My long version of ideas:
so I can give the adjudicator my account[of events] directly.
IMO, not necessary.
Stick to the council's evidence and the law. IMO, nothing else is required OTHER THAN you apologise to the adjudicator by admitting that indeed you did park in contravention and this part of the council's regulation 10 PCN is correct. But only the council's actions are being scrutinised here, luckily.
Your formal representations and appeal are based solely upon the council having used inapplicable and therefore improper grounds to serve the regulation 10 PCN and to have given false information in their NOR. Given that the council actually admits as much in their Case Summary and the NOR, you do not understand why they have resisted this appeal then admitted their own error which accepts your case.
If I may refer to regulation 10 and the grounds on which a penalty may be demanded, specifically para. 3(h) of Schedule 2. I have set this out below, not because I think that you (the adjudicator) are not fully aware of their contents, but as an aide memoir to myself in setting out my argument.
3(h)that the penalty charge notice is being served by post for whichever of the following reasons applies
(i)on the basis of a record produced by an approved device;
(ii)because a civil enforcement officer attempted to serve a penalty charge notice by affixing it to the vehicle or giving it to the person in charge of the vehicle but was prevented from doing so by some person;
(iii)because a civil enforcement officer had begun to prepare a penalty charge notice for service in accordance with regulation 9 but the vehicle was driven away from the place in which it was stationary before the civil enforcement officer had finished preparing the penalty charge notice or had served it in accordance with regulation 9.
Firstly, I would suggest that the specific use of English here, namely 'for which ever of the following reasons applies', means that they are distinguished and therefore only one reason may be relied upon.
As regards (h)(i), these grounds do not apply.
As regards(h)(ii), this is predicated on the CEO having prepared a [regulation 9] PCN but was prevented from serving the PCN 'by some person'. In the context of the case, this could only mean the driver/appellant and indeed in the Case Summary the council states this:
'The council is satisfied that the CEO had commenced the issue process and that the circumstances encountered prevented the PCN from being served. '
I deny that I prevented the CEO from serving the PCN in the normal manner, but with respect, this is not my contention as regards the council's procedural impropriety. The actual regulation 10 PCN does not give these grounds, instead it states:
The CEO had begun to prepare a PCN for service but the vehicle was driven away ....before the CEO had finished preparing the PCN or was unable to serve it by affixing it to the vehicle.
But, as shown above, the council asserts in its Case Summary:
1. A regulation 9 PCN had been prepared; and
2. That the vehicle was not driven away while the CEO was present.
They have stated explicitly that neither condition upon which the PCN grounds relied actually occurred and yet still rejected my representations and resisted my appeal.
I submit that it must therefore follow that the PCN was issued improperly because the basis for service was false, contrary to regulations and ask the adjudicator to therefore allow my appeal.
I would add that it is my belief that whatever the council believes transpired at the time, what they refer to as 'the circumstances encountered', clouded their judgement when considering my representations and that instead of accepting these, they changed horses and in the NOR gave their grounds for issuing the PCN as:
'The CEO attempted to serve the PCN but was prevented by some person'(NOR p2 para. 1 line 4. refers).
...while the actual grounds in the PCN were:
The CEO had begun to prepare a PCN for service but the vehicle was driven away ....before the CEO had finished preparing the PCN or was unable to serve it by affixing it to the vehicle.
For the reasons above, I ask that my appeal be allowed. In addition, because the council acted wholly improperly in rejecting my representations by dreaming up false grounds and continued to resist my appeal despite their own admissions, I ask for guidance on the matter of an award of costs.