PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

MANCHESTER, Allleged Bus Lane Contravention -Oxford RD (Nelson Street to Hathersage)
CYRIL
post Tue, 29 May 2018 - 12:22
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 130
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



Dear ALL.
I am sending the information about my work colleague, who had received a letter through the post for the bus lane ticket in Manchester on 24/03/2018.

This car is a lease car and the letter or email must of went to the Audi Finance group, as he spoke to the Audi and told him, we informed the Manchester city council on 16/04/2018 of the lease holder of the car.

So the date OF DETECTION 24/03/2018

DATE OF PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE : 25/05/18

Date of Previous PCN Cancelled : 07/05/2018.

Has my work colleague got a chance for out of time, i dont know about the Signage. as i am sure they have put up another sign close up to the road.

Just requested for the Video, as it was showing the below message.
View CCTV Evidence
There is a delay in processing your request, the site may be delayed during periods of high demand, administrators have been notified. If you opted to be notified via email or text message then you will receive notification as soon as your still images and video footage are ready for viewing. Alternatively please try again a little later.

This post has been edited by CYRIL: Tue, 29 May 2018 - 14:42
Attached thumbnail(s)
Attached Image
Attached Image
 
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Start new topic
Replies (1 - 19)
Advertisement
post Tue, 29 May 2018 - 12:22
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Tue, 29 May 2018 - 14:11
Post #2


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,597
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



What is the date on the PCN sent to Audi?

They can transfer liability but that's the 2nd step in the process and can only occur if the original PCN was legally served IMO

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Tue, 29 May 2018 - 15:44
Post #3


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 130
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



Hi Mick,
I will find out, as he has asked Audi and will try and send it tomorrow.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Thu, 31 May 2018 - 09:43
Post #4


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 130
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



Hi Mick,
Sorry for the late reply, as our company emails were down.

the date was 03/04/18 the posting date.

Then he recieved this Bus lane PCN ,DATE OF PENALTY CHARGE NOTICE : 25/05/18, as the 07/05/2018 got cancelled, whihc he is not sure why is it showing cancel.

What do you think, has it got any chance or is worth writing the 1st reply and see what the MCC has to say.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Thu, 31 May 2018 - 18:05
Post #5


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,597
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



Doesn't look like an OOT will work either with the 1st PCN nor your colleague's so you'll have to check validity of lines and signs.

The delay on getting the video is off. This is what the Act says (my bold):-


(n)that the recipient may, by notice in writing to the authority, request them—

(i)to make available at an office of theirs specified by him, free of charge and at a time during normal office hours so specified, for viewing by him and by his representative (if any), the record of the contravention produced by the approved device pursuant to which the penalty charge was imposed; or

(ii)to provide him, free of charge, with such still images from that record as, in the authority’s opinion, establish the contravention.

(6) Where the recipient of the notice makes a request under paragraph (5)(m), the authority shall comply with the request within a reasonable time.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 11:57
Post #6


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 130
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



Hi Mick,
So the 1st PCN will not work , which they sent to Audi date of postage 03/04 /2018 and the 2nd PCN was issued to late, as the Audi informed the MCC on the 16/4/2018 of the driver and the council sent the 2nd PCN on 25/05/2018 posting date, so the service date is 31/05/2018.

I dont know what is the date 07/05/2018 cancel date for the previous PCN , should it not be the one 03/04/2018, however it took them over 40 Days to issue 2nd pcn dated 25/05/2018.

Still the Authority has not got back to us with the Video footage requested, as i still get the below message.
View CCTV Evidence
There is a delay in processing your request, the site may be delayed during periods of high demand, administrators have been notified. If you opted to be notified via email or text message then you will receive notification as soon as your still images and video footage are ready for viewing. Alternatively please try again a little later.


I will draft a letter out and upload it here for your evaluation.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 14:15
Post #7


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 130
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



Hi Mick,
What do you think of the below letter to send to MCC appeal.

Appeals and Payment Department

PCN Penalty Charge Notice Number: MC
Vehicle registration number: xxx xxx xxx

Dear sir/Madam,

Thank you for your letter of the PCN dated 25/5/18

The PCN is served out of time and must therefore be void.

You have issued me with a Parking Charge Notice ticket on Saturday 24th March 2018
At 20.27, but I believe it was unlawfully issued.

