Hi All,
I'll keep this brief as time is a bit short for me to submit reps this evening! Really just looking for a proof read, or any extra insights (skip to below for the draft).
Basically I was parked in a shared use "Permits only OR pay by phone", with a free 60 mins available. I foolishly had to leave my car but then the pay by phone wouldn't allow me to register for the free session. Came back to a PCN, for code 16 "Failing to display a permit". It was pointed out to me that this was incorrect for a shared use bay, and should instead have been a code 12 "failing to display a permit OR valid payment (words to that effect)".
I sent an informal appeal within 14 days, stating that the wrong code was applied and for completeness, that I had trouble with the pay by phone too. The council response only referred to this second point, stating it was my responsibility to register/pay or park elsewhere. No mention of the wrong contravention I had raised.
I now need to submit representations, and hoping (perhaps naively) I can persuade them to drop it at this stage (does that even happen?).
Please, if anyone could take a glance at my draft and tell me if you think I've missed something or could take a better approach, that would be very, very helpful! I haven't written these things before so wanted to at least check it has the right level of detail. If anyone is familiar with an act or regulation that states that councils must consider informal/initial appeals, that would also be really helpful. Any thoughts welcomed!
Draft:
**********************************
Re PCN *******
To Whom it may concern,
The alleged contravention described in PCN****** did not occur. The evidence provided by ***** Council indicates that my vehicle was parked in a bay with the condition of parking: "Permit holders (A) OR Pay by phone [...]". The contravention which is alleged to have occurred is Code 16: "PARKED IN A PERMIT SPACE OR ZONE WITHOUT CLEARLY DISPLAYING A VALID PERMIT".
As the CEO should have known and the authority will know, the only contravention grounds which may apply in a bay subject to the specific restriction in this case are Code 12: "Parked in a residents or shared use parking place without a valid permit or without payment of the parking charge". If the authority are in any doubt, then I refer you to pages 21 and 23 of the Civil Enforcement Officer's Handbook, in particular the following note on page 23:
"In shared use bays where residents' permits are valid codes 12 and 19 should be used as appropriate."
The contravention grounds are incorrect, and for this reason the PCN is improper and must be cancelled.
In addition, a procedural impropriety has occurred because the council has failed to consider the initial representations which were provided in response to the PCN. In the initial representations, the above argument of 'invalid parking contravention' was made. However, in its response the council made no acknowledgement of this. The council's response focused entirely on the difficulty and confusion caused by the RingGo system, without any mention or acknowledgement whatsoever of the invalid contravention which was highlighted in the initial representations.
[(Not sure if there is a a part of an act or regulation that states that councils must consider informal/initial appeals?)]
Not only are the grounds for the alleged contravention incorrect, but there has also been a procedural impropriety on behalf of Redbridge Council. As such, the PCN is improper and must be cancelled.
******************************************
Thank you so much for any help.
