Hi,

I've attached a PCN I've been issued. I took a wrong turn and completely didn't see the signs saying buses and cyclists only, which leads me to think I could argue inadequate signage. The sign is actually only visible once you've made the turn from the lights, by then it's either too late or you're just focussed on the road. Worth noting I did a U-turn as soon as I realised I had taken the wrong turn.

Could anyone advise on or point to legislation and guidelines concerning placement of signs? I've attached the PCN and google images of the junction in question.

The video footage can be viewed here: https://youtu.be/AcMc5vn8ECI

Also, the contravention was filmed on 16/10 and PCN arrived 05/11. Is that too long a gap?

Any advice greatly appreciated.

Front of PCN


Back of PCN


View from traffic lights just before left turn


View as you're turning left


View from middle of cross-hatch

OP------Have a go with this one:---

I wish to appeal against PCN number???? due to lack of road markings and because the contravention given cannot stand where a Diagram 953 traffic sign is in place.

Lack of Road Markings

A Diagram 953 sign requires a road marking which specifies either a Bus Lane or a Bus Gate. This is not present as demonstrated by the video recording and therefore the Authority has not complied with Regulation 18 The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996. To emphasise this deficiency, which I believe renders the PCN invalid, I offer the following case as evidence:-

X-bert Haulage t/a Glynns Skips

2170469229

I adjourned this case for the following reason:

The enforcement authority is offered the opportunity to make further submissions on the question of signage. The blue signs would appear to require the presence of the carriageway legend “BUS GATE” which seems to be absent. Schedule 9 Part 5 para 1 TSRGD 2016 provides that the information etc. of a description in column 2 of an item in the sign table in Part 6 “must” be conveyed by a road marking shown in column 3 .

Item 15 of the sign table in part 6 contains the description ” Road or part of a road with access permitted only for buses and other vehicles when so indicated by any of the signs at items 33 to 35 and 37 to 40 in the sign table in Part 2 of Schedule 3”.

The restricted access of that type in the present case is indicated by a (permitted variant of) a sign to Diagram 953 shown in the Schedule 3 Part 2 of the sign table at item 33. It would follow that the carriageway legend is mandatory and that authorisation is required to dispense with it.

In the absence of any further submissions or evidence from the enforcement authority I am unable to be satisfied the prohibition relied on was correctly indicated. The Appeal is therefore allowed.

Contravention does not relate to a Diagram 953 Sign

The sign in place is to Diagram 953 which relates to a Bus Gate therefore anything other than a bus lane contravention is unsustainable. I offer the following case as evidence in support of this ground:-

2170474681 (Princes Street)

A contravention can occur if a vehicle is driven so as to fail to comply with a prohibition on certain vehicles.

There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was in Princes Street, as shown in the closed circuit television (cctv) images produced by the Enforcement Authority.

The vehicle is seen to pass the sign which indicates the route is restricted to buses and pedal cycles.

This is a permitted variant of Diagram 953 at Item 33 in Part 2 of Schedule 3 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016, and is a different sign to that which indicates motor vehicle are prohibited, being Diagram 619 at Item 11 of that Schedule.

Considering all the evidence before me carefully I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, the contravention actually alleged did occur.

Accordingly this appeal must be allowed.


No video evidence that the vehicle passed the prohibition sign

The Authority seeks to enforce the PCN without providing adequate evidence that the vehicle passed the prohibition sign. It relies on the video recording which is deficient in this regard. The following case is submitted in evidence to support this ground:-

2170419027

A Personal Hearing was scheduled for 11 a.m. today, 26th October 2017; the Appellant did not attend therefore it falls to me now to determine this matter on the evidence of both parties presently before me.

The Enforcement Authority assert that vehicle LY08FDO, not being of the specified class, was driven at a location restricted for use by vehicles of specific classes only; the Appellant denies liability for the ensuing Penalty Charge Notice on the basis of prevailing circumstances as detailed in the driver's written representations.

The Enforcement Authority who assert that the said vehicle was so driven contrary to, and during the operative period of, a restriction are obliged to adduce evidence to the requisite standard to substantiate that assertion.