The Penalty Demanded Exceeds the Amount Due

The Bus Lane Regulations impose a strict duty upon enforcement authorities to serve Bus Lane PCNs within 28 days, starting with the date of the contravention being recorded. While there are some exceptions, without a cogent explanation, supported by evidence, the PCN was posted too close to the deadline for the deemed service to occur, being a day late and is therefore an unlawful notice, demanding an unlawful penalty. It must either be cancelled or specific reasons and evidence provided to show why the 28 day limit does not apply.

1st PCN
Date of contravention 24/03/18
Date issued & posted 03/04/18
Replied by Audi 16/04/18

2nd PCN
Date of contravention 24/03/18
Date issued & posted 25/05/18
Date of service 31/05/18


The second PCN was issued and served outside the 28 days starting from when the alleged contravention occurred.





Signage

The contravention did not occur due to inadequate signage.

*I did not see the sign due to the Double Decker bus in front of me and blocked my view of the sign
*I did not see a sign to the offside although I do now recognise that one is present.
*There is no assisting signage on the roadway in the form of carriageway markings which would demarcate this stretch of road was a bus lane at the time and therefore passage was prohibited.
*There are no signs on Grafton Street which properly displays the fact that a bus lane exists on Oxford Road in a clear and understandable manner. It should be an expectation that a driver is given sufficient information to be able to recognise the bus lane and also how to avoid it.

I saw no bus lane signs, there were no pre-warning signs and there was nothing that gave a reasonably observant motorist warning that they are entering a bus lane.

I did not realise I was on the bus lane until I received a letter today by post, as bus lanes have markings on the road. I looked at the picture it is just a normal road with 20mph marking, when I checked Google Maps and the picture there is no bus lane marked. You can see from the picture I was not causing any issue to the bus lane or blocking anyone. I did not realise I was on the bus lane, if they are saying I am on the bus lane, as it has normal road marking. If I knew I was in the bus lane, I would have exited immediately.

There is insufficient signage, where they may need to have every 10 metres to catch the drivers attention, especially when you do not live in Manchester and when you are lost.

Video Footage

That the recipient may, by notice in writing to the authority, request them :


(i) To make available at an office of theirs specified by him, free of charge and at a time during normal office hours so specified, for viewing by him and by his representative (if any), the record of the contravention produced by the approved device pursuant to which the penalty charge was imposed; or
(ii) To provide him, free of charge, with such still images from the record as, in the authority’s opinion, establish the contravention.

Where the recipient of the notice makes a request under paragraph (5)(m), the authority shall comply with the request within a reasonable time.

I went to view my PCN video footage number of times since the letter received, the following message comes up,

View CCTV Evidence
There is a delay in processing your request, the site may be delayed during periods of high demand, administrators have been notified. If you opted to be notified via email or text message then you will receive notification as soon as your still images and video footage are ready for viewing. Alternatively, please try again a little later.

Due to all reasons stated, I would request that you accept my representation and cancel the PCN.


Yours faithfully

This post has been edited by CYRIL: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 14:56
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 15:55
Post #8


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 130
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



https://imageshack.com/a/img924/4274/WYH5L5.jpg




This post has been edited by CYRIL: Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 15:55
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Incandescent
post Fri, 1 Jun 2018 - 16:18
Post #9


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 13,267
Joined: 22 Apr 2012
Member No.: 54,455



You are totally wrong on your out-of-time section, in fact it needs removing from the appeal. They have a further 28 days from cancelling the 1st PCN to Audi to issue the 2nd PCN.

QUOTE
Response to representations
10.—(1) Where representations are duly made to an authority under regulation 9 and they are made within the 28 day period, it shall be the duty of the authority—

(a)to consider them and any supporting evidence provided;
(b)in relation to each ground on which representations are made, to serve on the person by whom the representations are made notice of their decision as to whether or not they accept that the ground has been established.
(2) Where an authority accept that at least one ground on which representations are made is established, they shall—

(a)cancel the penalty charge notice; and
(b)serve notice on the recipient stating that the penalty charge notice has been cancelled,
and where the ground that is accepted is that mentioned in regulation 9(2)(e)(ii), the person hiring the vehicle shall be deemed to be its owner for the purposes of these Regulations.

(3) Where an authority is not satisfied that any of the statutory grounds of appeal is established, the notice served in accordance with paragraph (1)(b) must be a notice stating that they do not accept that the ground has been established (“a notice of rejection”).

