Help - Search - Members - Calendar
Full Version: Nottingham City Council (PCN) Contravention Code 05.
FightBack Forums > Queries > Council Parking Tickets & Clamping and Decriminalised Notices
Pages: 1, 2, 3
we are men of science

Received PCN Code 05.




Sent challenge on the 14th day via e-mail.




On my return from work the following morning i found the above in my in-box.

So i returned the above three times.


Then i received the NtO.




we are men of science



When the NtO arrived i forwarded my original challenge and the Undeliverable notice another three times.


Phoned them on the 17/01/2012 and asked why they had not responded to several e-mails.They shrugged and asked me to send the correspondence whilst we were on the phone so they could acknowledge receipt of said e-mail.
Then i received Notice of Rejection of Representations









They still have yet to fulfil the request of photographic evidence to show the CEO time was synchronised to the issuing ticket machine's clock.
we are men of science












SchoolRunMum
It is interesting that you have it in writing that CEOs allow a ten minute grace period after expiry of a P&D ticket (seems v generous!). So you are right to concentrate on the timing issue, did the CEO check the machine was working and that his watch and camera were in synch with the clock on the P&D machine? Eleven minutes late seems a lot until you read about the 10 minute grace period. Also there's the procedural impropriety of not having the facility to receive informal appeals by email as on the PCN, which you can prove.

You are past the 14 days they stated on the rejection letter, to pay the £25, so you are in for all or nothing now. So draft up what you want to say in your appeal to the TPT and post it here for comments please. Don't miss your deadline for them to receive the appeal.
we are men of science
Thank you School Run Mum.
Any further comment before I send reply to TPT.
we are men of science
Here is a draft of appeal to TPT.

Please refer to the 5th and 6th images in post 1 titled "Undeliverable: challenge [scanned]". A procedural impropriety has occurred as the council did not have a functioning system for accepting challenges by way of e-mail and so did not respond to my correspondence.
we are men of science
Spoke to the council today and they have revealed more information.
They admitted that they did receive one of the two challenges I sent via e-mail on the 29th Nov which was the 15th day (Original challenge sent on the 28th Nov was returned Undeliverable as their mail box was full) but due to an administrative error they did not register it on their system until the 29th Dec. During this time I received the NTO on the 23rd Dec and so forwarded the Undeliverable message with the challenge to the council on the same day .I sent them three times.
They also said they currently take 12-16 weeks to respond to challenges.
In my challenge I requested photographic evidence that the CEO time was synchronised to the issuing ticket machine's clock.The council said I would need a Freedom Of Information Act request to receive this information.

Any comments anyone.
Gan
So the council have refused to confirm that the clock was accurate when one minute could be critical.

That's not going to look good at adjudication.
hcandersen
I'm not as upbeat as some about your grounds.

IMO if there is a 10-minute "grace" period it is precisely for the reason that they want to avoid debates about a minute here or there and the accuracy of clocks. In this respect, all arguments regarding accuracy are subsumed within the 10 minutes, and do not start afterwards.

The only express condition in law regarding serving a NTO is whether the penalty charge has been paid and not whether you've submitted a challenge or whether a challenge has been responded to. The council is not under a duty to reply to a challenge, in effect its response is whether it serves a NTO i.e. NTO means NO (we don't accept the challenge).
However, the council is under a duty to include in the PCN a statement to the effect that it will consider challenges, and this is where the process IMO becomes fuzzy. Once a NTO is served the liability passes to the owner, so where does that leave the person who made the challenge and the owner if the challenge has not been considered at this point? The owner must respond to the NTO in any event but I cannot find any requirement in the regs which places an express duty on the council to consider a challenge before serving a NTO and which would therefore give the recipient of the NTO the right to include this within their reps.

Similarly, there is no express duty on a council to provide a CEO's notes before proceeding with the enforcement process. However, they are required under general principles of administrative law to provide evidence at the earliest opportunity. But you'll need to ensure you refer your procedural grounds to the correct source e.g. the General or Appeals Regs, previous adjudication decisions, case law etc.

HCA

we are men of science
Thank you for your replies.
HCAnderson, your reply is sobering.Do you think I should just pay up. I thought the grounds I was using were firm, not so sure now.
we are men of science
Thank you Gan.
Need to send appeal form to the TPT by 20th Feb. Do you think I am on firm ground with regards to this appeal.
Enceladus
The most important consideration right now is to get your appeal request submitted to TPT on or before Sunday the 20th Feb. You are out of discount opportunity so you might as well appeal to the TPT, regardless.

