As said by others, it's not 'your' reply.
The NTO is addressed to your employer, yes? In which case the penalty charge is being demanded from them, not you.
The regs provide:
Representations against the enforcement notice[AKA Notice to Owner]
5.—(1) The recipient may make representations against the enforcement notice to the enforcement authority which served it on the recipient.
- my emphasis.
So, we need to know your intra-company protocols pl. You cannot make reps without the authority of the company.
As regards the structure of any reps, I would go with...
PCN ********
We are making formal representations against the Notice to Owner issued by you in respect of the above PCN. We consider that each of the following grounds applies:
Procedural Impropriety;
Alleged Contravention did not occur;
Penalty charge exceeded the anount applocable in the circumstances of the case.
There is no issue that our car was parked on a single yellow line in *** at *** on ****. Our driver advises us that they were unaware that the waiting restriction conveyed by the SYL was in effect because they parked on a Sunday. We have read your reply to their informal representations, seen the signs which they would have passed when entering the zone and considered the PCN grounds of contravention which are repeated in the NTO. The following errors on the council's and the authority's part are immediately apparent.
The signs in question are situated in Clement Street and Google Street View gives us their precise wording and location as at May 2024.
The signs at issue are of the form given in the diagram in Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Traffic Signs etc. Regulations 2016. including the optional lower panel.
The signs state:
Controlled ZONE
(no waiting symbol)
No loading
--------------------
Everyday
8am-7.30pm
We now refer to your letter dated *** rejecting *****'s representations in which you have stressed the importance and effect of these signs e.g. they are given in the Highway Code, that further information is available on the DfT website etc. You further state that these signs are in common use throughout the country, thereby implying that there is no excuse for a driver not observing their restrictions. On which point, we would refer you to the Local Authorities' Traffic Order(Procedures)(England and Wales) Regulations 1996, regulation 18 of which states:
Traffic signs
18.—(1) Where an order relating to any road has been made, the order making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure—
(a)before the order comes into force, the placing on or near the road of such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;
(b)the maintenance of such signs for so long as the order remains in force
I am certain that the council's and the enforcement authority's dilemma must now be clear.
The sign imposes a loading restriction concurrent with that for waiting;
But there are no mandatory loading markings in Louisa Street(the location of the alleged contravention);
If the waiting and loading restrictions apply concurrently then there is no legal basis upon which it can be the case that only one of these may be breached at any one time and, even if there were, who would choose.
It therefore follows that Louisa Street is improperly marked and the council has failed to meet its mandatory obligation in this respect and consequently the grounds alleged in the PCN are improper or,
That the council have marked the CPZ entrance signs improperly, despite, as you say, there being extensive advice available from government on this and them being in common use throughout the country.
We look forward to receiving your considered response to the above.
Probably a tad OTT, but hey-ho.
Incandescent, my GSV shows May this year, am I looking at the correct one?