(4) A notice of rejection shall—

(a)state the reasons for the authority’s decision;
(b)state that an appeal against the imposition of the penalty charge may be made to an adjudicator within the appeal period;
©specify the statutory grounds of appeal;
(d)describe in general terms the procedure for making an appeal;
(e)state that an adjudicator has power to make an award of costs;
(f)indicate the circumstances in which the power may be exercised; and
(g)state that unless, before the end of the appeal period—
(i)the penalty charge is paid; or
(ii)an appeal is made to an adjudicator against the imposition of the penalty charge,the authority may increase the penalty charge by 50 per cent and take steps to enforce payment.
(5) Where a penalty charge notice is cancelled under paragraph (2), the authority may serve on any person other than the person on whom the original penalty charge notice was served a fresh penalty charge notice in relation to the alleged contravention that was the subject of the cancelled notice.

(6) Regulation 8 shall apply in relation to a fresh notice served under paragraph (5) as if—

(a)in paragraph (2), for “the detection date”, there were substituted “the date on which the penalty charge notice is cancelled”; and
(b)in paragraph (3)—
(i)in sub-paragraph (a), for “the detection date”, there were substituted “the date on which the penalty charge notice is cancelled”; and
(ii)in sub-paragraph (b), the reference to paragraph (2) were a reference to that paragraph as modified by sub-paragraph (a) of this paragraph.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 12:04
Post #10


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 130
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



Hi Mick,
I have taken the OOT out and will send as below.

Still can not access the Video and keep getting the same message.



Appeals and Payment Department

PCN Penalty Charge Notice Number: MC XXX XXXX
Vehicle registration number: RXXXX XXXX

Dear sir/Madam,

Thank you for your letter of the PCN dated 25/5/18

You have issued me with a Parking Charge Notice ticket on Saturday 24th March 2018
At 20.27, but I believe it was unlawfully issued.


Signage

The contravention did not occur due to inadequate signage.

*I did not see the sign due to the Double Decker bus in front of me and blocked my view of the sign
*I did not see a sign to the offside although I do now recognise that one is present.
*There is no assisting signage on the roadway in the form of carriageway markings which would demarcate this stretch of road was a bus lane at the time and therefore passage was prohibited.
*There are no signs on Grafton Street which properly displays the fact that a bus lane exists on Oxford Road in a clear and understandable manner. It should be an expectation that a driver is given sufficient information to be able to recognise the bus lane and also how to avoid it.

I saw no bus lane signs, there were no pre-warning signs and there was nothing that gave a reasonably observant motorist warning that they are entering a bus lane.

I did not realise I was on the bus lane until I received a letter today by post, as bus lanes have markings on the road. I looked at the picture it is just a normal road with 20mph marking, when I checked Google Maps and the picture there is no bus lane marked. You can see from the picture I was not causing any issue to the bus lane or blocking anyone. I did not realise I was on the bus lane, if they are saying I am on the bus lane, as it has normal road marking. If I knew I was in the bus lane, I would have exited immediately.

There is insufficient signage, where they may need to have every 10 metres to catch the drivers attention, especially when you do not live in Manchester and when you are lost.

Video Footage

That the recipient may, by notice in writing to the authority, request them :


(i) To make available at an office of theirs specified by him, free of charge and at a time during normal office hours so specified, for viewing by him and by his representative (if any), the record of the contravention produced by the approved device pursuant to which the penalty charge was imposed; or
(ii) To provide him, free of charge, with such still images from the record as, in the authority’s opinion, establish the contravention.

Where the recipient of the notice makes a request under paragraph (5)(m), the authority shall comply with the request within a reasonable time.

I went to view my PCN video footage number of times since the letter received, the following message comes up,

View CCTV Evidence
There is a delay in processing your request, the site may be delayed during periods of high demand, administrators have been notified. If you opted to be notified via email or text message then you will receive notification as soon as your still images and video footage are ready for viewing. Alternatively, please try again a little later.

Due to all reasons stated, I would request that you accept my representation and cancel the PCN.


Yours faithfully




Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 18:26
Post #11


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,597
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



CYRIL---I would go with that.

The 1st PCN was served in time so we've ticked that box.

I have a feeling that your colleague will not get a response for some time.

Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Tue, 5 Jun 2018 - 13:17
Post #12


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 130
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



QUOTE (Mad Mick V @ Mon, 4 Jun 2018 - 19:26) *
CYRIL---I would go with that.

The 1st PCN was served in time so we've ticked that box.

I have a feeling that your colleague will not get a response for some time.

Mick


Thanks Mick
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 17:35
Post #13


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 130
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



Hi All,
I have got a reply from the Manchester city council date 15th November 2018. I could not upload the reply, so I typed it out due to space on this enquiry.

It states your case comes under the transport act 200 and the bus lane contraventions penalty charges , adjudication and enforcement England regulation 2005.

