224058036A
The Appellant has attended and is represented by Mr D Dishman.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked adjacent to a footway lowered to meet the level of the carriageway when in Brookside Road on 6 December 2024 at 09:19.
I have allowed this appeal on the grounds of a procedural impropriety. The Regulations require that the Authority provides to the Adjudicator a true copy of the original representations, the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice of Rejection.
I find that there are material differences between the PCN, which was received at the car pound and the one produced to the Tribunal.
The Appellant's representative has drawn my attention to a number of minor differences on the observe of the PCN, which I find are cumulatively not of the most serious. However, on the reverse of the PCN I find that an entire paragraph has been omitted, which I find appears on one and not the other.
Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the Authority has produced a true copy of the PCN as required by the Regulations. I find this to be a procedural impropriety. Where an Adjudicator finds a procedural impropriety they must allow the appeal.
Additionally, if I had not found as above, I would, and in fact do, find that the PCN was not served to the Appellant's vehicle.
The PCN produced by the Appellant, which was handed to her at the car pound, is devoid of any crease markings, which should have appeared if it had been placed in the plastic envelope.
I note that the tow truck was present at the time the PCN was issued, however, I am not satisfied that the PCN was actually placed in the plastic envelope. This is a prerequisite before e vehicle can be removed.
On enlarging the photograph of the plastic wallet I am unable to see any evidence of the PCN inside the wallet.
The appeal is allowed.