Request a personal hearing. And in the details box put "Detailed submission to follow".

The TPT should write back with a hearing date and a deadline to submit your case. Likely to be a couple of months away, so gives you time to work out your case.

Get the forms posted in good time today Wednesday. Get a free 1st class proof of posting at the Post Office, don't just put it in a post box.

You can always revert to a telephone or written hearing. (Or even drop the appeal, but since you have nothing to loose please don't do that.)

You can't end up worse off so please get your intent to appeal registered PDQ. Can you fax the forms?
we are men of science
Thank you Enceladus.I will fill the form in as you have advised and send it off a.s.a.p.
Enceladus
You also need to tick one or more of the "grounds" options on the TPT form. Try procedural impropriety and contravention did not occur. Or any that you think might apply.
we are men of science
Thanks again Enceladus. I can now get this form sent to the TPT.
hcandersen
There's no point in paying as you are at the full penalty and so no more money is at risk by going to adjudication as you have arguable grounds.

As regards procedural impropriety, it's clear that the NOR does not comply with the mandatory requirements of the Appeals Regs. In the NOR the council manages to use 3 different time periods in respect of paying the penalty charge; serving a Charge Certificate; and appealing to an adjudicator. Maybe they think that by using 3, one of them is bound to be correct. There is only only one correct time period which applies in every case:

The three different periods used are:
A. Payment
"..not later than the last day of the period of 28 days from service of the NOR.."

B. Charge Certificate
"...period of 28 days beginning with the date of service..."

C. Appeal to adjudicator
"..within 28 days of the date of service of this notice..."

So, which, if any, is the correct one - A, B, or C? Exciting, isn't it?

HCA
we are men of science
I have received acknowledgement receipt of appeal from the TPT. I now need to send my evidence before the 16th March. Has anyone noticed if signs or the Traffic Order are incorrect.
we are men of science
I have received acknowledgement from the TPT that my case has been registered. TPT have advised that if the council contest the case they have until the 9th of March to submit evidence. I need to submit my evidence by the 16th March. Any assistance would be appreciated.
hcandersen
AIUI the relevant order is this:
NOTTINGHAM CITY COUNCIL (CITY OF NOTTINGHAM, CONSOLIDATION AREA) (NO.7) TRAFFIC REGULATION ORDER 2011 (TRO 6950)

which you'll find here (as NG253):
http://tro.parking-adjudication.gov.uk/default.aspx

You're looking for a location in Castle Boulevard which has the three ingredients of your location:
i. A waiting restriction Mon-Fri: 4pm-6pm;
ii. A No Loading restriction for the same period;
iii. A designated parking place with P&D restrictions as per the sign.

I can't find any such location.

But you should look (after all, you're the only one who can define the location by reference to the road and distance from local roads, which is what the order does). It looks a large doc, but in reality it isn't - 95% is Schedules. You can find all Castle Boulevard entries using the search function.

If the location is not there, add this as one of your appeal points: contravention did not occur as the restriction allegedly contravened has not been established by a lawful order.

HCA

we are men of science
Thank you HCAndersen. I will follow your guidance and hopefully I can add this in my appeal. You have also advised previously on this topic(Wed 15 Feb 2012 -12:56) on how the council have used three different time periods.Do I need to add anything else or just follow what you have written in your post.
hcandersen
You need to understand the points and not just write them.

The council is under a duty to state specific time periods in its docs. The applicable time period in your case was "28 days beginning with the date on which the notice was served". They didn't in many case and this is defined as a procedural impropriety which is a statutory ground of appeal.

HCA
we are men of science
Thank you HCAndersen. To summarise, the council used three different time periods when only one is applicable and because of this a procedural impropriety has occurred.
we are men of science


I am having problems with photobucket so I will type out the relevant part of Nottingham city council(city of nottingham,consolidation area)(No. 7) Traffic Regulation Order 2011(TRO 6950).

Part 1 Schedule 4
Parking Places (Pay & Display)

Column 1 Item No. 17 (ii)

Column 2 Length of Road Castle Boulevard(the south side) from a point 2.5 meters east of its junction with Haslam Street in an easterly direction for a distance of 54 meters.

