendment will command the widespread support of your Lordships’ House, not least of the one party not mentioned so far—the Conservative Party—when my noble friend comes to reply. I beg to move.

https://bills.parliament.uk/bills/3155/stages/17298

Thank you for your request received on 21 February 2023 asking for information about Ultra-low Emission Zone (ULEZ) cameras.

Your request has been considered in accordance with the requirements of the Freedom of Information Act and our information access policy. I can confirm that we do hold the information you require.

1.            When did the ULEZ cameras in the GLA began being installed

Camera installations on existing traffic signal equipment commenced in December 2022. Cameras have been installed on the TfL Road Network (TLRN) in multiple boroughs on existing infrastructure such as traffic signal heads. Currently the newly installed outer-London ANPR cameras are powered but not operational and no data is being transmitted.

2.            Have they been installed on traffic lights and if not where

Up to week ending 24 February cameras have only been installed on existing traffic signal equipment.

3.            How many have been installed each day

At present an average of 10 cameras a day have been installed.

4.            Have the number of installations increased since 12 January 2023 and if so by how many per day

No.

5.            What council areas have had installations on a daily and weekly basis since they began being installed

Please see the table below, the information is correct up to 20 February 2023:

Borough                            Borough road     TLRN     Total

Barking and Dagenham                    47           2             49

Barnet                                                 45           19           64

Brent                                                    21           3             24

Ealing                                                  18           6             24

Enfield                                                 31           20           51

Greenwich                                           24           5             29

Havering                                              28           8             36

Hounslow                                             22           30           52

Kingston upon Thames                     15           3             18

Lambeth                                               0             9             9

Lewisham                                            20           2             22

Merton                                                 20           5             25

Newham                                               0             2             2

Redbridge                                            39           6             45

Richmond upon Thames                   12           23           35

Sutton                                                   10           13           23

Waltham Forest                                   4             1             5

Wandsworth                                        11           9             20

Total                                                     367        166        533

Tuesday 14 March 2023

1. On Tuesday 14 March 2023, Tilbrook’s served by email and post ,the Judicial Review Claim form on Mayor Khan and TfL whom both are Defendants

2. We have also invited  as Interested Parties;

• the Secretary of State for Department for Environment Food and Rural Affairs, who is relevant to the position of monitoring of  air quality in the proposed expanded area for ULEZ
• the Secretary of State for Transport ,who is relevant to the position that a vehicle that has passed an MOT (Ministry of Transport) test and issued with a pass certificate, can have the appropriate road tax paid and insurance issued to use the vehicle, on the roads of the United Kingdom
• the Secretary of State for the Home Department, who is relevant to the position that Parliament still retains jurisdiction (power) over an elected Mayor through the Greater London Authority Act 1999

3. We await their response.

Thursday 23 February 2023

1. We have now received the papers back from the Administrative Court Office, King’s Bench Division, Royal Courts of Justice, Strand, London, confirming that on Thursday 23 February 2023, the Judicial Review claim was filed and a claim number has been issued.

2. The claim is challenging the decision of Mayor Khan and TfL announced on 25 November 2022, to expand the Ultra Low Emission Zone to the Greater London Area on Tuesday 29 August 2023

3. We will next be serving the claim on the Mayor of London and TfL, along with several Interested Parties

4. Once the claim has been served, we will be advising of the details of the Interested Parties .

Y. ULEZ Expansion would be UZELESS; by Dr M.J.Simons PhD, MRSC

31. The proposal to extend London’s Ultra Low Emission Zone (ULEZ) to the whole of Greater London will cost a lot of money, cause hardship to very many residents, and yet deliver effectively zero benefit.

31.1. This might be justified if air quality were to be improved significantly, but there is much evidence showing that will NOT be the case, and that any benefit will be marginal, while the  Mayor of London has failed to offer any proper evidence to support his proposal, beyond broad, non-specific and unquantified generalisations about the evils of pollution.

31.1.2. We will be specific. We will consider mainly the nitrogen dioxide (NO2) pollutant as this is an exhaust-pipe emission. The fine particulate (PM2.5) emissions come mainly (two thirds)  from brake and road surface wear, thus largely from all vehicles, and will be little reduced anyway – as confirmed at “2. Comparison with the official Jacobs Integrated Impact Assessment estimates”   below;

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

1. NO2 Levels are falling across the nation anyway

1) The main reasons for this are the increasingly strict emission standards imposed, quite correctly, on vehicle manufacturers. As older vehicles reach the end of their life, they are   replaced by newer cleaner vehicles, including electric ones. Nothing to do with ULEZ, it is happening anyway. The graphs below are from https://www.gov.uk/government/statistics/air- quality-statistics/ntrogen-dioxide (DEFRA) and are for the whole UK, not just London. 

