I wasn't able wait as I would have missed the deadline. So sent the following:
Dear Sir / Madam I am writing to make representations against a Penalty Charge Notice received on 14/11/2023, the contravention detailed as follows: 27 - PARKED IN A SPECIAL ENFORCEMENT AREA ADJACENT TO A FOOTWAY, CYCLE TRACK OR VERGE LOWERED TO MEET THE LEVEL OF THE CARRIAGEWAY.
I refer you to Right Contract Services LTD v London Borough of Hillingdon (case reference 2160311942): "This appeal was set down for a personal hearing at 10:00 am on 17 August 2016. Neither party attended. The Authority says that the contravention occurred because the vehicle parked past the point where the kerb starts to slope. This is an incorrect understanding of the law. Section 86 (1) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 provides that (In a special enforcement area) a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for one of the purposes stated in the section. This means that the dropped kerb is the part of the kerb which meets the level of the carriageway and does not include the sloping kerbs on either side. In misdirecting itself on the key and fundamental point of law when considering the Appellant's representations, there is a procedural impropriety on the part of the Authority. I should say that by applying the correct test, I am satisfied that the Appellant's vehicle was just over the proper dropped kerb but it was so marginal that I find it to be de minimus. I allow the appeal." Therefore the sloping part of the kerb does not constitute part of the dropped kerb and hence the alleged contravention did not occur:
Please also find the enclosed print out from taken from The London Council’s own ‘Civil Enforcement Officers Handbook (Version 2)’. In particular I refer to to section A - Vehicle Overhang: “A CEO should only issue a PCN if the vehicle is parked incorrectly to the extent that at least one wheel is wholly in contravention, for example a wheel being wholly outside the parking bay or wholly on a yellow line. If all of the wheels are within the confines of the bay but the vehicle is large and overhangs the bay to such an extent that it causes an obstruction equal to a normally-sized vehicle with one wheel wholly in contravention, then a PCN can also be issued. CEOs must use their judgement on this, and record any evidence (especially photographic) that proves the contravention.”
The photos do not show any part of my car was causing a contravention but if there was any cause for debate then any alleged contravention would be caught be the de minimus principle and the above guidance. This PCN therefore should not have been issued and I look forward to receiving confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled.
I look forward to receiving acknowledgement of these representations. Many thanks,