Column 3 Days and Hours of Operation Mon-Fri 8am-4pm and Sat 8am-6pm

Column 4 Maximum Period of Waiting 2 Hours
.
Column 5 No Return Within 1 Hour

Column 2 Zone 2

As you can see no reference to Mon-Fri 6-8pm and Sat & Sun 8am-8pm.
Does this mean the sign or the TRO is incorrect and how would I use this at the TPT .
Thank you.
SchoolRunMum
I think you say the Traffic Order is invalid or at least that the signage on site does not match the Traffic Order.
we are men of science
Thank you for responding to this post again School Run Mum. So is the sign or the TRO incorrect. If so how would I present this at TPT.
we are men of science
Does anyone have any further comment on this case as I will soon have to send submissions to the TPT.
bama
these are your args and you will need to present them and understand them at adjudication

teach a man to fish is the only method that works, if someone else writes them for you then there is every possibility (verging on certainty IMO ) that you will not comprehend the args abd consequently be unable to present of defend them cogently.

Simply go through the thread from start to end and draft out your reps.
then post them here, don't just send them off
if the deadline gets in the way make sure you don't miss the deadline !
BUT do that with reps that say 'details to follow' HCA has posted several good examples of this.
and if you are going to do that still post your draft n here first

better to get the args sorted on here before the deadline.
we are men of science
Hello again.

In the NOR dated 19/01/2012 the council refer me to the TPT TRO library. Part of the relevant TRO from the TPT TRO library is below.
17 (ii) Castle Boulevard (the south side).

The days and hours of operation do not correspond to the sign.

This was some of the information I based my decision on to appeal to the TPT in Feb.
However I received the council evidence in March,



and they sent this TRO.
Neil B
QUOTE (we are men of science @ Fri, 11 May 2012 - 03:47) *
The days and hours of operation do not correspond to the sign.


Sorry if I'm being dumb and missing something - but how?
we are men of science
Hello Neil B.
The TRO from the TPT library(the one which is not highlighted) which the council refered me to in the NOR does not correspond with the sign.
The highlighted TRO that the council sent in the evidence pack which was sent to me two months after the NOR does correspond with the sign.
Neil B
QUOTE (we are men of science @ Fri, 11 May 2012 - 09:57) *
Hello Neil B.
The TRO from the TPT library(the one which is not highlighted) which the council refered me to in the NOR does not correspond with the sign.
The highlighted TRO that the council sent in the evidence pack which was sent to me two months after the NOR does correspond with the sign.


Yes, I've got it but couldn't see it. I have now, after four reads of it!! LOL.

Incidentally I would say the TRO is misstyped - but that isn't your problem - as discussed earlier, no need tp speculate on which is wrong, they just don't correspond.

Then again, I'm not greatly sure it helps you much. Does it render the TRO or signage invalid? Well they differ but not on a detail that affects your PCN. Iwouldn't want to bank on a probable miss-type in a TRO OR flawed sign rendering the entire TRO invalid.

I like the NoR timescale issues though. Did you ever guess which of HCA's A, B or C is correct?
we are men of science
QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 11 May 2012 - 10:18) *
QUOTE (we are men of science @ Fri, 11 May 2012 - 09:57) *
Hello Neil B.
The TRO from the TPT library(the one which is not highlighted) which the council refered me to in the NOR does not correspond with the sign.
The highlighted TRO that the council sent in the evidence pack which was sent to me two months after the NOR does correspond with the sign.


Yes, I've got it but couldn't see it. I have now, after four reads of it!! LOL.

Incidentally I would say the TRO is misstyped - but that isn't your problem - as discussed earlier, no need tp speculate on which is wrong, they just don't correspond.

Then again, I'm not greatly sure it helps you much. Does it render the TRO or signage invalid? Well they differ but not on a detail that affects your PCN. Iwouldn't want to bank on a probable miss-type in a TRO OR flawed sign rendering the entire TRO invalid.

I like the NoR timescale issues though. Did you ever guess which of HCA's A, B or C is correct?


Thank you for repliyng Neil B.
With regards to the timescales in the NOR, below are my initial submissions to the TPT.I am looking through the councils evidence so I can build on this (I will post all of the councils evidence over the weekend) and the issue with the TRO is one that I thought might be relevant.


