Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Bus lane penalty charge notice - Help needed
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
gquantock
I have just received a bus lane penalty charge notice through the post, there are photographs accompanying the letter which show the registration etc.

It has come from Leeds City Council

Is there anything I can do about this?

thanks

Neil B
yep, you can start by showing us ALL of everything you have received.

See FAQs 'Read this first' on how t post images.
gquantock
Please see below everything i have received.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Thanks for your help
Neil B
it's invalid - legally that is.

Wrong perid in which to pay the discount.

Cannot be enforced.

No time to explain at mo - laterz - or someone else might explain.
gquantock
What do I need to do then?

do I just ignore it?

can you help?
gquantock
i have put together a response - can someone please let me know if this is correct to send given the circumstances? any comments would be great.

thanks

Gav


I am in receipt of the above referenced penalty charge notice and wish to make the following representations in respect of same:

1) That the penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

The PCN issued by Leeds City Council (LCC) fails to comply with, The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005, regulation 8(5) and specifically with regulations, 8(5)(e), 8(5)(g) and 8(5)(k) as it fails to correctly and with certainty, inform the recipient of the lawful periods for payment, for making representations and for enforcement via Charge Certificate. The relevant regulations are quoted below:

"(5) A penalty charge notice must state
(e) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the 28 day period;
(f) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of service of the notice, the penalty charge will be reduced by one half;
(g) that representations may be made, on any of the statutory grounds of appeal, to the authority against the imposition of the penalty charge but that representations made outside the 28 day period may be disregarded;
(k) that if at the end of the 28 day period—
(i) no representations have been made; and
(ii) the penalty charge has not been paid,
the authority may increase the penalty charge by a half and take steps to enforce payment of the charge as so increased;"

The 28 day period is defined within the regulations in regulation 7 and is defined as follows:

"7.
In this Part—
"the 28 day period", in relation to a penalty charge notice, means the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice."

Nowhere on the PCN is this mandatory information given.

Further the PCN states that ‘You make make representations to Leeds City Council as to why this penalty charge should not be paid. These representations should be made not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the Noctice is sserved and any representations which are made outside of that period maybe disregarded" yet the 28 day period referred to is completely undefined.

The penalty charge notice issued by LCC fails to comply with the above mentioned regulations in that rather than specifying the 28 day periods as prescribed in law it provides in all instances a comment of within 28days.

2. The PCN issued by Leeds City Council (LCC) also fails to comply with, The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005, regulation 8(5) and specifically with regulation, 8(5)(f), as it fails to correctly and with certainty, inform the recipient of the lawful period for payment of the penalty charge at the discounted rate.

(5) A penalty charge notice must state—

(f) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of service of the notice, the penalty charge will be reduced by one half;

The penalty charge notice issued by LCC fails to comply with the above mentioned regulation in that rather than specifying the 14 day period as prescribed in law it provides a date of Saturday 6th November 2011, this date is calculated from a presumed date of service that LCC cannot know at the time of issue/posting for the reasons as stated in point 1) above.

However even if the date is calculated by the methodology used by LCC based on the date of service being the second working day after the date of issue/posting, the date provided is incorrect and unlawfully extends the period of time prescribed in law for payment at the discounted rate by a period of 2 (two) days.

As stated above date of posting of the PCN is 24th October 2011, therefore the calculated date of service is Friday 26th October 2011. This makes the end of the 14 day discount period Wednesday 9th November 2011 and not Saturday 6th November 2011 as stated on the PCN by LCC.

With respect to both points 1) and 2) of these representations LCC have failed in their statutory duty to ensure that the PCN they have issued to me is compliant with the legislation under which it is issued, I contend that the PCN is so fatally flawed that it is a nullity in law and any attempt on the part of LCC to pursue this matter further would be ultra vires.

The need for certainty in the payment periods has been establish in the High Court and I refer to the binding ruling of Jackson J in R v The Parking Adjudicator (ex p Barnet) , who at paragraph 39 states:

"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 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 payment will expire."

