Free Traffic Legal Advice

I agree with Mr Andersen.

Someone's trousers could go missing.

I would stick with these objective details:

The alleged contravention relates to a simple waiting restriction.
The PCN states 'Observed from 9.27 to 9.27'.
The PCN also gives the time of contravention as 9.27.
The law provides exemptions from the waiting restriction, namely loading(including being away from the vehicle) and alighting/boarding(including being assisted).

I submit that the CEO could not have held a reasoned belief that a contravention had occurred at 9.27 because they had not observed the vehicle for a length of time sufficient to have examined and eliminated the possibility that an exemption applied and therefore the vehicle was permitted to be parked at the location. While the period necessary to establish an exemption is not prescribed, the council, and therefore the CEO, are obliged to act fairly and in accordance with council policies. I doubt that the authority could or would be prepared to present a policy to the adjudicator which states that an observation period is not required in the case of a simple waiting restriction.

In short, the CEO was, I'm sorry to say, trigger happy and that instead of deciding that any reasonable observation period would take them to 9.29 and that after printing and service would take them to 9.30 at which time they would photograph the vehicle to prove service and therefore fall within London Councils' guidance preventing PCNs being issued so close to when the restriction ended, in this case at 9.30, they acted prematurely.

The penalty in this case clearly exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

Is my take.

My fear is that you'll want to go into minutiae which in return would allow the authority to do likewise and ignore/overlook the procedural issues.

IMO, stay detached. Act ONLY upon what you as the RK can see in the photos and PCN and, sorry to say, ignore your wife's recollections which IMO carry limited evidential weight.

Hi Mr Andersen (or anyone can help),

I need to send the formal appeal today or tomorrow at least (from Thursday I'll offline for a business trip).

A final advice on the above would be highly beneficial, thank you so much in advance.

Look forward to hearing from you.

Thank you stamfordman

She was not aware that the line was only subject to a short morning time, she parked in an area of the road with no timeplates in sight (timeplate missing at pole no. 43).

Revised draft

---
The alleged contravention relates to a simple waiting restriction.

The PCN states 'Observed from 9.27 to 9.27'. The PCN also gives the time of contravention as 9.27. This confirms that no observation period whatsoever was carried out.

A Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) is required to form a reasoned belief that a contravention has occurred and obliged to consider whether any statutory exemptions might apply. The law provides exemptions from the waiting restriction, namely loading (including being away from the vehicle) and alighting/boarding (including being assisted). At least 2 reasonable minutes of observation are required. This would have taken the CEO to 9.29 which, in accordance with London Councils' procedures, would mean that a PCN should not be issued.

I submit that the CEO could not have held a reasoned belief that a contravention had occurred at 9.27, because they had not observed the vehicle for a length of time sufficient to have examined and eliminated the possibility that an exemption applied and therefore the vehicle was permitted to be parked at the location.

While the period necessary to establish an exemption is not prescribed, the council, and therefore the CEO, are obliged to act fairly and in accordance with Council policies.

In short, the CEO, instead of deciding that any reasonable observation period would take them to 9.29 and that after printing and service would take them to 9.30, at which time they would photograph the vehicle to prove service and therefore fall within London Councils' guidance preventing PCNs being issued so close to when the restriction ended, in this case at 9.30, they acted prematurely.

As this took place just before the 2 minute window recommended by London Councils it falls well within triviality and reasonable time to consult a timeplate as this is not a controlled parking zone with entry signs.

It is necessary to emphasise that the driver was not aware that the line was only subject to a short morning time and parked in an area of the road with no timeplates in sight, as the timeplate is missing on pole no. 43. Therefore, the driver needed to walk down the road to look for a sign (approximately 50 mt / 55 steps), found it on pole no. 42, examined it, checked the actual time and went back up (50 mt / 55 steps) with the intention to move the car. In the same time, the CEO quickly completed the PCN with no observation time, and went up the road (50 mt / 55 steps in the opposite direction) photographing as evidence a totally different car (Mercedes) under a different timeplate (on pole 44).

The penalty in this case clearly exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case.

For these reasons, I respectfully request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
---

What do you think?

Thank you, hope for good at appeal stage, that would save a lot of time for all. I'll surely update the post with the outcome of this step, either positive or negative.