Free Traffic Legal Advice

+1.

But IMO please don't test the patience of the adjudicator with:

Fair enough, appreciate the advice. However firstly I am not sure I even passed that sign because I initially didn't drive into the RPZ from that direction. Whether I turned around and parked before or after I possibly exited and reentered the zone I frankly can't remember.

But as I think the sign at the other end has already been posted because it's there, then the point is not material.

The burden of proof in these proceedings is balance of probability and IMO unless you categorically state that you did not enter from that direction - which I don't think hitherto you've suggested - then the adjudicator would find as a fact that you did and refer to the sign in the CEO's evidence in making their decision.

Repeater signs are not mandatory.
You were in the smallest RPZ I've seen on this forum.

If you turned round then you must have seen the 'Zone ends' sign facing you and at far less than 25m.

You know the parameters, the choice is yours.

You didn't see the entry signs - or saw them and didn't know what they meant. Despite it being only last Saturday, you first couldn't recall how you got your car in that position but now you can categorically say 'that this isn't the direction I initially entered the RPZ from'?

You get two bites at the council before an appeal so why not send at least a challenge on the signage not being clear enough but it does seem as though you concede you didn't know about RPZs.

Have a look at the RPZ section in this to see if you can spot any guidance the council hasn't followed:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf

You didn't see the entry signs - or saw them and didn't know what they meant. Despite it being only last Saturday, you first couldn't recall how you got your car in that position but now you can categorically say 'that this isn't the direction I initially entered the RPZ from'?

Because I know the way that I came into Hertford and which way I first drove down Bull Plain. I also know how the car got into that position, which was because I turned around before parking, obviously. I just can't recall for sure whether I passed the zone ends sign and went back past the entry sign before parking. I don't believe I've contradicted myself in anything I've said. And yes, either way I would have passed the entry sign at the other end either way, presuming it's still there and wasn't obstructed.

You get two bites at the council before an appeal so why not send at least a challenge on the signage not being clear enough but it does seem as though you concede you didn't know about RPZs.

Yes, I think I will do that. Is not knowing about RPZs a concession? In my opinion they can't expect every driver to know the intricacies of every parking regulation.

Have a look at the RPZ section in this to see if you can spot any guidance the council hasn't followed:

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf

Firstly, regarding the entry sign which I must have passed, it literally couldn't be any closer to a no entry sign to an adjoining street. So that's 15.2.3 contravened by the council. It's not even 100% clear that the RPZ is not in the one way road which is no entry from that direction.

Secondly, there are disabled bays within the RPZ and the council also appears to be letting disabled drivers park outside of the bays. But neither is stated on the entry sign...
"Where there is some provision of on‑street parking or loading within the
zone, this is indicated on the lower panel of the entry sign"

With regards to 15.3.1, "signs within the zone indicating the prohibition of waiting... are prescribed...". Prescribed presumably meaning mandatory.

It continues... "The aim should be to place signs strategically so that where drivers might be tempted to stop,
they can see a sign". They have clearly failed to do that in my opinion because no repeater sign is visible from where I parked.

So yes, I will try challenging it on these grounds and also send them a URL for a photo with a view from where my car was actually parked which if they do not bother looking at, will apparently invalidate the PCN alone.

Regarding this PCN I made representations to the council (roughly detailing what I said in post #22) in writing well within the 28 day period. I have proof of postage for this. I received no response to this appeal. Today, over 3 months after the PCN was issued I got a Notice To Owner, which I will attach to this post.

My questions are:
a) Are the council allowed to simply ignore the representations I made to them, not bother responding and then simply issue a Notice To Owner?
b) Are the council allowed to issue it over 3 months after the PCN and without explanation for the delay? My understanding is that the absolute statutory limit is 6 months from the PCN being issued but that they are usually expected to respond within 56 days. But this info is from ChatGPT, which may be wrong of course.

Notice To Owner can be viewed here:
https://imgur.com/a/mSogw2a

The latest on this is...
* Council sent me an NTO as stated above
* NTO stated various methods to appeal, including post and email
* I sent them an appeal by email on 11 March at 11pm. All of the appeal was contained in email attachments but the body of the appeal told them I was appealing etc.
* I received an auto-reply stating that any attachments would be auto-deleted (of questionable lawfulness since this wasn't mentioned on the NTO)
* In any case I was already planning to post them a copy of the appeal. I did this on 12 March, sent it 1st class and have proof of postage.

On 12 May, at 4:59pm (!), the council sent me a Notice of Rejection stating that they were responding to my "letter" which they claim was "dated 14 March" (it wasn't, obviously).

So... The council were aware that I had sent them an appeal by 12 March (next working day after the email was sent) regardless of whether they deleted the attachments, which they shouldn't have done anyway in my opinion. In any case they are legally deemed to have been aware of my posted copy two days after postage... So 14 March, right?

So at worst (for them) the 56th day was 7 May. At best it was 9 May. So their Notice of Rejection is either 3 days late or 5 days late, depending on how you view it.

Does all of that mean that all I have to do is write to the appeals tribunal, inform them of the above and show them proof of postage? And I'm almost guaranteed to win?

Just wondering whether it's actually worth including in my tribunal appeal all of my actual responses to the content of the Notice of Rejection? If it's so clear cut that I'll win on the fact that their response was past the legal deadline then I won't bother.

Let's see the rejection letter.

To appeal to the tribunal you need to follow the instructions in this letter.

It does seem they've busted the 56 day limit.

But also note that  the time period starts with the date the council receive the reps, not when  they are sent out.