13 Sept 2012 – Stevenage Council & travelling to town
Pedlar Frankie emailed pedlars.info 13 Sept 2012 that he was being harassed by Stevenage Borough Council because he did not travel to Stevenage on foot and therefore could not claim the pedlars exemption from the LG(MP)A.
Pedlars.info provided the following letter 20 Sept 2013:
Dear Frankie
Yourself and Stevenage Borough Council
Pedlars.info is grateful that you have drawn this correspondence to its attention and invited comment.
We now understand that Mr Mason on behalf of the council believes that you must walk into town and so in other words you must walk from Eastbourne in East Sussex to Stevenage to be a genuine pedlar.
We had previously referred you to Sample-v-Hulme 1956 in which Lord Goddard clarifies the only valid meaning of ‘travelling’ is limited to the trading activity itself and that “the word ‘travelling’ cannot be used here as meaning travelling by train or travelling from one town to another”. A pedlar is a pedestrian trader but there is no statutory requirement that a pedlar is also a pedestrian traveller. Any such notion remains outside the scope of pedlary and street trading legislation and must be regarded a nonsense in the modern age.
It seems that your Mr Mason is either ignorant of or dismissive of this Case Stated.
Instead he refers you to Jones-v-BathNES Council paragraph 13 (attached below) which by his own admission Mr Justice Mitting stresses in his words “I have not had the benefit of mature consideration or research into authorities” and he continues “I do not intend to rest my decision on the conclusion that I am about to express and it may be that further research would show that my conclusion is unsound”. The conclusion referred to is that “someone who drives with his goods in his own van or car to a town or city to offer goods for sale, is not acting as a pedlar”.
Had Ms Yeuthman for the Claimant referred the Justice to the authority of Lord Goddard in Sample-v-Hulme then Mr Justice Mitting may have found his conclusion, by his own admission “unsound”.
In your continued exchanges with Mr Mason you are fulfilling a pedlar’s statutory defence under LG(MP)A paragraph 10(2) to prove that you have taken all reasonable precautions and exercised all due diligence to avoid commission of an offence. It will be indefensible for an officer with powers of enforcement to dismiss your due diligence communication that aims to establish interpretation consensus for both the regulator and the regulated. You are by these communications fulfilling your two statutory obligations that Justice Mitting regards as the burden of proof that you are firstly acting as a pedlar within the context of Section 3 of the Pedlars Act and that secondly you have taken all necessary precautions to avoid commission of an offence under Section 10(2) of the LG(MP)A.
We strongly recommend that you maintain a chronological record of all communications with the council.
This is a brief response and on this issue we are happy to provide substantive defence of your right to act as a pedlar without undue interference caused by mischievous and narrow interpretation.
Please confirm that we may refer this communication to others.
Yours sincerely
admin at pedlars.info