on: September 16, 2026, 10:22:12 pm
#1
Their NORs state this which is factually incorrect in terms of the second phrase: "The Adjudicator is independent and both sides must accept the Adjudicator's decision."
This is a misstatement of the statutory process and I say it is designed to discourage an appellant from appealing to the Tribunal.
This reminds me of previous misinformation on their website some years ago when they stated all London Councils do not need certificates for bus lane cameras.
Their responses:
Lawyer
I responded on behalf of the Council to your specific request for the date the Website was revised made by your email on 08/03/23. The removed text was factually inaccurate and hence its removal once it was drawn to the Council’s attention.
Since my client has been copied into this email exchange I will leave it to the Parking Service to issue an apology for the inaccuracy.
Parking manager
I am happy to apologise for this piece of inaccurate information, which was on the Council’s website prior to 21st February 2023. I arranged for the removal of this text as soon as the matter came to my attention.
Last Edit: September 16, 2026, 10:34:11 pm by Hippocrates
Logged
@ALL MEMBERS
I HAVE A HIGH COURT CASE RE JUDICIAL REVIEW BUT WILL DO MY BEST TO ADVISE AND TAKE ON CASES IF AT ALL POSSIBLE.
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"