This is going further, I can assure you all.
LPS would expect a seasoned formal representative such as Mr Phillip Morgan to have foresight
enough that were he to view an issue that relates to his appellants PCN, that he would record this
supposed issue. Except in this circumstance, Mr Morgan has viewed no such issue on this PCN and has
made a statement he knows not to be true as he has clearly not been privy to the PCN website on this
PCN prior to appeal, hence the lack of actual evidence against this PCN.
Formal complaint registered and FOIR too.
If Mr Chan can entertain the notion of costs against representatives, then surely what is sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander. My fresh evidence was dismissed and I wonder why my name doesn't even appear anymore in decisions - not that I care. This evidence could not possibly have been placed before the adjudicator before the time it was adduced by me.
************
Dear Sir or Madam
Complaint
I refer to this statement from yourselves as stated ......... attached:
LPS would expect a seasoned formal representative such as Mr Phillip Morgan to have foresight enough that were he to view an issue that relates to his appellants PCN, that he would record this supposed issue. Except in this circumstance, Mr Morgan has viewed no such issue on this PCN and has made a statement he knows not to be true as he has clearly not been privy to the PCN website on this PCN prior to appeal, hence the lack of actual evidence against this PCN.
This is tantamount to calling me a liar.
If this weren't bad enough, you also said this about me in Heather Sullivan v London Borough of Lewisham Case No: 225006218A and the other linked cases:
In response to the Mr Morgans comments regarding the website threatening, LPS must advise that the website text is not threatening or inviting the appellant to abandon the appeal process. LPS would like to point out that just because Mr Morgan has wrongly perceived the website text as a threat, this does not make it so. Mr Morgan has been privy to the prior website wording which was considered threatening by an adjudicator and has since seen it corrected accordingly. As no such threatening wording or phrases are present, LPS must conclude that this is an attempt to waste adjudicator and LPS time due to lack of actual evidence in the favour of the appellant, due to the PCN’s being valid and correctly issued.
Any further assertions from Mr Phillip Morgan that the website dates are wrong are a waste of LPS and adjudicator time and LPS will ignore any further misinformation regarding what dates are shown on the website.
Ironically, Adjudicator Kaler agreed with me.
While I did not seek costs with regard to the latter case(s), I shall be doing so in 225009462A whether the review is allowed or not.
Therefore, I make the following Freedom of Information Request in terms of your website and PCNs for moving traffic contraventions.
I am aware that you have redacted "Also acts as Notice to Owner" from your PCNs. Please say when and why?
I am also aware that you have also amended your website as attached i.e. at the early stage of the process. Please say when and why?
Yours faithfully
Tommy Poirot
