Free Traffic Legal Advice

The rejection notice from Birmingham states ‘There is no charge for appealing and costs are not normally awarded. Details about when an order for costs can be made can be found on the website, or by calling the number above"

6aii as below https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348231564 provides (6) If the enforcement authority does not accept the representations, its decision notice—
 (a)must—

... (ii)indicate the nature of an adjudicator’s power to award costs, ‘

 I argued at Traffic Penalty Tribunal that indicating the nature means stating the circumstances (vexatious/ frivolous). The adjudicator said that it was sufficient to say that costs were rare and it was ok to direct me elsewhere for more information.  The adjudicator also said it was immaterial as there was no impact on the course.

I requested a review that there was an error in law that Halton v Curzon https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2023/303.html seems to make clear that more information is needed to show the 'nature'

I also said it does not matter if the wrong wording is material to the case l, if there is a procedural impropriety then then that is enough.

Also there is an element of discrimination as not everyone can go to a website or make the call to find out more hence why the nature 'must'  be on the rejection letter.

The review was dismissed and that it should go to the high court to review an error in law.

Thoughts?

Council rejection notice is here
https://imgur.com/a/L1z69o1

Links to regulations are in original post

If you were reviewing compliance with the regulations, is what Birmingham have said sufficient?

We still have not seen the TPT decisions...

This is the statement on the review request rejection

Mr X pplies for the review of the appeal decision, dated 23rd October 2024,  in the interests of justice, relying on a perceived error of law.

An application for review is not a further appeal, it is an assessment as to whether the appeal adjudicator’s decision was wholly unreasonable on the evidence submitted by the parties. The appeal adjudicator has addressed the key issue in this case (whether a contravention occurred) as well as properly addressing the legal issue raised regarding costs (see paragraphs 2-4 of the written determination).  The adjudicator correctly identified no procedural impropriety or unfairness (see R (on the application of Bedi) v the Traffic Adjudicator [2022] EWHC 1795 (Admin)).
That X disagrees with the adjudicator and considers that more information should be provided regarding costs (that are not the norm in this jurisdiction) is acknowledged, but this cannot amount to a ground for review. 

In the R (on the application of Transport for London) v London Tribunals (Environment and Traffic Adjudicators) and Commercial Plant Services [2023] EWHC 2889 (Admin) , the Court underlined the limitations of the review process, clarifying that the “interests of justice” ground for review does not permit review on the basis that the decision in question was wrong in law. At paragraph 26 the learned Judge concluded: “ If the losing party wishes to challenge a decision on the basis it was wrong in law the correct route is by application for judicial review to this court, not an application under paragraph 12 for a review on the interests of justice ground.”

A contravention having occurred, the application for a review is rejected.

The appeal remains refused for the reasons provided to the parties.

But if you're flush with money......

IMO, although identifying grounds is helpful to an adjudicator they would not be acting fairly if they could identify other material irregularities in the enforcement which would justify/necessitate allowing an appeal which they chose to ignore. 

The errors I pointed out should IMO, have been obvious to any competent adjudicator and any application to the High Court should consider the decision in the round and not just on the narrow point upon which you focused.

But life's short and perhaps you should just move on?