Councils additional evidence.





Neil B
I'm not saying the TRO flaw isn't relevant, just throwing in the question for people to comment.

Are you ok with the timescale flaws on NoR - meaning do you understand them, which one is right and how having three is prejudicial?
bama
hey pointed you to an out of date TRO - well just the repository. I suppose they thought that was being clever BUT they have still misled you IMO


Then they submit (just extracts of) a different TRO.
When an LA relies on a TRO in the TPT repository they just name it on the forms to save expense for all concerned.
Good idea ! IF they do it properly and filer all the TROS in the TPT repository. neither happens.
we are men of science
QUOTE (we are men of science @ Fri, 11 May 2012 - 11:23) *
QUOTE (Neil B @ Fri, 11 May 2012 - 10:18) *
QUOTE (we are men of science @ Fri, 11 May 2012 - 09:57) *
Hello Neil B.
The TRO from the TPT library(the one which is not highlighted) which the council refered me to in the NOR does not correspond with the sign.
The highlighted TRO that the council sent in the evidence pack which was sent to me two months after the NOR does correspond with the sign.


Yes, I've got it but couldn't see it. I have now, after four reads of it!! LOL.

Incidentally I would say the TRO is misstyped - but that isn't your problem - as discussed earlier, no need tp speculate on which is wrong, they just don't correspond.

Then again, I'm not greatly sure it helps you much. Does it render the TRO or signage invalid? Well they differ but not on a detail that affects your PCN. Iwouldn't want to bank on a probable miss-type in a TRO OR flawed sign rendering the entire TRO invalid.

I like the NoR timescale issues though. Did you ever guess which of HCA's A, B or C is correct?


Thank you for repliyng Neil B.
With regards to the timescales in the NOR, below are my initial submissions to the TPT.I am looking through the councils evidence so I can build on this (I will post all of the councils evidence over the weekend) and the issue with the TRO is one that I thought might be relevant.


Any views on the councils additional evidence. I draw your attention to the second sentence of paragraph three in the additional submissions box

Councils additional evidence.








hcandersen
The council's evidence is flawed.
1. The fact that they provided you with incorrect evidence in their NOR.
You MUST see this in the context of their "offer" in the NOR to still pay the penalty at the discount rate. So, based on their NOR you could, and did, go to the TPT library, find your way around it (doesn't the arrogance and unhelpfulness of NCC take your breath away - just because they know(do they?) what the hell the TPT library is about, why should you?. You're a motorist not a parking law specialist), find the TRO which NCC claim is in force, which you then read and find that it does not include the required restriction, and as a consequence are buoyed in your chances that you could win at appeal and so do not pay at the discount for this reason - only for the council's evidence bundle to give a different TRO which, according to them, does show the restriction. Bang goes your opportunity to pay at the discount.

except:

2. Extracts from TRO
The Schedule shows a max period of parking (2 hours) and No Return limit (1 hour).

This is not the sign.

Either it's the wrong traffic order but the restriction is correct as is the sign, or it's the correct order, in which case the sign is incorrect.

(a) Wrong order
They're dead. Appeal hearings are determined on the basis of evidence submitted. They've not adduced the correct order. No case to answer, appeal allowed, march out.

(b) Correct order. In which case the sign is incorrect. This is not as strong a point, but you should still succeed on this point because in their NOR they claim that the signs accord with the requirements of the Traffic Signs etc. Regs. Appeal allowed, march out.

Keep your powder dry on this point until the hearing - after all, how's the adj to know what's what?

3. Prior to becoming a Pepipooer (if this word is not in the OED, it should be), and given a choice between c**k-up and conspiracy I would opt for c**k-up. But NCC and others have made me reconsider this approach.
The council are being economical with the truth.
Refer to their evidence (the extract from the Appeals Regs). Look at the section highlighted in yellow and then refer to their NOR. You'd think all was fine. But not us.

The regs don't stop at no. 6. Beleive it or not, there's a regulation 7. And guess what it states?

Appeals to an adjudicator in relation to decisions under regulation 5

7.—(1) Where an authority serves a notice of rejection under regulation 5(2)(b) in relation to representations made under regulation 4,this is what they've done, regulation 6 states what the NOR userved under 5(2)(b) must state the person who made those representations may appeal to an adjudicator against the authority’s decision—


(a)before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the notice of rejection; or
(b)within such longer period as an adjudicator may allow.