Jackson J, further goes on to state with respect to statutory compliance, in R v The Parking Adjudicator (ex p Barnet), paragraph 41:

"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."

In the event that these representations are rejected I will require the enforcement authority to fully explain in their Notice of Rejection how their "PCN" complies with the above mentioned regulations. I will have no hesitation in taking this matter to adjudication, where I will be making a request for costs on the grounds that the enforcement authority have acted vicariously and wholly unreasonably in not accepting valid representations at the earliest opportunity. I will also be respectfully requesting the that adjudicator is minded to make recommendations in his adjudication with respect to all previous and pending PCNs that LCC have unlawfully issued under The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005.
The PCN should therefore be cancelled on this basis and I should be obliged if you would provide written confirmation that this is the case.

Neil B
You've just c&p'd a large chunk of detailed reps that DON'T apply to your case!!!!

submit that and you'll confuse matters dangerously! Your case is much simpler.

You posted an image of your PCN less than 24 hrs ago - then this?
QUOTE (gquantock @ Fri, 4 Nov 2011 - 10:51) *
What do I need to do then?

do I just ignore it?

can you help?


Erm, a bit of patience may be in order!?

Did I not say this >>>>>

QUOTE (Neil B @ Thu, 3 Nov 2011 - 20:51) *
No time to explain at mo - laterz

You have a slam dunk easy win - but give us some space mate! You are not the only one seeking help.

Again ----- - laterz. Meaning when I get a feckin moment to save your £60.
gquantock
Apologies !!!!

Mrs was on my case about it.. thanks for your help.

Will wait for your reply.

cheers

Neil B
from the other Leeds case running ahead of you >>

QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 4 Nov 2011 - 14:50) *
ok - basics.

PCNs must comply with the law - particularly in giving you certain info - accurately.

Yours gets a crucial bit wrong.

Link to Regs listing mandatory content. >> http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/27...gulation/8/made

and a quote of the part that is wrong >>>>

(5) A penalty charge notice must state—

(a)the registration mark of the vehicle involved in the alleged contravention;

(b)the detection date and the time at which the alleged contravention occurred;

©the reasons why the authority believe that a penalty charge is payable;

(d)the amount of the penalty charge;

(e)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the 28 day period;

(f)that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of service of the notice, the penalty charge will be reduced by one half;

(g)that representations may be made, on any of the statutory grounds of appeal, to the authority against the imposition of the penalty charge but that representations made outside the 28 day period may be disregarded;

(h)what are the statutory grounds of appeal;

(i)the postal address to which representations are to be sent;

etc, etc.


Your PCN says -- ''14 days beginning with the date on this PCN''.

It's a really bad and incompetent mistake.

Your PCN is presumed served in two working days = 21/10 - but they nly give 14 days beginning 19/10. Clearly to your disadvantage and unlawful.

It seems this mistake may be on ALL Leeds BL PCNs.

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

In making reps it is a good idea to open with a brief human angle before nuking them with this technicality.

gquantock
great stuff thanks for this, really appreciate it

so I assume I just write a letter back to them quoting the bit that you put below and then say that I believe it is unlawful and request they drop it?

Neil B
QUOTE (gquantock @ Fri, 4 Nov 2011 - 15:11) *
great stuff thanks for this, really appreciate it

so I assume I just write a letter back to them quoting the bit that you put below and then say that I believe it is unlawful and request they drop it?


yeah but note my last sentence.

Councils act very intransigently to solely tech reps - so include some bollox excuse and maybe a plea for discretion. useful tactic as it gives them an 'out' where they don't have to admit their PCN is seriously legally flawed.

------------
Incidentally - the stills on the PCN. Do they clearly show the vehicle in contravention, including the relevant signage?

