Some thoughts..
I refer to the PCN dated **** and subsequent NTO dated ****.
As the authority should be aware, the prohibition which has been allegedly breached is not based in an Order, but in an Act, in this case s85 Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA) which for your benefit I have reproduced below:
85 Prohibition of double parking etc.
(1)In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway in such a way that no part of the vehicle is within 50 centimetres of the edge of the carriageway.
8)The prohibition in this section is enforceable as if imposed—
(a)in Greater London, by an order under section 6 of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984(RTRA);
Therefore, by virtue of s8 of that Act, a contravention falls within the scope of para. 3(2)(b) of Part 1 of Schedule 7 to the TMA, as follows:
RTRA
8.Contravention of order under s. 6.
(1)Any person who acts in contravention of, or fails to comply with, an order under section 6 of this Act shall be guilty of an offence.
...............
TMA
Other parking contraventions in Greater London
3(1)In Greater London there is a parking contravention in relation to a vehicle if it is stationary in circumstances in which any of the offences listed below is committed.
(2)The offences are—
.....
(b)an offence under section 8, 11, 16(1) or 16C of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (contravention of certain traffic orders)
[/i]
It therefore follows that in order for the authority to establish the contravention it must refer to s85 of the Act and consider the 2 legal issues:
1. Was the vehicle parked on a carriageway, and
2. Were all parts of the car more than 50 cm from the edge of the carriageway?
The CEO's photos show clearly that my car was on a carriageway and that parts of my vehicle were within 50 cm of the edge of carriageway.
Therefore, the council's own evidence shows that the contravention did not occur. The PCN must be cancelled immediately and unconditionally.