The evidence upon which the Enforcement Authority rely comprises the certified copy Penalty Charge Notice, extracts of governing Traffic Management Order provisions, and contemporaneous photographic evidence: CCTV footage and still frames taken there-from revealing the said vehicle in situ.

The Enforcement Authority also adduce a map/plan together with a number of images showing signage at strategic points; these are of limited evidential value since it is not possible to correlate the images to contemporaneous capture. The map/plan indicates that much of the location stated in the Penalty Charge Notice is available to vehicles other than those specified for the purpose of access.

The contemporaneous photographic capture was examined, repeatedly, to evaluate the allegation in conjunction with the Appellant's representations

The contemporaneous photographic capture demonstrates the said vehicle proceeding in a direction away from the camera; no restrictive signage is visible.

Evidentially I cannot satisfied that this contravention occurred, accordingly I allow this Appeal.

The Authority is proscribed from demanding payment of a penalty charge for an alleged contravention of the TMO

The Authority has attempted to enforce a PCN which relates to conditions within its TMO relating to “Using a route restricted to certain vehicles” whilst a Sect 36 sign is in place. The contravention given is therefore unsustainable because the Authority may only demand payment on the grounds that a motorist failed to comply with the sign in place (Diagram 953).

To reinforce this ground I submit a key case which the Council concerned took to Review:-


2170058483 (Extract)

“Contravention Code and Description: Using a route restricted to certain vehicles (buses and cycles only). Contravention Code: 33C.”

Although it has taken some time looking at Google maps to identify the layout of this junction, and to relate it to the various definitions and prohibitions in the Traffic Management Order (TMO), I am satisfied that the TMO does prohibit the manoeuvre that Mrs Imevbore made in her car. It follows that I am satisfied that in doing so she acted in prohibition of a prescribed order. However the sign on which the Authority relied to indicate the terms of that order, i.e. the blue sign with images of a bus and cycle on it, is a “Section 36” sign, as defined in the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) and the Road Traffic Act 1988.

Section 4 of the 2003 Act provides, so far as is material to this case,

“(1) This section applies where

(a) in relation to a GLA road or GLA side road, Transport for London or, subject to subsection (3) below, the relevant borough council; or

(b) in relation to any other road in the area of a borough council, the relevant borough council or, subject to subsection (4) below, Transport for London, have reason to believe (whether or not on the basis of information provided by a camera or other device) that a penalty charge is payable under this section with respect to a motor vehicle.

(2) Transport for London or, as the case may be, the relevant borough council may serve a penalty charge notice

(a) in relation to a penalty charge payable by virtue of subsection (5) below, on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle; and

(b) in relation to a penalty charge payable by virtue of subsection (7) below, on either or both of the following

(i) the person appearing to them to be the operator of the vehicle; and

(ii) the person appearing to them to be the person who was in control of the vehicle at the time of the contravention.

…

(5) Subject to subsection (6) below, for the purposes of this section, a penalty charge is payable with respect to a motor vehicle by the owner of the vehicle if the person driving or propelling the vehicle

(a) acts in contravention of a prescribed order; or

(b) fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.

(6) No penalty charge shall be payable under subsection (5)(a) above where

(a) the person acting in contravention of the prescribed order also fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.”

What is clear from these provisions is that where the contravention consists of failing to comply with the indication given by a Section 36 traffic sign, the Authority is proscribed from demanding payment of a penalty charge for an alleged contravention of the TMO. They may only demand payment on the grounds that the motorist had failed to comply with the sign.

Whilst I accept that the PCN Code wording used by the Authority is one provided by London Councils, I am not satisfied that it properly reflects the only contravention for which the Authority may demand payment of a penalty charge on the basis of the sign that they rely on here. (I note that the London Councils list of standard PCN codes does include wordings for other contraventions, such as “Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign” and “Failing to comply with a sign indicating that vehicular traffic must pass to the specified side of a sign”, so it is unclear why they did not adopt a similar form of wording for this contravention as well.)