If not - it is interesting - they are supposed to offer them -- alongside that offer of viewing the vid. Yours doesn't make that offer so technically flawed again - although clearly they are relying on the pics on the PCN. Interesting.

let's assume they don't prove a contravention --- sooooo --- even though they haven't offered --- ask for 'such still images which you believe establish the contravention.'
as is your right under Reg 8 >>

(5) A penalty charge notice must state—

(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.

that will be quite funny if they respond by saying 'we already have' - and then the images on PCN don't achieve that.
just an additional bullet.
------------
Note - previous quote of Regs re mandatory content of PCN was also from Reg 8 - for reference.


-----------

read around the forum and see several varying cases of all kinds. get to grips with how things work and Councils respond, i.e. -- expect to be rejected -- but do not surrender this easy one!
gquantock
Ok great stuff. really really appreciated.

they simply show my car registration but thats all.. you can see road markings on the tarmac behind my car that says taxi/bus but it is really faint.

I will draft the letter and repost it for review.

thanks again



gquantock
PLEASE SEE REVISED RESPONSE - I LOOK FORWARD TO ANY COMMENTS.



I have received the bus lane penalty charge notice from Leeds City Council last week.
Can I apologise for going the down the bus lane, this was a genuine mistake by me and I can only apologise for this mistake.
I didn’t realise that it was a bus lane when I turned down boar lane. I was unsure of another way to go to get to the M62 motorway to get back to my home in [xxxxxxxx].

From the legislation that governs PCNs “http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2005/27...gulation/8/made”
(5) A penalty charge notice must state—
(a)the registration mark of the vehicle involved in the alleged contravention;
(b)the detection date and the time at which the alleged contravention occurred;
©the reasons why the authority believe that a penalty charge is payable;
(d)the amount of the penalty charge;
(e)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the 28 day period;
(f)that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of service of the notice, the penalty charge will be reduced by one half;
(g)that representations may be made, on any of the statutory grounds of appeal, to the authority against the imposition of the penalty charge but that representations made outside the 28 day period may be disregarded;
(h)what are the statutory grounds of appeal;
(i)the postal address to which representations are to be sent;
(j)any electronic mail address or FAX number to which representations may be sent as an alternative to the postal address;
(k)that if at the end of the 28 day period—
(i)no representations have been made; and
(ii)the penalty charge has not been paid,
the authority may increase the penalty charge by a half and take steps to enforce payment of the charge as so increased;
(l)the manner in which the penalty charge may be paid;
(m)that if the representations are rejected an appeal may be made on any of the statutory grounds of appeal may be made to an adjudicator in respect of a penalty charge; and
(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.

The penalty charge notice issued by LCC fails to comply with the above mentioned regulation in that rather than specifying the 14 day period as prescribed in law it provides a date of 1 November 2011, this date is calculated from a presumed date of service that LCC cannot know at the time of issue/posting for the reasons as stated above.
However even if the date is calculated by the methodology used by LCC based on the date of service being the second working day after the date of issue/posting, the date provided is incorrect and unlawfully extends the period of time prescribed in law for payment at the discounted rate by a period of 2 (two) days.
On this basis, the PCN is presumed to be served in two working days from the 19th October 2011, which is the 21 October 2011. However I only have 14days from the 19th October 2011 which is 1 November 2011

With respect to this point LCC have failed in their statutory duty to ensure that the PCN they have issued to me is compliant with the legislation under which it is issued, I contend that the PCN is so fatally flawed that it is a nullity in law and any attempt on the part of LCC to pursue this matter further would be ultra vires.

The need for certainty in the payment periods has been establish in the High Court and I refer to the binding ruling of Jackson J in R v The Parking Adjudicator (ex p Barnet) , who at paragraph 39 states:

"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 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 payment will expire."

Jackson J, further goes on to state with respect to statutory compliance, in R v The Parking Adjudicator (ex p Barnet), paragraph 41:

"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."