Date of Penalty 03/04/2018.

NOTICE OF REJECTION OF REPRESENTATIONS.

Thank you for your letter making representations in connection with the above penalty charge notice (PCN)

I have carefully considered your case but on this occasion I have decided not to cancel this PCN. The vehicle was recorded by cctv in a bus gate on oxford road between Nelson Street to hathersage Road.

This bus gate is in operation 6am to 9pm, 7 days a week; the only Vehicles permitted to be in the bus gate are buses, hackney carriages (not private hire vehicles) and Bicycles. The vehicle in respect of which this PCN was issued is not within the permitted classes. As you approach the bus gate there are signs to indicate the start of the bus gate and an alternative route should have been taken.

What do you think guys shall pay up and just forget about it ?

This post has been edited by CYRIL: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 17:58
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Mad Mick V
post Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 17:59
Post #14


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 7,597
Joined: 28 Mar 2007
Member No.: 11,355



If that's all of their response it looks like a stock reply which fails to answer any of your appeal grounds.

Second their reply is about 6 months from the appeal so such undue delay, without explanation causes unfairness, and IMO prejudice because the Council have tinkered about with lines and signs at that location since the original contravention in May.

I would take this one to adjudication because the above points will win it regardless of what is in the body of your appeal.

Mick

This post has been edited by Mad Mick V: Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 18:00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Thu, 22 Nov 2018 - 18:15
Post #15


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 130
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



Hi Mick,
Thank you for your reply.
I thought so, it is their standard reply and must be sending it to all who has received a PCN.

They have not explained why the reply was late or an apology of the late reply, as they just wrote the letter, is like they have done nothing wrong and just sent the letter out. and pay up

I know it is Unfairness and these council representative just send these standard letter without any thoughts and making life harder for us and we dont stand a chance.

I forgot to write it, as i just noticed now below 2 sentences !

Your comments have been noted but all signage including the advanced warning signs are fully compliant with all appropriate legislation.

In addition a satellite navigation device may not always be updated to new road layouts, therefore it is driver's responsibility to be aware of all relevant signs.

This post has been edited by CYRIL: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 - 11:40
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 23 Nov 2018 - 09:04
Post #16


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,905
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



CYRIL for future reference just upload documents to an external site like imgur.com and post a link. IMO you must apply for costs at the tribunal, the council know these PCNs won't be upheld and they are being wholly unreasonable in pursuing them.

This post has been edited by cp8759: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 - 09:05


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Fri, 23 Nov 2018 - 11:37
Post #17


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 130
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



I hope the below links works, as i have uploaded the doucments.

https://imgur.com/UZ926v4

https://imgur.com/grM58cZ

https://imgur.com/MRdWv5h

https://imgur.com/h6rVPrw

This post has been edited by CYRIL: Fri, 23 Nov 2018 - 11:39
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 23 Nov 2018 - 12:10
Post #18


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,905
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Non-sideways version:






I'm not sure why the first page says "ts only been you!" right at the top?

Anyway, seems like a no brainier to appeal, IIRC you're a veteran already but if you want something to start with this is the latest appeal I drafted for this location: http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?s=&...t&p=1416045


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
CYRIL
post Fri, 23 Nov 2018 - 19:26
Post #19


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 130
Joined: 2 Dec 2017
Member No.: 95,374



Hi cp8759,
I dont know why it has this ts only been you" very strange.

I will just check my previous letter and i have checked your link for the post and draft the letter out for my work collegaue and he will go for the appeal.

what do you think of the below letter, as i took out the Out of time, which i do not require, as my PCN was submitted on time.


Xxxx xxxx
Xxxxxx xxxxx
xxxxxx
xxxxx


Friday 23rd November 2018



Independent Adjudicator
Traffic Penalty Tribunal
Marie Edge
Business Support Officer
Parking Services
Highways

Appeal against the imposition of Penalty Charge Notice: (PCN) number MC
Vehicle registration mark: B
Online Code: 88
Dear Sir /Madame/ Adjudicator,

Submission by the appellant in response to the authorities evidence

My appeal consisted of three points. In response to this the authority present their summary and evidence I would respond as follows.

Point 1:- the contravention did not occur

I believe the council response to my letter , which fails to answer any of my appeal grounds.

