Posts

 

Please refer to London Underground – Ruislip Manor case study

 

From: Peter Silverman [mailto:p@petersilverman.com]

Sent: 04 November 2011 15:01
To: ‘julien.vantyghem@hmcts.gsi.gov.uk’
Subject: Case 011102765389 – Silverman vs London Underground Ltd

Attn: Julien Vantyghem, Justices’ Clerk

Thank you for the copy of the Matters and Orders  sent to London Underground Ltd and dated 1st November.  I have attached a copy.

It correctly says that London Underground Ltd are to pay costs of £200 to myself following the hearing before District Judge Wright.

However, I did not serve an abatement notice under Environmental Protection Act 1990 S 80 (1) on 6th June as stated.

I submitted a complaint for a Litter Abatement Order to the court under EPA 91 (1) on 15th August in respect to land at Ruislip Manor which is relevant land (EPA 86 (6)) of London Underground Ltd who had stated that they were the designated statutory undertaker.

I understand that I was awarded costs under EPA S 91 (12) as the court was satisfied that, at the time of my complaint, the land was defaced by litter and I had reasonable ground for bringing it..

I would be grateful if you could issue a correction.

Kind regards

Peter Silverman
20 Kingsend
Ruislip
Middlesex
HA4 7DA

 

Comments are closed.