Free Traffic Legal Advice

This is the statement on the review request rejection

Mr X pplies for the review of the appeal decision, dated 23rd October 2024,  in the interests of justice, relying on a perceived error of law.

An application for review is not a further appeal, it is an assessment as to whether the appeal adjudicator’s decision was wholly unreasonable on the evidence submitted by the parties. The appeal adjudicator has addressed the key issue in this case (whether a contravention occurred) as well as properly addressing the legal issue raised regarding costs (see paragraphs 2-4 of the written determination).  The adjudicator correctly identified no procedural impropriety or unfairness (see R (on the application of Bedi) v the Traffic Adjudicator [2022] EWHC 1795 (Admin)).
That X disagrees with the adjudicator and considers that more information should be provided regarding costs (that are not the norm in this jurisdiction) is acknowledged, but this cannot amount to a ground for review. 

In the R (on the application of Transport for London) v London Tribunals (Environment and Traffic Adjudicators) and Commercial Plant Services [2023] EWHC 2889 (Admin) , the Court underlined the limitations of the review process, clarifying that the “interests of justice” ground for review does not permit review on the basis that the decision in question was wrong in law. At paragraph 26 the learned Judge concluded: “ If the losing party wishes to challenge a decision on the basis it was wrong in law the correct route is by application for judicial review to this court, not an application under paragraph 12 for a review on the interests of justice ground.”

A contravention having occurred, the application for a review is rejected.

The appeal remains refused for the reasons provided to the parties.

Council rejection notice is here
https://imgur.com/a/L1z69o1

Links to regulations are in original post

If you were reviewing compliance with the regulations, is what Birmingham have said sufficient?

The council have issued the camera approval letter from 2013 - should approval not be renewed periodically?

My challenge was rejected. I challenged that it was missing statutory grounds

(g)the order which is alleged to have been contravened in relation to the vehicle concerned, except where it is an order to which Part 6 of Schedule 9 to the RTRA 1984 applies, is invalid;

The council say this only relates to parking . Is that correct

I also put in mitigation that all the road changes, temp road works meant I had spent a very long time driving around trying to get to a hotel to deliver a hospital bed (personal use,). It really was a nightmare.

Council response below.
https://imgur.com/a/L1z69o1.

I am looking to formulate an appeal as the discount has already been lost. I miscalculated the days.

A] re: The recipient (“R”) of an approved device notice may, by notice in writing, request that the enforcement authority—
provides R, free of charge, with such still images from that record as, in the authority’s opinion, establish the alleged relevant road traffic contravention.

Does item 6 under Do not ignore this notice cover this point as it explains how to view the video? Although it doesn't explicitly say whether the address should be the addresses that appear elsewhere on the notice.


B]  Happy to challenge this missing element but does it usually appear on PCNs? (g)the order which is alleged to have been contravened in relation to the vehicle concerned, except where it is an order to which Part 6 of Schedule 9 to the RTRA 1984 applies, is invalid;

C] Is this a regulation 9  or 10 notice? should it explicitly state that

in the replies Phantomcrusader suggested to challenge because it doesn't include the grounds that (i)the enforcement notice should not have been served because—

(i)the penalty charge has already been paid in full, or
(ii)the penalty charge has been paid, reduced by the amount of any discount set in accordance with Schedule 9 to the TMA 2004, by the applicable date as specified in paragraph 1(3) of Schedule 3 to the 2022 General Regulations.


However the regs say Notice to Owner and I received a PCN so surely the above grounds do not apply.