Perhaps...
I parked at the location as I have many times before. I passed the traffic sign(as seen in the council's photos) whilst manoeuvring into the space. The restrictions here are well known to me and end at 6.30pm. I parked at approx. 6.**. As I parked it was clear, as shown in the photos, that the traffic sign was uncovered and contained its regular restriction. Consequently, I had no reason to look any further into the other signs which were attached to the same post.
If the council wished to replace the provisions conveyed by the sign[with No waiting, loading or unloading], then it was incumbent on it to cover the sign. As this sign was left uncovered, no blame should attach to the driver and the contravention did not occur.
If the authority rejects these representations, then it must address the substantive issues:
Does the authority accept that at the time of the contravention the regular traffic sign was clearly displayed and its restrictions clear to drivers?
If so, why was this sign not covered as the whole length of the bay was within the scope of the TTRO?
Did the council make a conscious decision to leave the traffic sign uncovered because the TTRO restrictions were discontinuous?
Why does the PCN refer to different grounds from those stated in the Order, namely *********** instead of ****************. This is in itself misleading because if the driver was loading/collecting etc, then the CEO's error would encourage them to submit representations to this effect when in actuality the restriction in the Order precludes such a defence. This is grossly misleading.
The PCN must be cancelled.