I find therefore that neither of the PCNs issued in these cases was a valid PCN, and so I must allow these appeals.

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

This is an application by the Enforcement Authority for a review of the decision of the original Adjudicator.

The Authority is represented by Ms D and Ms B. Mr D represents the Appellant.

Review of an Adjudicator's decision is provided for in Paragraph 12 of the Schedule to the Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 (the 'Appeal Regulations'). The adjudicator may, on the application of a party, review any decision to dismiss or allow an appeal, on one or more of the following grounds:

An inherent part of the scheme is to ensure that the Adjudicator's decision is final and conclusive, save in very exceptional cases. It is clear from the narrow grounds set out in the Regulations (and the general scheme of the Traffic Management Act 2004) that a party is not able to seek a review of a decision merely because that party believes the decision is wrong

It is common ground that the Appellant drove past a left turn only sign and then past a bus route sign on two occasions on 6 January 2017 and at the same location. The PCNs aver “Contravention Code and Description: Using a route restricted to certain vehicles (buses and cycles only). Contravention Code: 33C.”

The original Adjudicator found that the Traffic Management Order does prohibit the Appellant's manoeuvre and she has accordingly acted in prohibition of a prescribed order.

Section 4 (5) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 (the 2003 Act) and the Road Traffic Act 1988 provides .

"Subject to subsection (6) below, for the purposes of this section, a penalty charge is payable with respect to a motor vehicle by the owner of the vehicle if the person driving or propelling the vehicle

(a) acts in contravention of a prescribed order; or

(b) fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign."

Section 4 (6) goes on to provide:

" No penalty charge shall be payable under subsection (5)(a) above where

the person acting in contravention of the prescribed order also fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.”

The Adjudicator has therefore found that where a manoeuvre consists of failing to comply with the indication given by a Section 36 traffic sign or is in breach of a traffic order, the Authority is proscribed from demanding payment of a penalty charge issued under 5a (for an alleged contravention of the TMO). It may only demand payment on ground 5b (the motorist had failed to comply with the sign.)

It is common ground that the sign on which the Authority relied to indicate the terms of that order, i.e. the blue sign with images of a bus and cycle on it, is a “Section 36” sign. The PCN must therefore allege non-compliance with the sign and not a failure to comply with the traffic order.

The Adjudicator find therefore that neither of the PCNs issued in these cases was a valid PCN, and he allowed both appeals.

The Authority does not agree with the finding. It argued that the allegation of using a route restricted to certain vehicles has been used in conjunction with the blue sign (to diagram 953) for 14 years pan London. It also mentioned that in 2009, Authorities were asked to desist from using this averment where the effect of the traffic order was indicated by a non section 36 sign. This is a different point, which is that a failure to comply with a sign is not a contravention unless it is a section 36 sign.

The original Adjudicator made a finding that he was entitled to make on the evidence before him. The decision discloses no error of law. Considering carefully everything before me in this case, I cannot find any ground under the Regulations for review and thus the original decision must therefore stand.


Mick

Wow, thanks.

Can I use this be used as is? I'm still digesting it but so far it looks extremely thorough.

If anyone can provide links to legislation quoted, just so I can get my head round it, I would be grateful.

OP---you will find the legislation here:-

www.legislation.gov.uk

I think that appeal, with contact details, is good to go but then I would wouldn't I.

Mick

Hello,

I've had a letter back from Harrow council about this PCN (below). I intend to appeal to the adjudicator. Are there any grounds that - in light of this letter - I could argue on that differ from the original appeal? The response is quite jargony for a lay-person such as myself.

Many thanks indeed.

[/img]

There are quite a few things with the NoR that are wrong and can help. I am writing an appeal for someone else for this location over the weekend it will be on the same grounds as yours so you will be able to adjust it and use. I will link here when done

Thank you that's very much appreciated

How can one ignore the presence of a "No Left Turn" sign on the traffic lights signal head ? It seems very clear to me !