So the council have failed to comply with regulation 6 (1)© of the Appeals Regs in that they have failed to correctly describe in general terms the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made.

That should be enough for you to go on.

IMO, what they've done is tantamount to an abuse of power in that they're continuing to act as if they are correct while at the same time they've provided evidence which they should know does not support their case. But despite this, they're trying to scare/bluff/bully you.

Nail the duplicitous b******s.

If it's all a bit complicated, by all means PM me.

HCA
bama
HCA is spot on. I fully concur.


re the feck up v deliberate
feck ups may happen at the lower levels with individuals actions but institutionally and over a long multi-step process covered by much legislation and rules (and lots of staff in diff depts) its pretty much statistically impossible for it to be anything other than deliberate and institutionalised.
It isn't paranoia if they really are out just to get you(r money) !

'feck up' makes a good cover story is all

And NCC's history on here speaks for itself
we are men of science
Attended the hearing on Fri.
The Adjudicator rejected the appeal on every point.

She said the sign was compliant as it did not have to show the No Return Within 1 Hour restriction claiming that signs would become unwieldy if they displayed everything in a TRO.
Adjudicator also said the TRO only needs to be included in the councils evidence to the TPT and not before this time even though I requested it in my original challenge.She said that this TRO in the evidence pack is the correct one and corresponds with the signs.
I raised the fact that my challenge sent on 28/11/11 (14th day) was returned undelivered and therefore the council did not have a system capable of receiving e-mailed challenges as stated on the PCN. She said I should know e-mail is unreliable and should have sent a challenge via the postal system.
The challenge was sent successfully on the 29/11/11 via e-mail but the council admitted that due to an administrative error the original challenge had not been scanned on to the case and that when realised the original document was scanned on the case as a representation on the 29/12/11 as the NTO had already been sent on the 21/12/11. This is in breach of the appeals regs 2007 3(2)(b)(i) that if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purpose before a notice to owner is served those representations will be considered, but the council could not have considered them before the NTO was served as they had not been scanned on to the case for over a month since being received and over a week after the NTO had been sent. The adjudicator said these points were immaterial as the discount had been re-offered.
The NOR was next to be analysed. I cited the three different time periods the council used in respect of paying the penalty charge; serving a charge cetificate and appealing to an adjudicator stating that there is only one correct time period which applies in every case for compliance with the mandatory requirements of the appeals regs. She said it was semantics and said that the councils PCNs, NTOs and NOR had been challenged previously and are fully compliant with the regs.
The last point was also in the NOR.
"In your representation you have also requested a copy of the traffic order; therefore I would advise to please refer to the TPT website. The website has a TRO library where you will be able to obtain a copy of the relevant order". I went to the site as instructed and found a TRO that pertained to where I parked and discovered that it did not correspond to the signs. I knew this breach would be enough to mount a strong appeal to the TPT and so declined the offer of the extended discount rate that the council had offered as I knew that with the wrong order no offence could have been committed.
Once again the adjudicator rubbished this saying that if you cannot find the order on the website I should have contacted the council but the council knows the TRO is not on the TPT library so why direct me to the site in the NOR.

This is what happened at adjudication.
What now?
Incandescent
I would ask for a review on the basis that the adjudicator has erred in law. Signs for when parking is permitted and when not must contain what the TRO says, else it would be complete chaos. One has to wonder what the adjudicator would consider necessary and what not in such cases.
hcandersen
Incredible decision from what you've posted. But before we consider what to do, you must post the adj's decision as we need to see the exact wording.

It would seem that you a have a strong argument for seeking a review, but there's a 14-day time limit within which to submit this. We can help, but we do not have unlimited time. So please post the decision letter ASP.

HCA
Hippocrates
Seconded. We must see all the decision, less personal detail as you see fit.
we are men of science
Thank you to everyone.
I will post as soon as I receive the decision. How long should this take?
bama
how long is a piece of string...

can be quick (a few days), can take a while (a few weeks).
but the gating factor for further appeal is the date of receipt (to both parties)

Who was the adjudicator ?
leave their name on the scan/pic of the written decision when you post it up.
From your description this was fairly appalling IMO
we are men of science
Finally received the adjudicator's version of events.











