PePiPoo Helping the motorist get justice Support health workers

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

PCN Code 40 Parking in Disabled Space w/o Clock
RedDeath614
post Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 18:15
Post #1


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 19 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,956



Hi all, we got a PCN yesterday for parking in a disabled space, without displaying the clock. Badge was displayed correctly. I came back to car (mum was still in shop) in the interim to find warden issuing a ticket. He then pointed to a sign which said there was a 3 hour time limit for disabled badges in the bay and without a clock, how would anyone know what time we had arrived? He also said I was not the badge owner so refused to discuss anything with me, which was weird. I said we came into town at 6.15pm, his ticket was issued around 6.45pm and we had driven home by 7pm. We have shop receipts to verify the times of our 2x purchases between 6.30-6.50pm but will this help or not? I was calling my mum but she's also hard of hearing so she didn't pick up and the guy had the cheek to allege I was misusing the badge as he could see no disabled person present. I did tell him we would not be paying the ticket and he dismissively said we could contest it.

I'm baffled to see a warden beyond 6pm in the city, however they must be wandering around until midnight.
I'd also say the majority of bays are no longer time limited for blue badge holders, so there is a habit where neither of us check this, but we will of course always use the clock now.

Is there any way to fight it? Can we say we displayed the clock but it had fallen off the dashboard?

Pics of ticket are attached, I can take and upload ones of the street and where we were parked if needed too.


Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
6 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 >  
Start new topic
Replies (80 - 99)
Advertisement
post Sun, 2 Sep 2018 - 18:15
Post #


Advertise here!









Go to the top of the page
 
Quote Post
RedDeath614
post Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 10:00
Post #81


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 19 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,956



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Fri, 11 Jan 2019 - 10:26) *
Telephone hearing.
Gives you chance to politely but firmly refer adjudicator to TRO and lack of requirement for a time disc.
Have the relevant page/section highlighted so you can easily point adjudicator towards it.

IMO it is worth a quick note to TPT now.

Dear Sirs
Rf PCN/hearing numbers ????
I have received and checked the evidence pack supplied by the council.
May I comment on and bring to the attention of the adjudicator the following.
Council rely on guidance within the Blue Badge booklet to enforce the need for a time clock to be displayed.
They have not offered any supporting legislation.
Council TRO, Page??? Section ??? does not reflect this stance and specifically only requires the Blue Badge to be displayed.
Without the requirement for a time clock to be displayed within the TRO, there can be no contravention.
Given this, I ask that the adjudicator agrees that I displayed all that was needed and as such was parked lawfully.
Hugs and Kisses


Thanks very much all, have done as DD suggests. Will wait to see what happens & keep you posted on this hotly contested case happy.gif

Sorry for the delay in replying, I've been poorly

This post has been edited by RedDeath614: Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 10:01
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 10:14
Post #82


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Now it is wait and see.
Is it a telephone hearing or on papers ?
If telephone, be prepared.
Have your papers ordered. Highlight important parts.
Have a summary list with bullet points with page number reference to where this point is mentioned.
Post it notes make good page markers and you can add bullet points/notes to them.
You do not want to be hanging on the phone saying "uhm, it's here somewhere, gimme a minute"
Chill, relax, don't panic and if needs be, open your mouth, polite but firm.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 10:57
Post #83


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



Without the requirement for a time clock to be displayed within the TRO, there can be no contravention.
Given this, I ask that the adjudicator agrees that I displayed all that was needed and as such was parked lawfully.


Is what worries me. No sense of contrition or any apology.

Notwithstanding my stance on the legal point, you are at adjudication. May I suggest you try a more conciliatory approach:

I parked and I forgot to display my BB, something which I always do as detailed in my BB booklet. This was my mistake.

In normal circumstances I would have paid the penalty, however, as this was a genuine mistake I thought that I would make representations. In their responses the council referred me to the underlying legal support to the requirement to display a clock which I now know is not based on universal legislation or the booklet but the wording of each council's traffic orders. As this was drawn to my attention I thought I would investigate.

What I found convinces me that although a time-limited restriction is stated on the traffic sign the applicable order does not give legislative support to this and therefore my appeal is based on this point........

Just try putting yourself in the adj's shoes. Which approach would be the more likely to tip any balance with you, yours or the above?

