OP, based upon this decision alone I would consider an application for review.
It is known, or should be known, that the complexity and clarity of the grounds
which apply to shared use permit and payment bays(code 12) is not a silver bullet argument at adjudication. I put it this way because the code is NOT IMO part of the grounds, it is an administrative measure included within PCNs by authorities. IMO, a correct reading of the law in this regard should give the list of grounds followed by a code, not a code followed by grounds: the law is only interested in grounds. It's not done this way because numerical order looks neater and computers find it easier to manage.
So, IMO code 12 and 's' should be ignored when assessing whether the grounds convey the contravention with sufficient clarity. Having said this, the approved grounds don't include the words '(shared use bay)' but where London Councils' Contravention Codes include a suffix it always includes a written description e.g. 'General Suffixes ..s) shared use bay''.
But this omission wasn't put to the authority in formal reps*.
But I would focus on this part of the decision:
'The Regulations state that....the NTO should include the address of any website where representations may be submitted online. The Notice to Owner includes the Council's website address. The Regulations do not refer to what information a council should provide on their websites.'
Give us a break!
Is the adjudicator seriously suggesting that the requirement that 'a website where representations may be submitted' may exclude whatever grounds the council decide and yet still satisfy the requirement that representations may be submitted! FFS.
*- I'm not in favour of 'ambushing' authorities at adjudication with arguments that could and IMO should have been put to them in formal reps but which were deliberately omitted in order to test a point only directly with an adjudicator when it would be virtually certain that the authority would not be represented.
But this view is not unanimous?
