iptable

That depends when you got your license. I wonder, is that weight with or without the driver and passengers? Weirdly it doesn't say. As they discriminating against heavy people? Surely everyone has a car scale in their garage to weigh it. Right, I'm loosing the plot here (or am I). Signing out. Thread done

So that was your experience whereas mine was that a solicitor agreed on the council side that it's unclear so they read it their way. Can you give it a rest? I have 3 solicitors now look into this, one says what you say, one say what I say and council one say it's cause it was simply badly written. I'm putting this to rest. "Perpetrator" means you work for the council by any chance trying to protect their interest...? Just saying. I'm off this thread, starting to get abuse is not a good thing.

Hi Gary, Not sure. They might have. These don't have to go on public record, so hard to find out without contacting local courts under the freedom of information act, which I can't be bothered with right now. EdwardsC, if one cuts trees down, then one is taken to court where one can defend their actions. So yes, it would go to court, as per proceedings requirements before a fine can be issued in this case. And yes, one could then argue the validity. The reason why s201 was rewritten is for that very reason. Because it was unclear and left open to interpretation. We could stop arguing now you know. They didn't rewrite it for fun. Kind Regards, Robert

Hi Jon, no need to get rude about this. I have checked the relevant parts and was quoting the TCPA 1990, s201 and s198. See all my posts on this, and yes, I have checked the relevant regulations from 1990 (for which the TCPA was quoted as made) onwards to 2002, when the TPO was made. I do know what law is, so does a solicitor I was consulting. I also didn't say my head hurt now, did I? EdwardC et all, I have received official confirmation from legal team at the council, which pretty much confirms we are all correct. Essentially, in a nutshell, they said that the TCPA1990 was unclear, i.e. it could be interpreted either way. Hence the 2012 regulations fixed this (to what it should have been, although they didn't use those words for ... well .. legal reasons) by making it clear how it is to be interpreted. Unfortunately, since the TCPA1990 was in force during this time, the "unclear" regulations were still in force. The gov interpreted the regulations, as you would expect, in a way that suited them. But, in writing, they confirmed it can be interpreted either way realistically due to a wording issue that shouldn't have been passed as law without a proper review. This means, in legal terms, that should a case go to court, one would have a coin-toss (50/50) chance of winning - making this a rather lousy chance to go on. So, we were all correct on this one, although the advise would be "do not cut the trees down without having the exception for your works sanctioned by the council". Should we put this thread to rest on this? Kind Regards, Robert

Yes, welcome to law, where a validity of legislation depends on the interpretation, rather than what it meant, because someone couldn't be bothered to use simple English. EdwardC, we will have to agree to disagree. Since the s199 sets out actual timing for when the order is enforceable and s201 overwrites the very first paragraph of it, I don't see how you can override s201 and perform a confirmation later (since it states that the order shall only continue in force until either a or b occurs, whichever is first, but not in order when both occur. Such provision for when both occur is not made at all - call it gray area if you will). The s199 is overwritten by virtue of s201 and sets out the timing for s198. I'll stop tormenting my brain now Kind Regards, Robert

Hi Edward / Gary, Many thanks for your response. Please see my responses inline for your consideration and comment. Agreed No - here is what we are disagreeing on. Section 201(2) clearly states: Notwithstanding section 199(1), an order which contains such a direction—... With the ... being the rest of section 201. Notwithstanding means replacing in legal terms. As such, if provision is made under 198 and 201 (like this one), then 199 is automatically in force and the 201(2) replaces 199(1). As such, section 198 allows to make the order provision and section 199 should be read as is, except for point(1), which is to be replaced in full by contents of 201(2). The s199 states when order is valid and when it isn't. This essentially makes the provision invalid after 6 months if not confirmed within that time (as part 1 of 199 is replaced by 201(2) as per 201 under which the notice is made). In 201(2), which now replaces 199(1): Notwithstanding section 199(1), an order which contains such a direction [...] shall continue in force by virtue of this section until [...six months OR confirmation...] whichever first occurs. I aim your attention at the wording of "AN ORDER which contains such direction" and "CONTINUE IN FORCE ... UNTIL" ... "WHICHEVER OCCURS FIRST". (upper case used to highlight specific words, not shouting, not to be interpreted as rude) Seriously, I will need details of why what I have just read, quoted and interpreted is wrong, if it is. The 1999 regs are not quoted as being used in this order instance, although if they were, TCPR1999(3)(2)(e) does allow to make the order under the TCPA1990(201). I don't see the point in bringing 1999 regs into this. The TCPR1999(5) is a procedure for confirmation. As such, it contains required procedures, not time limits, as per legislation usage guidance. The TCPR1999 altogether explains the procedure and order that the councils must follow when implementing TCPA1990, not the rules (or time limits therefor) within. I saw that guidance before. It is essentially incorrect and does not follow the actual legislative law. This could be the reason why it has been removed from guidance papers in many councils (although some used it) (source: I did call a lot of councils). In any case, guidance aside (not legally binding, does not carry legal weight, is simply a guidance, of which some parts may not be correct, or thereof ... - guidance papers on issued guidance papers - yes they exist, and say that guidance may be wrong!), here speaking of actual legislation which does carry legal weight. Kind Regards, Robert

Morning Gary, Thank you for the response. I am still failing to see what you have just said though. According to the link I sent (legislation gov uk): Which essentially, legally means, that the provision of TPO will be legally in effect for six months only or until confirmed, whichever occurs first (not "in the order in which they occur", which is another legal phrase, used to describe what you just described). This means, once one of the points (i) or (ii) occurs, the provision of 201 ends and is no longer in force with whatever effect the end of such s201 provision is (in this case, invalidation of the order). There is an "or" between the two points, legally specifying that it must be one OR the other, not one and the other some time later (i.e. both cannot occur, whichever comes firsts occurs ONLY). As (i) occurred only, the TPO is invalid. The (ii) can no longer occur legally, due to the "or" at the end of (i) in conjunction with "whichever first occurs". Please let me know if there is a provision in the legislation which makes the s201 only a guidance or makes it invalid, as the s201 provision is quite clear to me. Kind Regards, Robert

Hi EdwardC, The TPO was made under s201 of TCPA1990 (this is made clear in the first sentence of the TPO itself). According to the legislation (link below), the TPO is valid until 6 months from the date it was made or until confirmed, whichever comes clear. That's quite a clear confirmation that the TPO is invalid if not confirmed in 6 months - in actual legislation. This is quoting legislation under which the actual pre-2012 TPO was made. Doesn't appear to be a confusion in this. Since you are quoting the legislation, can you please explain which part of it pertains to overwrite the s201 (from link below) in actual legislative law? The 201 states clearly validity to one of 2 things happen, whichever is first, also quoting the 6 months exactly. This is based on the actual fact that '6 months is 6 months, just like legislation states, not 6 months and a week' in the same way that '30 mph limit is 30 mph limit, not 30 and 7', taking into account what the legislation states. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/201 If you can point me at a place of legislation which claims that the 201 is actually just advisable, not enforcable, or indeed overwrites 201, I would be grateful. Kind Regards, Rob

Hi Gary, The TPO was made under s201 of TCPA1990 (this is made clear in the first sentence of the TPO itself). According to the legislation (link below), the TPO is valid until 6 months from the date it was made or until confirmed, whichever comes clear. That's quite a clear confirmation that the TPO is invalid if not confirmed in 6 months - in actual legislation. This is quoting legislation under which the actual pre-2012 TPO was made. Doesn't appear to be a confusion in this. Let me know if I missed something crucial, though it seems very clear what it means. https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/1990/8/section/201 Kind Regards, Rob