So an Enforcement Notice was issued in respect the the PCN dated 7/7.
May we see this, your* reps, their rejection pl.
We don't know how much time you have to play with.
*- was the Enforcement Notice addressed to you as the registered keeper? We see so many examples where commercial vans are owned by companies(employers) or leasing companies and the OP is simply the driver, not the addressee on the EN or registered keeper.
This must be being enforced under regulations made by Scottish ministers, but the PCN doesn't mention these. I wonder whether the detail in these might help you.
The Act specifies:
58Imposition of penalty charges
(1)Where a person parks a motor vehicle in contravention of the pavement parking prohibition, the double parking prohibition or the dropped footway parking prohibition, a penalty charge is payable in respect of the contravention.
I would suggest that that you don't use the term 'continuous contravention' but stress that the Act refers to the actual act of parking a vehicle: 'Where a person parks a vehicle..'. The act of parking took place once only, namely just before a prior PCN was issued on 6 July(the day before). This was served at 11.59 and was paid by me at the discount, mea culpa.
The PCN in question in this appeal was served at 9.25 on 7 July, less than 24 hours later during which period the vehicle remained stationary.
I accept that there isn't a specific regulation which prohibits subsequent penalties being demanded in respect of continuous contraventions, therefore I respectfully submit that this void should be filled with concepts of fairness.
I would suggest that the Tribunal would consider PCNs issued every hour in respect of a single act of parking to be unenforceable by virtue of being unfair. So, when does unfair and unenforceable become fair and enforceable?
I submit that in this case there was a single act of parking and only a single penalty may be demanded and not, as here, another less than 24 hours later.
Some thoughts