Free Traffic Legal Advice

I just see one page.

We seem to have screenshots of the pages rather than just the images themselves, makes them smaller than would be ideal.

However, the front page is perfectly clear and it contains a fatal error.

It says that payment must be made 'not later that the last day of the period fo 28 days beginning with the date of this Enforcement Notice'.

The law, the London Local Authorities Act 1996 sets the time limit as being 28 days from service of the Enforcement Notice (in para 1(2)(c) of Schedule 1).

Probably best let me represent you (free of charge) maisiethecat. If you want that please send me a complete copy of the Enforcement Notice by email to mrmustard@zoho.com

We seem to have screenshots of the pages rather than just the images themselves, makes them smaller than would be ideal.

However, the front page is perfectly clear and it contains a fatal error.

It says that payment must be made 'not later that the last day of the period fo 28 days beginning with the date of this Enforcement Notice'.

The law, the London Local Authorities Act 1996 sets the time limit as being 28 days from service of the Enforcement Notice (in para 1(2)(c) of Schedule 1).

Probably best let me represent you (free of charge) maisiethecat. If you want that please send me a complete copy of the Enforcement Notice by email to mrmustard@zoho.com

ah thankyou very much,  I will send a copy over to you,  im scanning it with my mobile as the scanner has broken at work   

will of course donate to your charity, very good one aswell.

Quick question, what stops them re issuing the enforcement notice correctly or is that not allowed by law?

thanks

thankyou so much,   do they have same time to reply to that representation,   from memory 56 days?


Appreciate the help

To bring everyone up to date.

Havering rejected the representations on 26 October but didn't bother to mention them in the rejection, just that the vehicle was in the bus lane.

I started an Appeal on 3 November on the basis that the Notice of Rejection was inadequate and unlawful + the representations themselves were still live.

Yesterday, Havering decided to 'Do not contest' the Appeal.

Hurrah.

To bring everyone up to date.

Havering rejected the representations on 26 October but didn't bother to mention them in the rejection, just that the vehicle was in the bus lane.

I started an Appeal on 3 November on the basis that the Notice of Rejection was inadequate and unlawful + the representations themselves were still live.

Yesterday, Havering decided to 'Do not contest' the Appeal.

Hurrah.

Require them to say why, I would.  May have something to do with my previous post.

Appalling conduct in the other case and equally appalling advice given to them by some lawyer a year ago re the camera issue.

If anyone wants to listen in, please do.

Good luck with your costs application.

I can't find it offhand but there is a tribunal decision by Mr Chan that the costs of a representative are not the costs of the Appellant (especially as I work pro bono - for free) and given that 95% of the time spent is by the representative I no longer regard it as worthwhile to make costs applications. The Appeal was only 127 words which did not take long to formulate so any claim would be a minimal amount. The main cost comes from considering the evidence pack, writing the skeleton argument and attending the tribunal in person, none of which happened.

Agreed.

Mr Harman allowed costs in a Kingston case in January but not to the representative.  Fair enough.

Case reference 2220812407
Appellant Michael Jenkins
Authority Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames
VRM GK68LWO
Decision Cost award allowed
PCN Details
PCN QT06661986
Contravention date 01 Sep 2022
Contravention time 17:12:00
Contravention location Eden Street E/B between junctions with Union St/St James Rd & Brook St
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Being in a bus lane
Referral date
Decision Date 05 Dec 2022
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Enforcement Notice.
Reasons The appellant appeared before me today represented by Mr Morgan, who sought to challenge his liability for this bus lane penalty charge on the grounds set out in his speaking note provided to me today. He relied upon Mr Stanton Dunne's decision in Davy Georges Duthieuw (2220486482). He said that Mr Stanton Dunne was considering a further bus lane appeal arising from proceedings brought by Barnet Council. Although I said at the hearing that that case had been decided that is not in fact so.

Evidence of this incident was gathered by cctv camera. Such evidence is I find only admissible before this tribunal if it is produced by a prescribed device that has been approved by the Secretary of State. The council does not appear to adduce evidence on either point. Its camera evidence is not therefore admissible, and, in its absence, I cannot be satisfied that the contravention occurred. The appeal is accordingly allowed without consideration of any of the other issues raised by either party to the proceedings.
Authority Response
Cost Details
Application by Appellant
Decision date 30 Jan 2023
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Decision Cost award allowed
Direction -
Reasons I allowed this appeal on 05 12 22 at a personal hearing both the appellant and his representative Mr Morgan appearing before me. Mr Morgan appeared before me again today to argue his application for an order for costs and expenses against the council the grounds thereof being set out on his email of 17 12 22 supported by his witness statement of 09 12 22 and that of the appellant of the same date. The council was put on notice as to the application but has made no submissions in response thereto. Upon reserving my decision. Evidence of this incident was gathered by cctv camera. Such evidence was I found only admissible before this tribunal if it was produced by a prescribed device that had been approved by the Secretary of State. The council did not adduce evidence on either point. I am satisfied in the absence thereof and on the facts of this specific case this issue having been raised in correspondence with it that it acted wholly unreasonably in contesting the appeal. I make no other finding in respect of any of the other grounds raised by Mr Morgan. I am empowered to make an award in respect of an appellant's costs and expenses but not in respect of those incurred by a representative. I make an award in respect of the appellant's expenses in full.