Too late. Mr M has e mailed me a case. 2230448785
Introduction:I am appealing the parking penalty issued to me for allegedly parking on the footpath on 19th August 2023 at John Harrison Way. I was issued a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on 19th August 2023. I have consistently maintained that I parked within a designated parking bay on the carriageway. The authorities claim otherwise, but there is no evidence to support their position. In fact, the available evidence, including signage, regulations, and the very layout of the parking area, clearly demonstrates that I parked lawfully.
Procedural Improprieties:
Furthermore, the PCN itself contains a procedural error that invalidates it. Schedule 2 paragraph 2 states
(d)that the penalty charge must be paid within the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the alleged contravention occurred,
However, the PCN I received states that payment is due within 28 days from the date of service, not the date of the alleged contravention. This discrepancy constitutes a procedural impropriety that renders the PCN invalid. My case is further supported by the attached allowed appeal which refers to the law provided at
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/schedule/2In addition, the Notice to Owner conflates the date of service with the date of delivery. The date of its issue was 6th October so that the legally deemed date of service is the 10th; however, the appellant received it on the 13th October. It is irrelevant whether any prejudice has occurred. Furthermore, the date of receipt begs the question of whether it was sent by first class mail as it should.
Parking Bays:
In addition to the procedural error, the council’s argument that I was parked on the footpath is unsubstantiated. They claim the kerb is marked with a vented brick, but the area where I parked shares the exact same layout as several other designated parking bays along the street. These bays, numbering at least 20, all have vented bricks at the front and kerb stones at the rear. This consistency strongly suggests that the area where I parked was intended for vehicle parking, not as part of the footpath.
No Entry Sign:Further supporting my claim is the presence of a "No Entry" sign directly behind where I parked. Typically, such signs indicate a restriction for vehicles on a specific lane or area. In this case, the sign's placement strongly suggests that the area behind it, including where I parked, is part of the accessible carriageway, not the restricted footpath.
CPZ Regulations and Markings:
As the location falls within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ), the relevant regulations of the Local Authorities Traffic Orders (LATOR) 1996 apply. Referring to
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18/made every part of the carriageway within a CPZ must be clearly marked with yellow lines or other designated parking restrictions. The conspicuous absence of any such markings or restrictions in the area where I parked further underscores that it was intended as a designated parking bay on the carriageway.
Conclusion:
Based on the foregoing evidence, the clear procedural error in the PCN, and the absence of evidence supporting the authorities' claim, it is clear that the parking penalty issued to me was in error. I respectfully request that the tribunal overturn the penalty and find in my favour.