In the event that these representations are rejected I will require the enforcement authority to fully explain in their Notice of Rejection how their "PCN" complies with the above mentioned regulations. I will have no hesitation in taking this matter to adjudication, where I will be making a request for costs on the grounds that the enforcement authority have acted vicariously and wholly unreasonably in not accepting valid representations at the earliest opportunity. I will also be respectfully requesting the that adjudicator is minded to make recommendations in his adjudication with respect to all previous and pending PCNs that LCC have unlawfully issued under The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005.
The PCN should therefore be cancelled on this basis and I should be obliged if you would provide written confirmation that this is the case.
Kind regards


Neil B
One last time. STOP copying reps from cases that do not relate to yours in terms of the errors made - AND then fail to edit them properly anyway (1/11/11 ??????)

See the other Leeds case for well written reps recently >>> http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showtopic=66038

-
gquantock
Neil

Apologies for this

I have now seen the other thread and will use that wording and amend the particulars of what happened etc.

thanks for your help

Neil B
Ok cool. GL.

Let us know response.
gquantock
Leeds has rejected my representations - please see attached the letter i have received from them

Does anyone have any comments on this

regards


Please see page 2 of the letter

regards
Neil B
LOL.

http://forums.pepipoo.com/index.php?showto...mp;#entry648197

Identical rejection as far as you've shown.

Only seeing first page?
gquantock
Neil

Many thanks for this. the second page of the letter is exactly the same as the previous post.

what is the next step for this then with regards to appealing etc
thanks for help
Neil B
QUOTE (gquantock @ Fri, 2 Dec 2011 - 12:23) *
Neil

Many thanks for this. the second page of the letter is exactly the same as the previous post.


I don't understand? Your pdf above has no second page? Are you saying it is identical to the other guy?

In terms of what to do -- follow him - he seems to have the right idea. Leeds are talking rubbish -- but it's fairly important you understand why/how.
gquantock
Yes - it is exactly the same second page as the other guys response ! I have sent him a message and we will co-ordinate a response together.
thanks

gquantock
I have received a letter fromthe traffic penalty tribunal confirming my case has been registered etc.

If the council chose to contest the case then they wil send written representations to me by 10 Jan [which i will post up].

I need to send to my info before the 17 Jan.

Neil - I understand you are pulling together something for the other guy who got one in leeds, I will therefore look at that one and amend it.

Thanks for your help
gquantock
I have received a lot of information from Leeds CC relating to my case. In no particular order:

1. pictures of all the signs that are in the Leeds area
2. pictures of my car driving through the bus lane
3. a dvd of my car driving through the bus lane

Neil - what is the next step here? thanks

I quote "an enquiry was made to leeds city council legal services regardin gthe wording of the notice to owner and page 32 [below] is an email reply which states it is not considered that our notice is invalid.

from principal legal officer (leeds cc)

"I do not consider that the precise wording set out in Regulations 8 (5)(f) of the 2005 regulations must be used nad I certainly do not see the wording as a mandatory requirement. Provided that there is no doubt as to the wording used in the penalty charge notice which clearly reflects the legal requirement, use of other words such as "50% discount" instead of "reduced by one half" would not be considered to be at odds with the wording used in the regulations. i wouldnt therefore consider our notice to be invalid.

If you look at the bus land legislation on the PATROL website you will see that the tribunal also makes specific reference to "a discount of 50% applies" when referring to early payment.

It seems to me that they have not understood the date issue - am I on the right lines NeilB?
thanks
Neil B
QUOTE (gquantock @ Mon, 2 Jan 2012 - 18:11) *
"I do not consider that the precise wording set out in Regulations 8 (5)(f) of the 2005 regulations must be used nad I certainly do not see the wording as a mandatory requirement. Provided that there is no doubt as to the wording used in the penalty charge notice which clearly reflects the legal requirement, use of other words such as "50% discount" instead of "reduced by one half" would not be considered to be at odds with the wording used in the regulations. i wouldnt therefore consider our notice to be invalid.