Let me disabuse you of any notion that hearings are absolutely black and white, they are not. So how do you want to come across, barrack-room sm**t a**e or genuine driver who made a mistake?

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 13:33
Post #84


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (hcandersen @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 10:57) *
Without the requirement for a time clock to be displayed within the TRO, there can be no contravention.
Given this, I ask that the adjudicator agrees that I displayed all that was needed and as such was parked lawfully.


Is what worries me. No sense of contrition or any apology.

Contrition or apology for what? The OP did nothing wrong.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 15:33
Post #85


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



While I take HCA's point, the note was not the appeal, it is simply a fast response to the evidence pack supplied by the council.
An evidence pack with a summary that relies solely on BB booklet guidance and ignores its own TRO.
I see no point it repeating what may have already been said or trying to sweeten the pill if it hasn't, it is simply a note that points out the glaring error in the council's position.

Does not harm at the hearing when an adjudicator asks what happens to say, "I parked and displayed my Blue Badge but forgot the time clock/didn't realise I needed one …" or to throw in words like "I realise that I am partially responsible for my misfortune" or to apologise.
But it changes not a jot that the council have no lawful standing to serve let alone enforce this PCN and have presented nothing that suggests there is lawful standing.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RedDeath614
post Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 11:36
Post #86


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 19 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,956



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Tue, 15 Jan 2019 - 10:14) *
Now it is wait and see.
Is it a telephone hearing or on papers ?
If telephone, be prepared.
Have your papers ordered. Highlight important parts.
Have a summary list with bullet points with page number reference to where this point is mentioned.
Post it notes make good page markers and you can add bullet points/notes to them.
You do not want to be hanging on the phone saying "uhm, it's here somewhere, gimme a minute"
Chill, relax, don't panic and if needs be, open your mouth, polite but firm.


Thanks again all smile.gif

It should be a telephone hearing. I've requested one anyway. The adjudicator could decide they don't need one & make the decision without it.

Yes I'll be prepared when I get a date for the hearing - have been to civil court before so stuck lots of post-its onto my papers for easy reference.

Agree the Council are ignoring their own TRO. I don't believe they know what they're doing. They haven't even uploaded the TRO from 2006, just the updated one for bus lanes in the next street. The updated one makes no reference to any blue badge parking at all. Then their renewed offer at this late stage to pay £35.00. It's all a bit weird & I think they're not confident but sticking to their guns anyway.

In addition, this is the first and only time we have ever had a ticket, and also we were only there for under 45 mins & have supplied evidence. I will state the case clearly when I get the chance to.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
hcandersen
post Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 12:24
Post #87


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 35,063
Joined: 2 Aug 2008
From: Woking
Member No.: 21,551



OP, where is the TRO which they've supplied?

I can see your references to the summary and your take on the order.

But where is it?

Irrespectve of the construction which an adj might place on its wording, they must have some wording to go on. For this purpose it is irrelevant what they provided before, where is the TRO in their evidence?

This post has been edited by hcandersen: Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 12:46
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 13:18
Post #88


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Good question.
I understood that they had included the TRO that we had already seen and which doesn't require the time clock.
Inference now is that they have included totally the wrong TRO.

Could you confirm pls.

If the wrong TRO makes the note suggested before a little premature.

Always bear in mind with TPT that they accept a TRO not in physical evidence as long as it is in the TRO library.
There should be a reference to it within the evidence.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 14:18
Post #89


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 13:18) *
Good question.
I understood that they had included the TRO that we had already seen and which doesn't require the time clock.
Inference now is that they have included totally the wrong TRO.

Could you confirm pls.

If the wrong TRO makes the note suggested before a little premature.

Always bear in mind with TPT that they accept a TRO not in physical evidence as long as it is in the TRO library.
There should be a reference to it within the evidence.

See post 10.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 17:25
Post #90


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 14:18) *
QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 16 Jan 2019 - 13:18) *
Good question.
I understood that they had included the TRO that we had already seen and which doesn't require the time clock.
Inference now is that they have included totally the wrong TRO.

Could you confirm pls.

If the wrong TRO makes the note suggested before a little premature.

Always bear in mind with TPT that they accept a TRO not in physical evidence as long as it is in the TRO library.
There should be a reference to it within the evidence.

See post 10.


