Free Traffic Legal Advice

Quote from: flash2005 on January 13, 2024, 07:04:23 pm

Please see the draft appeal here (link below) which combines the strategy from both @cp8759 and @mrmustard.  Kindly let me know any feedback.  Commenting privileges are enabled in the document.

Appeal Draft

Needs to be tidied up. But the basic points are there.

Many thanks.
Can you suggest what tidying up is required, as I have tried to do the best possible draft.  If you need edit access please click on the button in google docs.

I would not deploy the link tactic at this stage: it's warning them that they have a problem and they can fix it by opening the link. A failure to consider at the informal stage has very little weight, you really need them to fail to open the link now when they consider your challenge to the notice to owner. You would then deploy the click statistics at the tribunal stage, when it's too late for the council to go back and remedy their error.

On the second ground (date of service vs date of contravention), there are these three cases you can cite:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1RJouvEIzKoxr0VLtZ6EnMSiquc3Y9QMT/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1qjkKYJxAHhFvrWhpwTqGwhrUfa-pD5Sv/view
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1HLgXkoFeKSPDT1k09A_jPyaybFvP98ac/view

I would quote them by only giving the names of the parties, to Richard Weisz v London Borough of Barnet, Malcolm Newman v London Borough of Hounslow and Branislav Baca v Portsmouth City Council, that way they're far less likely to claim they looked them up in the register (and the last one can't be looked up anyway).

You then have multiple links and to prove they've considered the representations as required by law they would have to open all four, which they're unlikely to do.

I've also added a few comments to the google doc.

I have made the suggested changes in the document.  Please let me know if there is any further feedback.  I haven't added the final links yet to reduce the risk of accidental clicks.

@cp8759 - There is still time available for the appeal, but I wanted to check if there is any further feedback ?

There are good vibes. 

The council has rejected the formal representation.  No links have been clicked either from the first appeal or the second representation. Please see below
Can I get advice on the next steps please ?  @Hippocrates, @cp8759, @mrmustard

+1
It is now a complete no-brainer to take them to London Tribunals as they have not re-offered the discount, and the penalty remains the same and there are no additional costs.

The wording issue was tried by me last week and failed I am sorry to say.  I used two of those cases.  I also understand from  Mr Mustard that EH has now changed his mind?

Re served/delivered:  the deemed date of receipt is Monday the 29th. If you wanted to take the risk and apply to the Tribunal on the very last day of 28 days beginning with that date (you can work it out when it is), and they serve a charge certificate, that would certainly prove prejudice.

I also used the served/delivered argument in the same case last week which the adjudicator did not address in the decision so I am seeking a review.  In that case, the appellant did not receive the NOR until 3 days after the deemed date of service.

As usual, when "the usual suspects" employ technical arguments, it's in the lap of the gods these days.

As for examples of appeal, if you mean cases in support I am unsure at present.  Also, adjudicators do not like being inundated with others' decisions unless one is very specific about what in the decision applies to your case.

I would have to check the representations against the NOR to see if there is any failure to consider. Some adjudicators, even if there is a clear failure to consider a technical argument, will still refuse an appeal on said issue if they do  not agree with it.  Cannot access them anymore.

Just giving balanced and pragmatic advice.  As Incandescent says, now a no-brainer.