however that is still quite far from Chandos road, am i wrong in thinking that the council should have put up the event information signage on Chandos road itself?
also i really cannot remember seeing any event date signage at the control point but i could be wrong....not sure how to go back and check 11th June
@Vince138 well you could go back and check what the sign says now. It's important to remember that if you go to the tribunal the council has to prove the signs were there on the 11th, it's not up to you to prove that they were not. Therefore no issues about signage should be raised until after the council's evidence pack has come in at the tribunal stage, as you don't want to forewarn them that they'll be put to proof.
Another argument that can be made is that CPZ signs relate to waiting restrictions, you had no intention of parking on a single yellow line, so the CPZ sign was not strictly relevant.
For now I'd recommend sending the council off the scent with a representation as follows:
Dear London Borough of Newham,
I challenge liability on the ground that the allegation on the face of the PCN is bad for duplicity. In Andrew David Rush v London Borough of Southwark (2120562288, 5 January 2013) adjudicator Austin Wilkinson held that:
"It is quite clear from Mr Rush' communication of 13th June that he had no notion of why the Penalty Charge Notice had been issued.
I see that the allegation in the Penalty Charge Notice is the standardised and rather complex wording of a "12" allegation. It consists of 36 words and encompasses the possibility of application to three different types of parking location and four different ways in which a contravention might occur.
The reason for this standardisation relates to how the Mayor of London authorises rates of penalty.
However this does not exempt the local authority from the legal necessity of giving to the Appellant an adequate description of why the claim to penalty is being made: he must be able to make an informed decision as to whether to pay the discount rate or dispute the PCN.
The PCN did not, in my judgement, adequately explain to Mr Rush that his displayed voucher was not valid in a permit bay.
I regard this as a procedural impropriety and I allow the appeal."
This was followed by adjudicator Carl Teper in Natalie van Dijk v London Borough of Islington (2150275729, 23 September 2015), and in Marian Bostan v City of London (2170116728, 13 April 2017) adjudicator Anthony Chan held that "A PCN should allege no more than one contravention and putting two contraventions in the alternative does not get round this rule."
In this instance the allegation on the face of the notice is clear as mud, there is no actual explanation of what the alleged wrongdoing supposedly is.
In light of this the PCN is invalid and must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
Send the representation online and take a screenshot of the confirmation page.