You misunderstand.
Post ten refers to the TRO we think applies and I thought was within the evidence pack.
But this comment "They haven't even uploaded the TRO from 2006, just the updated one for bus lanes in the next street." makes me wonder what TRO the council is reliant upon ????
If totally the wrong one then case over, no TRO, they cannot substantiate even the need for a BB let alone a time clock.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RedDeath614
post Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 17:18
Post #91


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 19 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,956



Great news! Thanks to all the advice/help I received on here, I won my claim at yesterday's tribunal hearing and the parking ticket was scrapped.

The adjudicator agreed with all the points made by cp8759 and MadMick.

The adjudicator was very critical of the Council throughout, and for uploading the wrong TRO. This wasted both her time and mine, searching to find the main/correct one. Is it worth claiming some costs for wasted time? The Council have repeatedly refused to answer a very simple question about their TRO and dragged this all out far longer than was necessary.

It's also worth saying that the Council lied on their TPT evidence and stated that this incorrect TRO (dated 2016) says there is a 3 hour time limit on disabled badge holders parking in Clarence Street. I checked the wrong TRO several times and it says no such thing! wacko.gif

I'm pasting the full case notes below for reference.

Huge thanks for everyone's help, especially to CP for doing so much work on my behalf. What a great place this is 👍

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

1. This appeal was listed for a telephone hearing on 29th January 2019, when X took part. The Council was represented by Y.

2. X accepts that she parked her car in a designated disabled person’s parking bay. She appeals on the basis that a valid disabled person’s badge was on display and she was parked in the bay no longer than about 45 minutes. She accepts no parking clock was on display set to the time of arrival but says it was forgotten in the rush to get to the shops. She says the Council’s argument that the badge is invalid without the display of the clock is misconceived.

3. Her full submission can be seen in evidence tab 1 but in essence she argues that the guidance in the Blue Badge booklet relied upon by the Council is not supported by legislation and the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) in this case only requires a valid Disabled Persons Badge to be displayed. Thus there can be no contravention she says where such a badge is displayed in the vehicle despite the lack of a parking clock. In all the circumstances she submits the PCN should be cancelled as she displayed correctly what was required and parked lawfully.

4. In reply Y submits that because the disabled bay used had a time limit of 3 hours, badge holders are required to display the clock as well as the badge and the PCN was issued because in the absence of the clock the disabled badge was either invalid or not correctly displayed.

5. Y refers to the Blue Badge Scheme guidance booklet (see evidence tab 15) and refers to the requirement in the TRO to displaying the badge in accordance with the Disabled Person’s (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000. In written submissions the Council says that the signage is approved and that it is sited in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Direction 2016 (TSRGD).

6. I have considered all of the evidence. The contravention recorded on the PCN is:-

“40 parked in a designated disabled person’s parking place without displaying a valid disabled person’s badge in the prescribed manner’.

7. Regulations 11 and 12 of the Disabled Person’s (Badges for Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000 sets out the requirements for the display of a Blue Badge. There is no reference in the Regulations to a parking clock or disc.

8. The only reference to a disc or clock is in the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (Exemptions for Disabled Persons) (England) Regulations 2000 where it must be displayed in circumstances where the display of the badge provides an exemption from a yellow line waiting restriction (see Regulation 8).

9. The Council may impose further requirements in a Traffic Regulation Order (TRO). The TRO in this case is The Leicester (Consolidation) Traffic Regulation Order 2006 (together with the amending order of 2016). It deals with disabled persons parking bays in Section 4 Part 300 and says:-

“No Person shall cause or permit a vehicle to wait or to load and unload at any time in any road or length of road to which this restriction is applied except for vehicles displaying a disabled persons badge issued and displayed in accordance with the “Disabled Persons (Badges For Motor Vehicles) (England) Regulations 2000” and includes similar badges issued by other European Member States. Vehicles must be parked wholly within the parking bay marked on the carriageway. No vehicle may wait for more than 3 hours and may not return to the same length of parking bay restriction within a further consecutive period of 3 hours.”

10. The TRO therefore refers to the Disabled Person Regulations 2000 in respect of the manner of display. I am thus satisfied the TRO does not contains a requirement to display a parking clock set to the time the vehicle arrives.

