Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you for the edited version! I will have to amend the last paragraph as my challenge is based on the absence of any CPZ signs on route which is confirmed by my photos and by Google Streetview. In essence, the signs says a permit is required on event days but nowhere on route there is information about event days.

Thank you for your offer. I do not know how these representations work but I tend to present all my points and evidence in case the other person is not biased.

You would be telling them that you know what you're talking about, in particular the burden which falls to them and that if they hold to the 'it's on the website' line then they would lose and possibly line themselves up for a costs award because you had laid out the legal position clearly.

I'm always for putting your strongest case in reps, the alternative is almost to invite a rejection.

..
In this case, the driver did not see any 'Event Day' notices on their route into the zone(***, via ***, left at **** etc) for the very good reason that there weren't any CPZ signs at this entrance into the zone. It therefore follows that the council did not convey the information as required and the contravention did not occur.

Thanks to everyone. As I understand - next step is the representation to the council. If it is rejected - I have a choice to apply to the tribunal. Or am I missing something?

Result from the tribunal yesterday:

Mr Derek Dishman, the Appellant's Authorised Representative attended the hearing of the appeal in
person. The Appellant did not attend. The Authority was not in attendance, nor were they
represented.
It is the Authority's case that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a permit space without a valid
permit on 7 October 2023 on Bittacy Road. They rely in evidence on the CEO's notes and their
photographs of the vehicle. They have also produced a plan of the Control Parking Zone, which
shows the location in question and there are also blue and green pins denoting the location of CPZ
signs.
Mr Dishman raised a preliminary point regarding the PCN. He pointed out that the certified copy of the
PCN is different in several respects to the original PCN, which he produced at the hearing. I am
satisfied that there are differences between the two PCN's and so it necessarily follows that the
certified copy is not, in fact, a true copy. I agree with the decision in case: 2230567671, in which the
identical point arose and in which it was held that a failure to reproduce a true copy of a PCN is a
procedural impropriety.
As regards the substantive appeal, it is the Appellant's case that, given the direction from which he
travelled, he would not have passed a Controlled Parking Zone sign and so he was unaware that
parking was restricted on the relevant date due to an event. Having studied the route he would have
taken, I am satisfied that he would not have passed one of the two CPZ signs identified on the
Authority's said plan and therefore, he could not have been on notice of the restriction.
In the above circumstances, I allow the appeal.
George Dodd
Adjudicator
8th February 2024
2240012301
AG4413741A