If you look at the bus land legislation on the PATROL website you will see that the tribunal also makes specific reference to "a discount of 50% applies" when referring to early payment.

It seems to me that they have not understood the date issue - am I on the right lines NeilB?
thanks


You are correct; They are missing the point.
My thinking is that at some time they have been challenged about '50%' (mistakenly) and won, probably at some past adjudication. Hence they have become somewhat obsessed by it.

The point we have been making is far simpler, very straightforward and not at all what they think it to be; Simply, the 14 day period was wrong by virtue of being shorter than the law prescribes. Simple.

For this to have gone past their legal Dept and got such a response beggars belief.

Why are they doing it? Dunno.
It could be through sheer stupidity. The other extreme is that they are deliberately detracting from our fully valid point - trying to say we have said something we haven't.

Middle ground would be that theya re so arrogant as to have made an 'assumption' about what we have said, simply because someone else did previously - so they didn't read properly. However, to persist with that seems very odd - surel the penny would drop at some stage before now?

Personally I thinks it's a combination of all of the above and for that reason I strngly recommend you make an application for costs at the hearing. (pre-prepare a list for postage, phone, fax, travel, etc.)

------
It sounds like you actually have the full evidence pack on which they will rely. Can we see the 'Index' or 'Contents' list to that so we can let you know whic parts we might want to check.

One part I'd like to see immediately is the text you have quoted - which is probably part of their 'summary of submissions' - or labelled to similar effect.


(Gonna be an easy win btw - but I think u understand that).
hcandersen
Why don't you just reproduce para. 8 (5) of the regs and then go through them?

Also another failure has occurred to me, and one that probably appears on many other bus lane PCNs o/s London.

See 8 (5) (m):

(m)that if the representations are rejected an appeal may be made on any of the statutory grounds of appeal may be made to an adjudicator in respect of a penalty charge;

Apart from the typo being interesting (this was lifted directly from the regs), there's another aspect. If you consider appeals in relation to parking, the appeal to the adj is against the decision of the authority to reject the reps. Therefore, it follows that the scope of the appeal to the adj is the same as to the council. However with bus lanes, the regs simply refer to an appeal to the adj and therefore the additional words " on any of the statutory grounds" are necessary, otherwise what's the scope of appeal - only on the basis of whether the contravention occurred but excluding process grounds, only if the contravention occurred on a Thursday?

And the required words aren't in the PCN.

But if you go along the route of listing the mandatory requirements (notwithstanding what the council have said), don't go into unnecessary detail - just the compare and contrast route (here's the regs and here's the PCN). Most elements are OK and can be dealt with quickly.

HCA
gquantock
thanks for your replies. They have sent through the following:

- the CS/B form - enforcement authority case summary & representations to the adjudicator in response to notice of appeal
- penalty charge notice
- case progression summary
- copy representations
- copy rejections
- DVLA keepership details
- summary of photos king street leading to infirmary street
- summary of photos park row leading to boar lane
- summary of photos infirmary street leading to boar lane
- photos
- DVD
- other photos
- e-mail advice from LCC legal services
- bus lane enforcement advertising

summary of appellant's submission
the appellant has not given further details of appeal therefore leeds city council evidence is based upon the formal representations dated 7/11/11 in which the appellant has admitted driving through the bus lane but is disputing the wording of the Notice to Owner.

should i respond or wait until the hearing?

thanks



Neil - here is my original submission

I apologise for driving down the bus lane and I do not deny that I did it, however I would like to say that this was not done deliberately to derive some advantage over traffic, but it arose through a series of errors.

