Free Traffic Legal Advice

I had already filed the appeal on their website before seeing your reply, and so just selected I’m not the owner and gave my details which it accepted without asking further details. Incase they do ask, I have power of attorney for my dad.

Hi @Hippocrates and @Incandescent. Hope you’re well. In case you hadn’t had a chance to see my update re my appeal rejection, I wondered if you could please give me your quick thoughts on this today, as I have until today to decide to pay the lesser amount or appeal further to take this to a hearing. Thank you in advance!!

Not many contributors on here are so heroic as Mr Hippocrates, but two others need mentioning that do offer to act as representatives, Mr Mustard, and, of course, our esteemed administrator, CP8759. All of these charge no fees, so act as the lawyers say, pro bono, but may well ask for a charitable contribution after a win, or some travel expenses. However, you'd have to ask them.  As most adjudications nowadays are phone or (at the TPT) videos as well, there is no travel.

Basically, like me, they are all completely fed up with the venality and rapacity of councils and Transport for London who are ruthlessly enforcing things that really have no traffic management benefit whatsoever, but they get the money rolling in. No doubt the heads of departments involved get substantial bonuses every year too. It's been like this since 1991, so I doubt it's going to be reformed any time soon.

The video hearings cost me a fortune in Nivea. 

Case won.    2250187549  @Nik Well done for staying the course.

Skeleton argument re 2250187549: basic nitty-gritty stuff.

1. In Evidence B the council states: The Council is satisfied that we have followed procedures for dealing with appeasl as set down in Schedule I of the London Local Authorities Act 1996 (as amended)…..
2. The NOR states: The signage is lit from dusk till dawn and vehicle headlights further illuminate the signs and road markings. This statement is not corroborated by the video. Further, I put the council to strict proof that the sign to diagram 953 was illuminated on the day in question.
3. The photographs provided at Evidence H are of little evidential value.
4. I make this collateral challenge against the validity of the PCN as it is missing mandatory information as provided at Para. 4 (8 ) (v) of https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted

              (v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased
                  charge may be payable.  
                                   
                Clearly, this refers to Para. 4 (8 ) (iii):

              (iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning
                    with the date of the notice;

Therefore, it follows that the statement: If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make  representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £195 may be payable. adds to the lack of clarity by its omission. Even on its own, whether the required information was included or not, it is also arguable that it conflates the two periods using the word "or" which many would view as being conjunctive. Furthermore, even if the statement were to be interpreted disjunctively, there is still no clarity due to the missing information.
In light of the above, I ask that the appeal be allowed.