11. The CEO’s photographs confirm the blue badge was displayed behind the windscreen of the vehicle and was valid.

12. It may be that the booklet issued to blue badge holders says that a clock should be displayed in a time limited waiting bay, but that does not create a legal requirement to do so. I am therefore not satisfied that the contravention recorded on the PCN occurred.

13. The information on the roadside sign informed X that waiting in the bay was time limited and the evidence suggests that she had not stayed longer than permitted. Were any driver to do so, there would be the contravention of waiting beyond the permitted period (contravention code 30), but that would be established, as with any other on-street limited waiting bay where there was no requirement to display a parking disc, by the timed observations of the CEO.

14. There is an important distinction between the two contraventions as contravention 40, which is alleged, attracts the higher penalty of £70 whereas contravention 30 attracts the lower penalty of £50.

15. Therefore, I conclude that the contravention recorded on the PCN did not occur. The appeal is allowed. X has nothing to pay.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
stamfordman
post Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 17:29
Post #92


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 23,582
Joined: 12 Feb 2013
From: London
Member No.: 59,924



QUOTE (RedDeath614 @ Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 17:18) *
13. The information on the roadside sign informed X that waiting in the bay was time limited and the evidence suggests that she had not stayed longer than permitted. Were any driver to do so, there would be the contravention of waiting beyond the permitted period (contravention code 30), but that would be established, as with any other on-street limited waiting bay where there was no requirement to display a parking disc, by the timed observations of the CEO.

14. There is an important distinction between the two contraventions as contravention 40, which is alleged, attracts the higher penalty of £70 whereas contravention 30 attracts the lower penalty of £50.



These are the key things for me - but overall an important decision in my view and well worth noting.

Well done - and council took this very seriously if someone was on the line.

This post has been edited by stamfordman: Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 17:29
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 22:37
Post #93


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



Well Done that man (lady)
Excellent and deserved.

Reading the decision, it almost seems that the adjudicator had been reading some of our discussions smile.gif

Costs.
Simple is don't ask, don't get.
Whether you will get is another matter and with the formal challenge only briefly touching on TRO, not hopeful.
But I would still argue that the enforcement authority were told of the issue with their TRO, an issue that was fundamental and they chose to ignore this.
This totally fails their duty to fairly and fully consider challenges.
As it is so fundamental, it can only be seen as wholly unreasonable if not vexatious to have ignored, continued enforcement and brought this to appeal.
Even if it was ineptitude, this does not excuse, they have a duty to consider and that duty can only be undertaken with properly trained staff who must know the basics such as the TRO must apply.

Won't be a lot, couple of hours research plus a couple chasing council and trying to ascertain if the TRO was the correct one... 4hours at £19 per hour.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 23:35
Post #94


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (stamfordman @ Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 17:29) *
...….Well done - and council took this very seriously if someone was on the line.

It seems relatively common for councils to participate in telephone hearings.
Relatively simple for them to do so, just need someone briefed in who is available for 30 minutes.
Far different to sending someone to the other end of the UK or across London to repeat what is already in the evidence pack.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
phantomcrusader
post Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 00:17
Post #95


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 516
Joined: 27 Sep 2008
Member No.: 22,840



QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 13:19) *
But there is no imputed knowledge for a local TRO, on the contrary LATOR reg 18 says the signage must convey the meaning of the TRO, so absent any requirement provided for in national legislation, any TRO requirement to display a clock must be signed or it is not enforceable.


Fabulous thread and demonstrates pepioo at its best.

This post has been edited by phantomcrusader: Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 15:00
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 01:27
Post #96


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



Very well done a big thumbs up to the OP to CP and MMV. I must admit I was sceptical, but very glad to be proved wrong. This is a very important case Please post the case number so we can get it from the public register to aid others if needed


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
DancingDad
post Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 09:33
Post #97


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 25,726
Joined: 28 Jun 2010
From: Area 51
Member No.: 38,559



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 01:27) *
…. I must admit I was sceptical, but very glad to be proved wrong. …………...



Never in any doubt with regard to the TRO that MMV found.
My only concern was whether a later TRO or amendment included the requirement.

It is fundamental that a contravention is against the TRO and thus the TRO must MUST show the restriction and any requirements.
P&D cases have been won if the TRO does not show a requirement for continuous or any display.
Yellow line cases because the TRO does not show a line where the vehicle was parked.
Absolutely fundamental, parking law 101.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
PASTMYBEST
post Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 10:55
Post #98


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 26,655
Joined: 6 Nov 2014
Member No.: 74,048



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 09:33) *
QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 01:27) *
…. I must admit I was sceptical, but very glad to be proved wrong. …………...