Secondly Council reply is about 6 months from the appeal so such undue delay, without explanation causes unfairness, and in my opinion it is prejudice, because the Council have tinkered about with lines and signs at that location since the original contravention in May.
As the signage was inadequate, the alleged contravention did not occur. At the time of the alleged contravention, I saw no bus lane signs, there were no advance warning signs and there was nothing that gave a reasonably observant motorist warning that they are entering a bus lane. Upon viewing the video evidence I note there are two "no motor vehicle" signs either side of the cycle lane on the near-side, but these appear to relate to the cycle lane rather than the main carriageway. At the time of the alleged contravention no signs were visible to me on my offside due to the presence of oncoming buses. There were no road markings to suggest the road ahead was a bus lane or bus gate. I am to date still not sure which signs the council is relying on for the purposes of this alleged contravention.

I have since learnt that a large number of motorists have found themselves in this position and the signage has been found to be inadequate at numerous adjudications. The tribunal has consistently ruled that the signage at this location is inadequate, as illustrated by MC00060-1801 where the adjudicator descried the signage as "hopeless":

"Mr XXX (senior) took part in the telephone hearing on behalf of his son, the Appellant. Mr YYY represented the Council.

Mr YYY told me that the Council had not changed the signage in this location since two previous decisions had made plain that the signage was inadequate. Mr YYY said the Council were urgently looking at the possible remedies but that this was not a matter with which he was personally involved. Mr YYY reiterated that in their view the signage was technically correct but conceded that its placement was not ideal.

Indeed it is fair to say that the signage in this location, technically correct or not, is hopeless. It gives the distinct impression of applying only to the adjacent cycle lane and not to that part of the carriageway which is intended to be restricted to buses (and other authorised vehicles) only. The signage fails to satisfy Regulation 18 of the Local Authority Traffic Orders (Procedure) Regulations 1996.

The appeal is therefore allowed for one reasons: first, that no contravention occurred because the signage intended to warn motorists of the restriction was inadequate.

The situation has not improved over time, as demonstrated by the following appeals:

MC00752-1712 (29 January 2018)
MC00816-1712 (30 January 2018)
MC00729-1711 (31 January 2018)
MC00014-1801 (14 February 2018)
MC00642-1805 (7 June 2018)

I attach copies of these decisions for reference.

In light of the consistent decisions of the tribunal over a period of many months, not only is the council's decision to contest this appeal unreasonable, but it is wholly unreasonable, as any reasonable authority in the position of Manchester City Council would understand that it is bound to lose the appeal and it will continue to lose appeal after appeal until the signage issues identified by the tribunal are addressed.

Until then, for the council to push these cases to adjudication is not only wholly unreasonable, I submit it is also an abuse of process. Causing a motorist to appeal to the tribunal when the authority knows (or should know) that the appeal is virtually bound to be successful cannot be anything other than an abuse of process. In light of this I invite the tribunal to make an order for costs against the respondent in the amount of £72, calculated as 4 hours at £19 per hour which represents the time I have spent researching the law and preparing my submissions.
Point 2:- collateral challenge

The authority make no reference to this point in their evidence. I conclude from this they accept the point.

I would ask the adjudicator when giving this point their consideration to have regard to the findings of TPT adjudicator John Parker in case number KP05045K

http://www.davidmarq.com/bama/XXX_v_KentCC_aka_Shepway.pdf. Please see attached information for this link
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Sat, 24 Nov 2018 - 16:09
Post #20


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 11,905
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



Sorry how does a parking case in Kent help with your bus lane case in Manchester? It's not immediately obvious that case number KP05045K is of any relevance. Also, while you can cut out irrelevant bits of an adjudication, you can't change the words of an adjudicator to fit your case, that's tantamount to submitting fabricated evidence.

Have you been able to access the footage? Because the draft you posted says "Upon viewing the video evidence I note"

There's some confusion with point 1, because it talks about inadequate signage but also about the delay in getting a response, these need to be broken down into two separate points.

Finally I don't understand your point 2 at all, the council has not submitted any evidence so this simply doesn't make sense. It's also not clear what point you are talking about.

If you can answer all of the above I can redraft it for you. Sorry to sound harsh but I don't want the adjudicator to start picking holes in your appeal as soon as he reads it.


--------------------
I am not on the "motorists's side", nor am I on the "police/CPS/council's" side, I am simply in favour of the rule of law.
No, I am not a lawyer.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 



Advertisement

Advertise here!

RSS Lo-Fi Version Time is now: Thursday, 18th July 2019 - 16:21
Pepipoo uses cookies. You can find details of the cookies we use here along with links to information on how to manage them.
Please click the button to accept our cookies and hide this message. We’ll also assume that you’re happy to accept them if you continue to use the site.