I am well into the appeal that will serve this case as well as the person I am writing it for , I am waiting for a bit more info then can finish off. Don't worry you have plenty of time left to appeal and I will be don in time


I need to know the time of contravention as stated on the PCN

This post has been edited by PASTMYBEST: Mon, 21 Jan 2019 - 23:19

Hi there it was 16.35

Thanks

this is the draft for the other case. I will need to be modified for yours the illumination aspect cannot be used so need to think about why you missed the signs



Appeal against the imposition and enforcement of PCN number xxxxxxxx
Vehicle registration mark AA23BCD

Your details


I was somewhat shocked to receive this PCN being as it is for an alleged contravention at 02.35am. I undertook some research and made representations that the signage is incorrect, based on a finding in the register of cases for London tribunals. Upon receipt of the notice of rejection, I sought advice and realise I should have made representations on all relevant grounds not just the one. I will return to this point but would formulate my appeal thus.

1 regulation 4(5) There was no contravention of a prescribed order or of a section36 traffic sign.

I was returning home after a family gathering, this is an area unfamiliar to me I turned left into Station road from Sheepcote road. I did not see any signs prohibiting this turn.

Using GSV I retraced my steps, and feel this is not unreasonable. The one and only sign, informing of the restriction at the point the restriction starts is a s36 traffic sign (p53) this sign is set at the edge of the kerb and is angled in such a way that it is hidden from view by the traffic lights. It is only once you have commenced the turn that the sign could be visible, but by this time a driver would be concentrating on their manoeuvre.

Although a single sign is all that is required by the TSRGD 2016, section 18 of the Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 require that

18(1)(a) before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
I submit that this sign alone is not sufficient to comply with the above regulation

The authority in their notice of rejection highlight both an advance warning sign( this is in the form of an direction arrow with the regulatory sign (953)encompassed within.

Schedule 3 part 4 paragraph 4 lays out the lighting requirements for this sign. It must be illuminated throughout the hours of darkness via internal or external lighting.

There is no evidence in the GSV view that there is a mechanism to provide this illumination and I did not see this sign, and put the authority to strict proof that it was illuminated as required at the time in question.

The same is true of the sign encompassed within the traffic lights sign (613 no left turn) The lighting requirements are the same and as this would be internal lighting I put the authority to proof that this was in good working order and was illuminated at the relevant time.

The traffic sign (953) used here , can be found at schedule 3 part 2 item 33 (with the word taxi omitted as allowed.

Schedule 9 part 5 paragraph 1 say “The information, requirement, restriction or prohibition of a description in column 2 of an item in the sign table in Part 6 must be conveyed by a road marking that is of the size, colour and type shown in the diagram in column 3.”

Item 15 of the said table is the Bus gate legend. The description in column 2, being

Diagram 1048.5
Road or part of a road with access permitted only for buses and other vehicles when so indicated by any of the signs at items 10, 33 to 35 and 37 to 40 in the sign table in Part 2 of Schedule 3
(Alternative types)

Therefore the road markings are mandatory as specified by TSRGD 2016. There absence also renders the signage non compliant both with TSRGD 2016 and the traffic orders regulations, rendering enforcement a nullity.
On this point I respectfully ask the adjudicator to consider the findings of adjudicator Teresa Brennan in case number 2180198194
Representations are made by Mr Dogan on the basis that the signage in Lombard Street does not comply with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. The appellant refers to a decision of Adjudicator Edward Houghton appeal 2170469229. In that appeal the Adjudicator initially adjourned the appeal and asked the City of London to explain why the legend Bus Gate was not on the carriageway. The Enforcement Authority did not reply. The appeal was allowed on the basis that the requirement for the legend Bus Gate was mandatory. No application for review was made.
In this appeal the local authority argues that the legend Bus Gate is not mandatory because there is no link from the Route for Bus and Cycle Only sign in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. The case summary does not refer to Schedule 9 Part 5 para 1 TSRGD 2016 which provides that the information etc. of a description in column 2 of an item in the sign table in Part 6 “must” be conveyed by a road marking shown in column 3. The legend bus gate is one of the items in column 3 of part 6 of Schedule 9.

