Free Traffic Legal Advice

thanks for your view @stamfordman, keen to understand what others also think.

ive drafted this just in case (see what you think), but am not hopeful...more than the cost/time, im thinking how the council could be deterred from taking these things always to the end even when they shouldnt- even tho the adjudicator accepted the evidence was there from outset, she doesnt seem to have told them off for any procedural impropriety. i can tell you though that he decided in literally 1 minute, ie it wasnt really a hearing, the outcome was a given ie obvious.

btw if i do go through with this, i assume i just upload this to the portal? or is there a different way to submit it?

To the Adjudicator 
Re: Case Reference 2250042794 
I respectfully submit an application for a cost order under Rule 13 of the Tribunal Procedure Rules, based on the following grounds:
• Unreasonable Conduct by the Council: 
  - The Council failed to consider the exemption under Article 11 at any stage of the process, despite it being raised from outset. 
  - An incorrect legal test was applied by the Council, requiring visual confirmation of alighting, which is not supported by the wording of the Order. 
  - The Council’s conduct prolonged the proceedings unnecessarily. 
• Findings of the Adjudicator: 
  - The exemption under Article 11 was accepted by the Adjudicator as having been satisfied through the evidence. 
  - The Council failed to engage with the substance of this evidence throughout its enforcement and appeal responses. 
• Request for Preparation Time Order: 
  - I have invested considerable unnecessary time (circa XX hours) preparing the appeal in response to the Council’s unreasonable stance, including reviewing legislation, compiling evidence, requesting advice and drafting submissions. 
  - Based on the prescribed hourly rate of £45, I request a Preparation Time Order of £XX. 
I trust that the Tribunal will give this application due consideration in light of the findings and the avoidable expenditure of time caused by the Council’s actions. 

Yours faithfully, 

Let me put a view:


I am satisfied [that although the vehicle was parked and unattended at the location on the balance of probabilities and] having heard the Appellant' oral evidence that this exemption [to assisted alighting] has been established.

That's it, and IMO not the stuff of a costs award.

Costs
13.—(1) An adjudicator must not normally make an order awarding costs and expenses.

(2) But, subject to sub-paragraph (3), an adjudicator may make an order awarding costs and expenses—

(a)against a party (including an appellant who has withdrawn an appeal or an enforcement authority which has consented to an appeal being allowed), if the adjudicator considers that—

(i)the party has acted frivolously or vexatiously, or

(ii)the party’s conduct in making, pursuing or resisting an appeal was wholly unreasonable;

(b)against an enforcement authority, where the adjudicator considers that the disputed decision was wholly unreasonable.

@stamfordman is it better to attend a cost application hearing in person or just let it to postal vote?

but i got asked:
Can you please confirm if you wish to attend a video hearing for the cost application or if this can be decided as a postal case which means you do not have to attend"