2.) Between 2005 and 2019 (just before the lockdowns) the concentration curves  approximate to a straight line, with a slope, or rate of reduction of NO2, of 1.54 μg / m³ per year for the roadside case, and 0.86 μg / m³ per year for the urban background case.

3) NO2 levels are also falling across London, as shown in the maps below, at a rate of 1.7 μg/ m³ per year in Outer London between the measured (before any ULEZ) levels in 2016   and the projected without-ULEZ levels in 2023.

4)    Note that the existing legal upper limit is 40 μg / m3, and the new WHO-based interim advisory limit is 20 μg / m3, this projection shows Outer London (Heathrow area excepted) to meet this lower limit by 2023, and certainly by 2024, without any ULEZ expansion.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

2. Comparison with the official Jacobs Integrated Impact Assessment estimates:

5)    The Jacobs Assessment (downloadable from https://haveyoursay.tfl.gov.uk/15619/widgets/44946/documents/27025 ) was commissioned by TfL to assess the effects of implementing the ULEZ expansion. We           reproduce below an image of a relevant table from page 47 of that report:

6) These projections show NO EFFECT on PM2.5 particulate levels, and a tiny reduction of just 0.3 μg / m³ , or -1.4% , on NO2 levels in Outer London and in Greater London as a whole.

7) Since the ongoing (non-ULEZ) reductions in NO2 levels as shown on pp 1 and 2 lie between 0.86 and 1.7 μg / m³ each year, the one-off extra 0.3 μg / m³ estimated as the benefit from  ULEZ expansion would simply advance the ongoing NO2 reductions, which are steadily happening anyway, without ULEZ, by between just 8 and 16 weeks! A negligible effect.

8) The fact is the problem of pollution by NO2 is already being resolved by existing legislation    applying to vehicle manufacture, making ULEZ expansion an expensive but superfluous irrelevance. Or perhaps a vanity project raising funds from the pockets of Londoners.

9) On any sort of cost / benefit analysis, and especially in view of the significant hardship it would cause to the citizens and small businesses of Outer London, the proposed policy is  unviable, illogical, and irrational.

• We are delighted to confirm that Dr Michael Simons (Dr M.J.Simons PhD, MRSC) has joined the team as an advisor .

• Michael has worked for 40 years as a research scientist in an international industrial research laboratory, in the fields of chemistry, imaging science and printing and holds a PhD in physical science (chemistry) from Reading University.

Wednesday 15 February 2023 at 13 15  

1. Tilbrook’s Solicitors after instructing Robert Griffiths KC of Six Pump Court,  sent by email and post at 13 15 on Wednesday 15 February 2023 a  pre-action letter before a Judicial Review claim to;  

a) Mayor Khan,  and 

b) TFL

2.  A way forward has been suggested 

3. We await their response.

X. ULEZ Financial Impact Assessment to Drivers from 29 August 2023

22)      Milliken Consulting, Audit and Compliance, (www.Kmilliken.com) have   prepared a Financial Impact assessment on the affect that the ULEZ expansion would have on incomes- see Telegraph 25 January 2023 “ Sadiq Khan’s Ulez expansion would wipe out pay rises for teachers and nurses”

23)      The figures are based on a 5-day commute into or within the ULEZ;

Teaching Assistant

• £20,000 gross salary, will need to be increased to
• £24,411 to enable the driver to pay the daily ULEZ charge of £12.50 from net earnings
• 22%.*  increase in salary

Care Worker

• £25,000 gross salary, will need to be increased to
• £29,411, to enable the driver to pay the daily ULEZ charge of £12.50 from net earnings
• 17.6%.* increase in salary.

Bus Driver in London

• £30,000 gross salary, will need to be increased to
• £34,411 to enable the driver to pay the daily ULEZ charge of £12.50 from net earnings
• 14.7%.* increase in salary

Teacher, Paramedic

• £40,000 gross salary, will need to be increased to 
• £44,411, to enable the driver to pay the daily ULEZ charge of £12.50 from net earnings
• 11%.* increase in salary.

24)  As the figures show, the lower income groups are particularly discriminated against by ULEZ. 

25) There appears to be NO evidence to show that this critical information was disclosed by Mayor Khan to the public after the  "Have Your Say Consultation" opened on the 20th  May 2022  or  before Mayor Khans decision on the 25th November 2022 to expand ULEZ to Greater London.

* The precise amount is subject to the drivers’ financial circumstances (2022/2023)E&OE

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2023/01/24/sadiq-khans-ulez-expansion-would-wipe-pay-rises-teachers-nurses/