Item 15 of the sign table in part 6 contains the description ” Road or part of a road with access permitted only for buses and other vehicles when so indicated by any of the signs at items 10, 33 to 35 and 37 to 40 in the sign table in Part 2 of Schedule 3”.

The restricted access of that type in the present case is indicated by a (permitted variant of) a sign to Diagram 953 shown in the Schedule 3 Part 2 sign table at item 33.
I find that the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 state that the bus gate legend is mandatory.
The local authority refers to a decision of Adjudicator John Lane. I am not bound by the decision of any Adjudicator. In this case I follow the decision of Adjudicator Edward Houghton.
The appellant was well aware that the restriction was in operation and to that extent the appeal has little merit. Previous Penalty Charge Notices issued to the appellant had been cancelled.
I am satisfied that the bus gate requirement is mandatory therefore I must allow this appeal.


I also make a challenge against the validity of the NoR. This document fails to comply with the regulatory requirements and is thus a nullity, no penalty can be demanded on the basis of this flawed document, thus. The penalty exceeds the relevant amount in the circumstances of the case. The only penalty that can be demanded in light of the errors being NIL.
I submit in support of these assertions excerpts from the judicial review in the case of The London borough of Barnet vs The parking adjudicator. Neutral Citation Number: [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin)
Heard by Mr justice Jackson. At paragraph 41 of his ruling he said

“ Mr Lewis submits that even if there was non -compliance in this respect, nevertheless no prejudice was caused. PCNs should not be regarded as invalid. I do not accept this submission. Prejudice is irrelevant and does not need to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme, motorists become liable to pay financial penalties when certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise.”

At paragraph 39 he said this

“There are good policy reasons why PCNs should comply with the statutory requirements. These documents are issued in large numbers. They often change hands. A PCN may, for example, be issued to a driver on one date and handed over by the driver to the owner on a later date. When a PCN reaches the owner, he or she may wish to pay the discounted charge. There must always be certainty about the date when the notice was issued and the dates when the various periods for payments will expire.”
I submit the same findings must apply to a notice of rejection, in the same way as they be applied to a PCN or NTO.


2 The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

The time allowed for the registering an appeal with the tribunal is set by statute Schedule 1 4(1)(1) of the 2003 regulations
Where an enforcing authority serve a notice of rejection, the person who made the representations under paragraph 1 above in respect of which that notice was served may, before—
(a)the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of that notice; or

(b)such longer period as a traffic adjudicator may allow,

The regulations make no mention as to what the date of service is. Therefore for certainty you must fall back on the interpretation act of 1978 s7 and the civil procedure rules 6.26 that specifies the deemed date of service as being the second working day after posting

The notice to owner in this case states when describing the payment period “you have 28 days from the date of this letter being served(delivered) to make payment.

The date by which an appeal may be registered is described in the same manner

This description of the time period does not comply with the regulations, it does not provide certainty to the recipient as to the date by which they must act. The postal service is not universally reliable and first class post can be delivered outside of the two working days allowed by law. A person would start to count on the day of receipt of the NoR when that date may well be incorrect, the outcome being that a payment is late resulting in a higher penalty i or an appeal is rejected as out of time

I ask the adjudicator to give consideration to the findings of adjudicator John Parker of the TPT, appended as a PDF

The last point of challenge I make is the one I based my representations to the authority on. That the authority are proscribed from enforcing a penalty for a contravention of a TMO when a s 36 traffic sign is also contravined

Regulation 4(5) of the 2003 regulations sets out the reasons an authority may issue a penalty charge.

(5)Subject to subsection (6) below, for the purposes of this section, a penalty charge is payable with respect to a motor vehicle by the owner of the vehicle if the person driving or propelling the vehicle—

(a)acts in contravention of a prescribed order; or

(b)fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign

Subsection 6 imposes a caveat on section 5 as follows.

(6) No penalty charge shall be payable under subsection (5)(a) above where—

(a )the person acting in contravention of the prescribed order also fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign; or

(b)the contravention of the prescribed order would also give rise to a liability to pay a penalty charge under section 77 of the Road Traffic Act 1991 (c. 40).

