3. *Split from hijacked thread* - Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
« previous next »
Pages: 1 2 [3]

Author Topic: *Split from hijacked thread* - Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E  (Read 12737 times)

0 Members and 72 Guests are viewing this topic.

Re: *Split from hijacked thread* - Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
« Reply #30 on: »
Thank you for correcting my terminology about a failure to consider. The appeal has gone in with a brief set of bullet points comprising the grounds in the representations, the failure to consider and, as an additional ground, failure to ensure that the sign advising the use of Traffic Enforcement Cameras was visible.

I attach a draft of the main submission. Comments and suggestions for improvement welcome.

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]
Logged
Re: *Split from hijacked thread* - Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E
« Reply #31 on: »
• contrary to the Home Office’s Surveillance Camera Code of Practice, there is no
visible warning of the use of traffic enforcement cameras;

Forget this.

I would use the decisions and am happy to give you privately the submissions I made.  I know you want your day in Court;  but,.............
« Last Edit: February 07, 2025, 08:34:03 pm by Hippocrates »
Logged
@Incandescent!

I AM ABLE TO TAKE ON MORE CASES AS A REPRESENTATIVE AT THE LONDON TRIBUNALS. I HATE RETIREMENT.


If you do not challenge, you join "The Mugged Club".

cp8759 and mrmustard are true geniuses. I know my place in the hierarchy of The Three Musketeers. 😊 "The Clinician", "The Gentleman" and "The Showman"

There are "known knowns" which we may never have wished to know. This applies to them. But in the field the idea that there are also "unknown unknowns" doesn't apply as they hide in the aleatoric lottery. I know this is true and need to be prepared knowing the "unknown unknowns" may well apply.

To Socrates from "Hippocrates"
Pages: 1 2 [3]
« previous next »
  3. *Split from hijacked thread* - Re: Harrow Camrose Avenue Bus Gate 33E