I drove down the street and was trying to get back to the motorway. As I had come into Leeds up Neville street I assumed that was the way that I should be going back. Therefore I saw the street and Queens hotel that I had passed on my way in (Neville street) ahead and assumed that was the way I should be going to get back to the M1 and M62motorway. I therefore got into the left hand lane. I was unaware that it was a bus lane in addition to continuing on being a bus lane down boar lane (having missed the lane control sign whilst observing some traffic negotiating the junction) and not being aware of this

I quickly realised that I was about to enter a bus lane and therefore I tried everything to get back into the main lane to go right however no one would let me in. I then reasoned that the quickest and safest way was to proceed down the bus lane (rather than trying to reverse back up the bus lane and rejoin Neville street.

Given the circumstances as outlined above I would be grateful if some discretion could be applied in this case I do apologise for this mistake, however it was not done deliberately.

Also, I note with interest the paragraph on the PCN which states “The penalty charge will be reduced by 50% if it is paid no later than the last day of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on this Penalty Charge Notice” This form of words is not in compliance with The Bus Lane Contraventions (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2005 section 8 paragraph 5 f and I quote:-

“A penalty charge notice must state….. that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of service of the notice, the penalty charge will be reduced by one half”

As the underlying legislation defines mandatory wording which has not been used on the subject PCN I contend that it is invalid and respectfully suggest that it should be withdrawn.

Neil B
Hmmmm. I can see how they got confused and latched onto an irrelevant point ---- but they should be better than that and able to see exactly what you meant.

i suggest you send to the Adjudicator a quick clarification. That is, that your submission is and always was that the PCN allows a shorter period in which to make payment at discount than the law prescribes.
Specifically, Date of Notice vs Date of service of Notice.

- and that this crucial matter seems not to have been recognised by Leeds.

Should be enough.

----
Can we first see -

the bit from legal dept

the 'case progression summary'

case summary and reps to Adjudicator.
gquantock
I will post these up on wednesday this week.

The date of my hearing is the 14 Feb.

Shall i send a note back to the adjudicator saying


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

As a point of clarification - my submission is and always was that the PCN allows a shorter period in which to make payment at discount than the law prescribes. Specifically, Date of Notice vs Date of service of Notice.

I was not focussed on the difference between "half" and "50%" but I would contend that there is potential for prejudice in the lack of clarity of the commencement and expiry of the 14 day period. The regulations state "before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of service of the notice", the PCN states "no later than the last day of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on this Penalty Charge Notice". The PCN is clearly ambiguous as there are 2 dates "on" the PCN, the date of the contravention and the date of issue, neither of which is the beginning of the 14 day period as defined in the regulations.

It appears that this has not been noticed by Leeds CC and therefore I would ask that they be made aware of this fact.

--------------
1kalubanther
Anyone can indicate what happened with this case ?
Neil B
QUOTE (1kalubanther @ Thu, 1 Mar 2012 - 16:58) *
Anyone can indicate what happened with this case ?


If it didn't win it would be farcical.

Why?
Neil B
[quote name='1kalubanther' date='Thu, 1 Mar
1kalubanther
Thanks for reply.
I decided to pay £30 but am interested to know what happened. Maybe I could get a refund later...
Gan
QUOTE (1kalubanther @ Mon, 5 Mar 2012 - 15:02) *
Thanks for reply.
I decided to pay £30 but am interested to know what happened. Maybe I could get a refund later...


If you've paid, as far as the council are concerned the matter is closed.

Your chances of a refund are virtually nil
gquantock
All - just to update you on this. It went to a tribunal today and they ruled in my favour !!!

Literally we had a chat for c. 5minutes long

cheers all for your help.

Neil B
QUOTE (gquantock @ Fri, 27 Apr 2012 - 16:20) *
All - just to update you on this. It went to a tribunal today and they ruled in my favour !!!

Literally we had a chat for c. 5minutes long

cheers all for your help.


Eh?

Well done but I'm gobsmacked Leeds let it go that far. The other guy running at the same time won a while ago - with them apologising, albeit verbally.
bama
result. well done.

please post the written decision when you get it
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.
Invision Power Board © 2001-2014 Invision Power Services, Inc.