Seems to differ from what happened on the day as posted on 23/06/2012.
hcandersen
The adj is wrong in law IMO.

The law regarding traffic signs is set out in s64 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 which provides for regs to be made. In this case, these are the Traffic Signs etc. Regs and the The Local Authorities' Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, section 18 of which provides that:
Traffic signs

18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—


(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;

Whether this sign is necessary is the council's decision; but whether it's accurate is not, it is a matter of law.

If a traffic sign is placed then it must convey the restriction in the order. As returning to that location within 1 hour during a restricted period is a contravention of the order, then the sign must carry that info. It is preposterous to suggest that it's complicated - it's only as complicated as the council wish to make it and it's not rocket science to place the correct sign, particularly as in this case its absence led to confusion over the restriction/order in force.

Did you not make the point that because the council provided you with the wrong order in their NOR and you knew this was a successful ground of appeal and appealed on that point inter alia then when that period had elapsed that appeal point fell, but so did the opportunity to pay at the discount? Why didn't the adj recommend that the council should accept the discount penalty.

Another b******s decision.

HCA
we are men of science
Thank you for your response HCAndersen.
I did raise the issue of the TRO, how I had been mislead and as a consequence missed out on the discount period as you outlined, however the adjudicator said the Order only needs to be supplied in the evidence bundle. I have subsequently looked on the TPT website and there is still no correct TRO for the period 15th Nov 2011 when the PCN was issued. At the end of the hearing the adjudicator asked the council if they had any reason for re-offering the discount but the council declined.
My post dated 23/06/2012 covers all the points I made at the hearing and the adjudicators response.
hcandersen
If that's what he said then IMO he's an ******.

Something not required to be supplied is not the same issue as providing an incorrect document.

Personally, I'd go for a review of the adj's decision - surely this approach to the law cannot be condoned?

a. Interests of Justice
i. Adj misdirecting himself as to the law;
ii. Enf Authority KNOWINGLY providing incorrect docs as a direct consequence of which any reasonable person would have been, and you were, misinformed regarding your appeal options and therefore inter alia missed the available discount;

b. New Evidence Has Come to Light
iii. Also, were you supplied with those parts of the TRO which dealt with the designation of parking places and the conditions precedent upon this? I suspect not. In which case, also argue that fresh evidence has come to light which was not made available to you before the hearing and which you believe renders the restriction null and void (see the PATAS Key Case Campbell v LB Camden).

I suggest you contact TPT and find out their procedures for making an application for a review - we could advise but IMO you might as well go to TPT to float the issue.

HCA
Hippocrates
14 days.
bama
QUOTE
Whether this sign is necessary, is the council's decision; but whether it's accurate is not: it's a matter of law.

agreed.

we are men of science
QUOTE (hcandersen @ Fri, 27 Jul 2012 - 13:40) *
If that's what he said then IMO he's an ******.

Something not required to be supplied is not the same issue as providing an incorrect document.

Personally, I'd go for a review of the adj's decision - surely this approach to the law cannot be condoned?

a. Interests of Justice
i. Adj misdirecting himself as to the law;
ii. Enf Authority KNOWINGLY providing incorrect docs as a direct consequence of which any reasonable person would have been, and you were, misinformed regarding your appeal options and therefore inter alia missed the available discount;

b. New Evidence Has Come to Light
iii. Also, were you supplied with those parts of the TRO which dealt with the designation of parking places and the conditions precedent upon this? I suspect not. In which case, also argue that fresh evidence has come to light which was not made available to you before the hearing and which you believe renders the restriction null and void (see the PATAS Key Case Campbell v LB Camden).

I suggest you contact TPT and find out their procedures for making an application for a review - we could advise but IMO you might as well go to TPT to float the issue.

HCA



The adjudicator was judith ordish. At the hearing she wanted reasons for why I was delayed returning to the vehicle, focusing on compassionate grounds whilst dismissing every legal point.
Is it common for adjudicators to not know of any legislation pre 2002?
I spoke to the TPT and they referred me to the notes that had been sent with the decision. They were evasive when I asked for the last date they needed to receive the application for review by, not providing me with a date but stating they needed to receive it two weeks from the date of the letter.
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 © 2001-2019 Invision Power Services, Inc.