Never in any doubt with regard to the TRO that MMV found.
My only concern was whether a later TRO or amendment included the requirement.

It is fundamental that a contravention is against the TRO and thus the TRO must MUST show the restriction and any requirements.
P&D cases have been won if the TRO does not show a requirement for continuous or any display.
Yellow line cases because the TRO does not show a line where the vehicle was parked.
Absolutely fundamental, parking law 101.


My scepticism arose not due to the validity of the argument more the capriciousness of adjudicators. We have seen adjudicators rule that a valid BB was not displayed because the driver had exceeded the allowed time.


--------------------
All advice is given freely. It is given without guarantee and responsibility for its use rests with the user
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
RedDeath614
post Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 17:31
Post #99


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 62
Joined: 19 Mar 2017
Member No.: 90,956



QUOTE (DancingDad @ Wed, 30 Jan 2019 - 22:37) *
Well Done that man (lady)
Excellent and deserved.

Reading the decision, it almost seems that the adjudicator had been reading some of our discussions smile.gif

Costs.
Simple is don't ask, don't get.
Whether you will get is another matter and with the formal challenge only briefly touching on TRO, not hopeful.
But I would still argue that the enforcement authority were told of the issue with their TRO, an issue that was fundamental and they chose to ignore this.
This totally fails their duty to fairly and fully consider challenges.
As it is so fundamental, it can only be seen as wholly unreasonable if not vexatious to have ignored, continued enforcement and brought this to appeal.
Even if it was ineptitude, this does not excuse, they have a duty to consider and that duty can only be undertaken with properly trained staff who must know the basics such as the TRO must apply.

Won't be a lot, couple of hours research plus a couple chasing council and trying to ascertain if the TRO was the correct one... 4hours at £19 per hour.


Aw, cheers! The real work wasn't done by me though. MMV and CP deserve all the credit.

Thanks very much for your input and argument re costs! I tried to look into it last night but failed. Your reasoning has given me a renewed impetus.

Yes I wasn't going to go for much either, roughly the amount you have come up with funnily enough! By going for costs I'd like to make the Council realise they can't deal with appeals by blindly forcing everything through the TPT. That should be a last resort.

Thanks for all your support too, DD cool.gif


QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 01:27) *
Very well done a big thumbs up to the OP to CP and MMV. I must admit I was sceptical, but very glad to be proved wrong. This is a very important case Please post the case number so we can get it from the public register to aid others if needed


Thanks PMB.

I've sent the PDF decision to CP so hopefully you'll have it to refer to soon. The case no is LE00087-1812

QUOTE (phantomcrusader @ Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 00:17) *
QUOTE (cp8759 @ Thu, 6 Dec 2018 - 13:19) *
But there is no imputed knowledge for a local TRO, on the contrary LATOR reg 18 says the signage must convey the meaning of the TRO, so absent any requirement provided for in national legislation, any TRO requirement to display a clock must be signed or it is not enforceable.


Fabulous thread and demonstrates pepioo at its best.


My thoughts exactly! laugh.gif
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
cp8759
post Fri, 1 Feb 2019 - 11:21
Post #100


Member


Group: Members
Posts: 38,006
Joined: 3 Dec 2010
Member No.: 42,618



QUOTE (PASTMYBEST @ Thu, 31 Jan 2019 - 01:27) *
Very well done a big thumbs up to the OP to CP and MMV. I must admit I was sceptical, but very glad to be proved wrong. This is a very important case Please post the case number so we can get it from the public register to aid others if needed

It's on the spreadsheet in the usual place, row 45

Unfortunately IMO an application for costs will fail because while the council were unreasonable, the threshold for costs is "wholly unreasonable" and I don't believe the adjudicator will find that threshold has been met.


--------------------
If you would like assistance with a penalty charge notice, please post a thread on https://www.ftla.uk/index.php
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

6 Pages V  « < 3 4 5 6 >
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: Friday, 29th March 2024 - 07:28
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.
IPS Driver Error

IPS Driver Error

There appears to be an error with the database.
You can try to refresh the page by clicking here