There is no dispute that the traffic sign (953) is a s36 sign. There can also be no dispute that the contravention description is indicative of a TMO, it does not describe contravening the sign.

I place in support of this contention excerpts from 2170323030 adjudicated firstly by Adjudicator Anthony Chan, His reasoning being that the provision was placed into the regulation to prevent double jeopardy

“Secondly, Mr Dishman submits that PCN allege a breach of a traffic order whereas it should have averred a failure to comply with a section 36 traffic sign. This is an interpretation of section 4(6) (b) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 which provides that no penalty charge shall be payable under subsection (5)(a) above where the person acting in contravention of the prescribed order also fails to comply with an indication given by a scheduled section 36 traffic sign.

I do not agree. I think that the above provision was enacted to prevent double jeopardy i.e. a motorists facing two allegations for one act, at a time when a breach of an order is a civil contravention enforced by a local authority and the breach of a section 36 sign is a criminal offence enforced by the police.”
A review was sought and granted, this was heard by Henry Michael Greenslade. He overturned the decision of Mr Chan saying.

“There is no dispute that the sign at this location is a scheduled section 36 traffic sign, as specified in Schedule 3 to the 2003 Act, even though the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2002 have been superseded by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.
This Penalty Charge Notice does not allege that the vehicle failed to comply with a sign indicating a route restricted to certain vehicles.
Considering all the evidence before me carefully the application for review is successful and the appeal must be allowed.”
Adjudicator Hugh Cooper also heard a case on the same ground 2170058483 He allowed the appeal, for the reason that the contravention description did not specify a breach of a s36 sign
“What is clear from these provisions is that where the contravention consists of failing to comply with the indication given by a Section 36 traffic sign, the Authority is proscribed from demanding payment of a penalty charge for an alleged contravention of the TMO. They may only demand payment on the grounds that the motorist had failed to comply with the sign.
Whilst I accept that the PCN Code wording used by the Authority is one provided by London Councils, I am not satisfied that it properly reflects the only contravention for which the Authority may demand payment of a penalty charge on the basis of the sign that they rely on here. (I note that the London Councils list of standard PCN codes does include wordings for other contraventions, such as “Failing to drive in the direction shown by the arrow on a blue sign” and “Failing to comply with a sign indicating that vehicular traffic must pass to the specified side of a sign”, so it is unclear why they did not adopt a similar form of wording for this contravention as well.)
I find therefore that neither of the PCNs issued in these cases was a valid PCN, and so I must allow these appeals.”

The council applied for review in this case, it was granted but Adjudicator Chan found no ground to overturn this decision

It appears from these cases that no consensus has been reached as to the interpretation of the regulation

I would argue that the reasoning of the regulation is not to prevent double jeopardy, this is prevented by the principle in common law and article 50 of the EU charter of fundamental rights.
The wording of the regulation does not allow an either or approach If a s36 traffic sign is used then any contravention must be against the sign. This maintains the primacy of the primary legislation of the Road traffic act of 1988 over the local order.

I contend that for any of the arguments submitted this PCN is invalid and respectfully ask that it be ordered cancelled

Great,

I will have a proper read through in the morning.

In my case, I thought the sat-nav was telling me to go left. Didn't see markings on the road saying buses only, nor were the blue signs visible till I'd actually made the turn. Once I realised my mistake (a couple of seconds after the video was shown) I turned around and went back. There were no buses turning in to that lane. or anything. It's not a junction I was familiar with at the time. I will look more closely at the signage leading up to the junction.

I suppose inadequate signage would be the main thing.

Yes and no you did not see road marking because they are not there and that will be the strongest point You may have to concede the upright signs but I will think on it also

apart from the upright signage everything else is relevant to your case

I will amend to suite your case later or tomorrow, Got a bit to add re the s36 vs TMO and going to have to drop some re the advance signs but only half an hour or so when I get to it

Ok no problem

Hi is there any news on this?

Sh1t forgot. I was looking for some info from London councils. Mr Mustard has helped out and sent it to me so I will get drafted later and PM you when done

sorry

Ok thank you very much