I am sorry but I cannot giveyou good news. I'm afraid you are in difficulty here.
I have to tell you the truth.
I have studied this at length.
It is very difficult to tell because theenacting legislation is unclear but I think it is unlikely to be covered by thesix months touched her a time limit because it was introduced as a mayoralscheme rather than an act of parliament .
Also it is in effect a decriminalised scheme andso arguably does not fall within the requirement to have the matter heardwithin a reasonable time although that is a very nebulous term in law.
In anyevents there is a further difficulty here and that is this. Fact that you havehad the judgement very late does not mean the matter was not before theauthorities within six months .
The requirement is not to have the matterdealt with entirely within six months even where the statutory time limitapplies. It is just to put the matter before the courts And judging from thetime limit they almost certainly did.
Come what may, they have the judgement fromthe adjudicator now in any events so it doesn't really matter whether they areout of time or not as there is no further appeal
I am sorry but I have to tellyou the truth.
Do remember that I can only give you myopinion.
Another lawyer may have a different opinion.Litigation needs at least 2 parties and neither goes to court expecting tolose.
Nonetheless, one of them does, even thoughthey have been told by their respective legal advisers that they have a goodchance of success.
If there was a black-and-white answer to everylegal problem there would be no need for anything to ever proceed to court.
The ultimate decision comes from a countycourt judge in a civil case or from the magistrate in a criminal case heard inthe magistrates court or the jury in Crown Court.
Hopefully, I have answered your query in a waythat is simple and easy to understand. If anything remains unclear, I will bemore than happy to clarify it for you. In the meantime, thank you once againfor using our services.