Author Topic: Enfield Code 27 CEO said to appeal  (Read 950 times)

0 Members and 275 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: Enfield Code 27 CEO said to appeal
« Reply #15 on: »
2 items totalling the weight of a bag of dishwasher salt i.e. 3kg.

If this is your proof then IMO do not risk the discount on this point.

Hi H C Andersen. Does the OP recently having had shoulder surgery, mean that the usual 'heavy and bulky' requirement for loading / unloading could be adjudicated upon more leniently?

Re: Enfield Code 27 CEO said to appeal
« Reply #16 on: »
Who knows? Define 'bulky' and then provide some proof.

The burden of (b)the delivery, collection, loading or unloading cannot reasonably be carried out in relation to those premises without the vehicle being parked as mentioned in subsection (1) is heavy, and for a good reason.


There's no mention of any time imperative or constraints in this case AND the OP was clearly fit enough to drive in the first instance.

If the OP thinks they're entitled to rely upon the exception and could persuade an adjudicator to their cause at a hearing with their limited credibility and objective evidence then they should carry on.
Like Like x 1 View List

Re: Enfield Code 27 CEO said to appeal
« Reply #17 on: »
I paid this as didnt want it hanging over my head like the sword of damacles or something...

Thanks for the help anyway, lesson learnt!