Free Traffic Legal Advice

@cp8759:  They have asked for a review. 

Los documentos estan para los servicios! Crackers! I have tried to phone  you but no answer. Do not worry.

FYI courtesy of cp8759:

Case Reference: 2230422726

DANIEL BRAZIL

-v-
London Borough of Brent

(the Enforcement Authority)

Vehicle Registration Number: WO06 LME
Penalty Charge Notice(s): BT19307832
The Authority seeks a further review.
The issue at the review was whether an Appellant serving a Notice under Paragraph 7(3) of the
London Local Authorities Act 1996 (as amended) can only do so by lodging the Notice via the
Tribunals’ portal.

One would expect the Authority to check the legislation before applying for a review. It would appear that it has not done so because it has not at any stage offered any submissions as to why the legislation requires it. Despite me pointing this out in the review decision, the Authority seeks a further review. Its reason is that it had not attended the hearing because it had not been asked to attend.
When parties receive notification that there will be a personal hearing, they decide whether to appear.
The Tribunal will not offer specific invitations.

I have already commented in my decision that the application was ill-conceived because the Authority has not identified any error on the adjudicator’s part. The application had not been dismissed summarily without a hearing simply because the Authority suggested that it would attend. I have therefore set the application down for a personal hearing, but the Authority’s case is that this is not good enough because it needed to be asked to attend. The second application is also baseless as a matter of law.

The application is refused.

I am asking the head of enforcement of the authority to confirm that its officers are adequately trained to conduct proceedings before this Tribunal.

Anthony Chan

Chief Adjudicator Environment and Traffic

I wager that, when the submissions are read, something entirely similar may well be rehearsed.   Hopefully, as their application cannot possibly satisfy any of the criteria for a review of the original decision. The adjudicator was entirely correct in everything he said - and so was the representative - re the inadmissibility of evidence. They did not even submit a Witness Statement. Enough for the time being.

Well, that says it all.  I think a costs application is in order since, this application not only demonstrates their total incompetence but also - and more importantly - the allegations that the representative had not followed due process and muddied the waters are wholly unreasonable. 

Costs allowed. £38.   2240093336

The council still owe the OP £2