This case has been going on for a while now and ,rather than explain all the details, I will let the council and TPT's responses speak for themselves.
This is the original ticket:
[IMG]http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h218/flopperk/Front.jpg[/IMG]
I made reps on the fact the yellow lines were clearly non-compliant ( large breaks, no t-bar)
the response:
[IMG]http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h218/flopperk/img001-1.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h218/flopperk/img002-1.jpg[/IMG]
Note the dismissive nature of the points raised on the yellow lines and the compliance with RTA. More points raised by me and a bit more legal stuff entered into got this:
[IMG]http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h218/flopperk/img009.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h218/flopperk/img011.jpg[/IMG]
Then came the Adjudication:
[IMG]http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h218/flopperk/Appeal1.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h218/flopperk/Appeal2.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h218/flopperk/Appeal3.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h218/flopperk/Appeal4.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h218/flopperk/Appeal5.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h218/flopperk/Appeal6.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h218/flopperk/Appeal7.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h218/flopperk/Appeal8.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h218/flopperk/Appeal9.jpg[/IMG]
I requested a review, raising the points as I would for a Judicial review and got this from another adjudicator:
[IMG]http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h218/flopperk/Review1.jpg[/IMG]
[IMG]http://i65.photobucket.com/albums/h218/flopperk/Review2.jpg[/IMG]
What does everyone think of that? If this isn't a display of 'wot she said' then I don't know what is! What points do they really trip up on and the Canadine case seems to be their counter to Davies v Heatley, does anyone have a copy?
Also the Robinson v Brighton case is different from this one as the driver is not the owner or registered keeper in this case.
Thoughts? Comments?