Where's the NOR page with the signature? Until we see this, we cannot be certain that you've posted everything.
As it stands, the NOR is defective and establishes grounds of 'procedural impropriety'.
Just to note that Regulation 18 (1)(b) of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, the council are under a duty to maintain signs for as long as they remain in force.
These Regulations prescribe the procedure to be followed by local authorities in England and Wales for making the main types of traffic and parking orders under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984...
Thanks, exactly what I wanted to see.
Grounds of appeal
at least Procedural impropriety
I would refer the adjudicator to the council's decision notice which states the following:
'You have the right to appeal...before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service[of the notice]'
and:
At that stage[that is prospective service of a Charge Certificate on expiry of the 28-day period] you have no further opportunity to appeal'
This is grossly misleading.
The first requirement of Appeals Regulation 11 is:
11(a): [the decision notice must] inform R of R’s right to appeal to an adjudicator under regulation 13,
As the adjudicator will know, as regards appealing to the adjudicator, Regulation 13 provides:
An appeal under this regulation must be made within—
2(a)the period of 28 days beginning with date of service of the decision notice under regulation 12(4)(b) informing P of P’s right to appeal under this regulation, or
(b)such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.
The decision notice omits 13(2)(b) in its entirety. However, I submit that as the regulation does not distinguish between the importance of these complementary provisions, then neither may the authority: the right of an owner to request that the adjudicator accept a late submission, and the adjudicator's corresponding power in this regard, is as fundamental as '28 days...'.
I ask the adjudicator to find that the decision notice is defective in this regard and that this is a procedural impropriety. I would add that, should the authority respond to this by reference to the tribunal form [referred to as an 'information sheet'] enclosed with the notice, I submit that this is not part of the notice, it is as they say an information sheet prepared by the tribunal to assist appellants and does not relieve the authority of its duty under regulation 11(in fact in some material respects it contains information contrary to regulation 13, but as this is purely an administrative document which attempts to capture the tribunal's practice as well as give an overview of the appeals process, nothing lies against the tribunal because of this).
The authority's failure to give 13(2)(b) is as improper as would be a failure to state 13(2)(a).
Thanks, exactly what I wanted to see.
Grounds of appeal
at least Procedural impropriety
I would refer the adjudicator to the council's decision notice which states the following:
'You have the right to appeal...before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service[of the notice]'
and:
At that stage[that is prospective service of a Charge Certificate on expiry of the 28-day period] you have no further opportunity to appeal'
This is grossly misleading.
The first requirement of Appeals Regulation 11 is:
11(a): [the decision notice must] inform R of R’s right to appeal to an adjudicator under regulation 13,
As the adjudicator will know, as regards appealing to the adjudicator, Regulation 13 provides:
An appeal under this regulation must be made within—
2(a)the period of 28 days beginning with date of service of the decision notice under regulation 12(4)(b) informing P of P’s right to appeal under this regulation, or
(b)such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.
The decision notice omits 13(2)(b) in its entirety. However, I submit that as the regulation does not distinguish between the importance of these complementary provisions, then neither may the authority: the right of an owner to request that the adjudicator accept a late submission, and the adjudicator's corresponding power in this regard, is as fundamental as '28 days...'.
I ask the adjudicator to find that the decision notice is defective in this regard and that this is a procedural impropriety. I would add that, should the authority respond to this by reference to the tribunal form [referred to as an 'information sheet'] enclosed with the notice, I submit that this is not part of the notice, it is as they say an information sheet prepared by the tribunal to assist appellants and does not relieve the authority of its duty under regulation 11(in fact in some material respects it contains information contrary to regulation 13, but as this is purely an administrative document which attempts to capture the tribunal's practice as well as give an overview of the appeals process, nothing lies against the tribunal because of this).
The authority's failure to give 13(2)(b) is as improper as would be a failure to state 13(2)(a).
Thanks a lot for this, I'll try and include it in on top of my other points.
Just to be clear as well, they did not include this information sheet with their decision letter. Not sure how that would affect this or how I would prove it, but I'll also add that as another additional point.
This looks hopeless for them. I'll be surprised if they contest it.
Just to be clear as well, they did not include this information sheet with their decision letter. Not sure how that would affect this or how I would prove it, but I'll also add that as another additional point.
A decision notice(commonly referred to as Notice of Rejection of Representations) must comply with Appeals Regulation 11.
But it doesn't.
The fundamental element of a NOR is to advise the owner of their rights of appeal. Appeals Reg 13 gives these i.e. a statutory right, providing an appeal is submitted within the 28-day period AND the opportunity to submit a late appeal which at their sole discretion the adjudicator may register.
Two complementary elements, IMO both as important as the other.
How dare the council not notify you correctly, even worse to purport to remove the adjudicator's power just because the council might issue a CC 'at this stage you would have lost...b******s!!).
If a hearing does go ahead the adjudicator won't look at all grounds if they find on one and the lack of the entry sign is likely to be the simple one to assess first and cut and dried and Bob's your uncle.
OP, I appear to have my Appeals references mixed up.
I have rewritten below:
I would refer the adjudicator to the council's decision notice which states the following:
'You have the right to appeal...before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service[of the notice]'
and:
At that stage[that is prospective service of a Charge Certificate on expiry of the 28-day period] you have no further opportunity to appeal'
This is grossly misleading.
The requirement of Appeals Regulation 6(6)(iii) is that a decision notice must:
(iii)describe the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made,
This is set out in Regulation 7 which I have set out in full:
Appeal to an adjudicator against a decision to reject a recipient’s representations
7.—(1) A recipient may appeal to an adjudicator against an enforcement authority’s decision not to accept their representations.
(2) An appeal under this regulation must be made within—
(a)the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the decision notice under regulation 6(4)(b) which states that the enforcement authority does not accept the recipient’s representations, or
(b)such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.
Regulation 7(2) contains two distinct but complementary elements namely an appellant's statutory right and the right to submit, and for the adjudicator to accept, an appeal made late. I would submit that both elements are of equal importance as regards 'the form and manner in which an appeal to the adjudicator must be made'.
The council's decision notice not only omits Regulation 7(2)(b), it compounds this by stating that 'At that stage [the service of a Charge Certificate after 28 days]you have no further opportunity to appeal.
I ask the adjudicator to find that the decision notice is defective in this regard and that this is a procedural impropriety. I would add that, should the authority respond to this by reference to the tribunal form [referred to as an 'information sheet'] enclosed with the notice, I submit that this is not part of the notice, it is as they say an information sheet prepared by the tribunal to assist appellants and does not relieve the authority of its duty under regulation 11(in fact in some material respects it contains information contrary to regulation 13, but as this is purely an administrative document which attempts to capture the tribunal's practice as well as give an overview of the appeals process, nothing lies against the tribunal because of this).
The authority's failure to give 7(2)(b) is as improper as would be a failure to state 7(2)(a).
