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