Some thoughts. A long version which could serve as the basis for an appeal if matters get this far.
Dealing with purely procedural matters first:
Are you the addressee on the NTO because only that person may make formal reps. If it's not you, you can still draft for them.
The NTO is dated 20 Oct. therefore deemed served on 22nd which counts as day 1 of the 28-day period the last day of which is 18 Nov.
The NTO seems to comply with regulations as regards its form and content.
They have included two photos which may be inferred as exemplifying the nature and extent of the alleged contravention.
Dear Sir,
PCN *******
I refer to the above, your letter dated **** and Notice to Owner dated 20 Oct.
I am making formal representations on the following grounds:
1. contravention did not occur, and
2. procedural impropriety
Contravention did not occur
As regards the contravention, I shall first refer to the road markings and traffic signs which are present at the site. I cannot find this detail in your photos or relevant reference in your letter and assume that unless the person considering these representations carries out a real or virtual site visit scene setting falls to me.
Road markings
A single yellow line which is placed at the edge of the carriageway. The location lies within a Controlled Parking Zone whose restricted hours are *****.
This marking therefore carries the following meaning:
Waiting of vehicles prohibited for a time that is not continuous throughout the year.
Item 2, Part 4 Sign Table to Schedule 7 to the Traffic Signs etc. Regulations refers (
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/7)
This restriction applies for the width of the carriageway to the centre-line and for the full width of the footway to the building line. This is a regulatory marking and restriction whose meaning may not be varied by the traffic authority(the council) as regards making a Traffic Management Order nor the enforcement authority as regards interpretation for the purposes of enforcement of road traffic contraventions.
The council has also placed parking bay markings which are co-linear with the yellow line along one edge i.e. the parking place and yellow line share a common boundary, namely the kerb.
Traffic Signs
I was parked within the parking place markings except to a de minimis degree at my nearside front wheel. Also within the parking place is a traffic sign of the form specified at Item 2 of the Part 4 Sign Table of Schedule 4 to the regulations. This has effect only if it is placed within or in the vicinity of a parking place and therefore a motorist must assume that the location is a parking place specified under a Traffic Management Order made by virtue of the council's powers under the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984.
Also situated at the location is a sign which in the main is of the form prescribed at Item 2 of the Part 4 Sign Table of Schedule 7 to the regulations and includes the permitted variant of an arrow pointing to the left. This sign also includes the words '*****' which are not prescribed. The sign does not include a time period and therefore in isolation would mean that it disapplies the footway parking prohibition 24/7 and permits but does not require a vehicle to park with two wheels ONLY on the footway.
These signs are conflicted.
The parking place requires a motorist to park wholly within its boundaries, indeed it is a contravention to do otherwise i.e. a motorist must park with 4 wheels on the footway. HOWEVER, the so-called footway parking dispensation PROHIBITS parking with more than 2 wheels on the footway.
The parking place sign permits parking within the times of ****, HOWEVER, the yellow line PROHIBITS waiting, which includes parking, between exactly the same hours.
There are NO footway markings to signify the limit of permitted footway parking, there are only markings which signify the boundaries of a so-called parking place.
The council believes that my car was in contravention by virtue of a de minimis incursion of my front nearside wheel over the parking place markings which they believe indicate the limit of permitted footway parking. As clearly explained above, the are no such markings.
As regards the footway parking sign, a motorist is in contravention as soon as more than 2 wheels are on the footway therefore, using this frame of reference, the whole of my car was in contravention of the footway prohibition. In addition, my car was parked within the scope of a no waiting restriction during its operational hours, so another contravention. HOWEVER, other than to a de minimis extent I was parked wholly within a parking place during hours when parking IS permitted.
Whether the enforcement authority wishes to advise its traffic authority of this, frankly, dog's breakfast, I leave to you. If you wish to pursue me for the penalty, again I leave this to you. HOWEVER, if I am forced to take the matter to adjudication I shall, at which point the whole picture would be exposed to proper scrutiny.
As regards 'procedural impropriety', the authority's letter belaboured in a cut-and-paste fashion the rights and wrongs of footway parking and did not address the central issues of my representations. This is improper. While the authority is not required to respond in writing, it is required to give due consideration to representations and the letter is objective proof that this has not happened. Notwithstanding past improprieties, I request that proper consideration is given to these representations and the PCN cancelled.
Yours....
OP, pl fill in the blanks and post a clear photo of the footway parking sign pl.
