Grounds for the application1. From the outset, Mr ***** raised the issue of camera certification and authorisation which was intransigently resisted by the council.
2. The council were fully aware that they, the council, did not possess a valid certificate until they applied for one on 9th August 2023. Yet, they persisted in relying solely upon their manufacturer’s certificate, the terms of which are abundantly clear.
3. The council only adduced as evidence the said manufacturer’s certificate and I say this is wholly unreasonable.
4. The evidence clearly shows that Bromley were one of two councils who were rather tardy in applying for their certificate which they knew post-dated the alleged contravention. Yet, they still resisted Mr ****’s valid issues raised, resulting in far too copious and unnecessary correspondence throughout the unnecessarily prolonged statutory process.
In light of the above, I consider that the council’s conduct in its pursuit of this case to be wholly unreasonable. I enclose Mr ****'s Witness Statement vis a vis costs post the Notice of Rejection which I consider to be wholly fair and reasonable under the circumstances.
I also said it was arguable that the provision of just the manufacturer's certificate, but not the council's certificate, was disingenuous. (Pronounced incorrectly as per my Celtic tendency!) At least I am not as garrulous as I used to be.
Decision to follow.
Mountain climber do say:
To win an appeal is like climbing Mt. Everest. To win costs is like climbing said mountain without oxygen equipment. But, yesterday, we ran up and down in about 5 minutes!
