1 August 2018

Case summary confusion

As part of the evidence pack which enforcement authorities have to submit to London Tribunals at least 3 clear days in advance of the hearing, is a case summary which is meant to give the adjudicator an overview of the case, address all the issues raised, summarise the council's case, make submissions & comment on the representations made by the Appellant. 

It should, of course, be even-handed as it is the duty of the council to assist the tribunal, not to mislead.

Mr Mustard finds Barnet Council's case summaries to be verbose, inaccurate and partial.

Looking at the extract above, for a case coming up next week, the first thing to note is the council have failed to check it before submission. They comment both upon fact that the appellant (the registered keeper of the car & the driver in this instance) was collecting their child from their school (and there isn't a school in the road in question) and that they were dropping off elderly relatives. Both statements are not true, the second one is.

The council omit the part of the TMO (Traffic Management Order) which allows 2 minutes for anyone to be collected or dropped off. One of the passengers being dropped off is a blue badge holder so by (current) definition has mobility problems, or is blind. For such passengers there isn't a 2 minute limit.

The council apply a ridiculous and unsafe rule for boarding and alighting of children, that you cannot leave the vehicle unattended. There are keep clear zig zag markings outside most schools so you can't get that near especially with the parental competition for space at drop off and pick-up times. At what age is it safe to sit in your car whilst your child exits the school gates and comes to find you, when they don't know if they should go left or right or across the road? Mr Mustard isn't a parent so asked one and the answer was not until year 6, when the child will most likely be 11.

It doesn't matter how credible the council think the traffic warden (CEO) is. What matters is what the adjudicator thinks, as one told them a long time ago, as it is their job to weight up the evidence in an Appeal, not the council's.

There wasn't any catering going on, as the council suggest.

The second observation time is before the initial observation time!

This is an example of how you need to read the evidence pack slowly & carefully and point out the flaws in the council's case, which even if not fatal to it, may undermine it enough for you to get the benefit of the doubt when the adjudicator would otherwise be unsure of what decision to make.

Mr Mustard doesn't mind that Barnet Council write utter tripe so often, it helps him to win.

Yours frugally

Mr Mustard

No comments:

Post a Comment

I now moderate comments in the light of the Delfi case. Due to the current high incidence of spam I have had to turn word verification on.