Upright members will have been appalled at my previous report of a foreigner without a hat affecting trespass to my windshield wiper.
Not only that, when I appealed against a parking ticket, they said a traffic warden doesn't have to wear his hat. Well, so then I threw paragraph 8.6 at them that says he should..
Then they sent a witness statement by this unspeakable person to the traffic tribunal claiming he had his hat on after all! I claimed this was equivalent to perjury and pointed out they'd completely changed their defence.
Anyway, the details mount up but the tribunal found another technicality to get them on after our stories varied about the hat.
The Council had sent a Notice to Owner stating that a declaration had to be signed for the Council to consider a representation against the ticket. This isn't true. It could be done by email for example which I did.
The Council made an untrue statement which constitutes a procedural impropriety.
Anyone who gets such a Notice to Owner can appeal and quote appeals BB 05283G (my appeal) and BB05281M ( another appeal) where this impropriety was held.
see also
viewtopic.php?f=4&t=1586
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
