I've received the NtO and have a week left to reply.
Please could you advise if my draft below is okay. The link given to submit representations (
https://hillingdonparking.apcoa.co.uk/) is the same as the informal appeal I made previously and there is no option on there to make representations against the NtO specifically - it's looks as if I'm just making another informal challenge to the PCN, is this correct?
Also, should I select one of the options under PCN wrongly/unfairly issued as the reason for my appeal or select 'none of the above'?
Draft response:
The authority will be aware that the council have placed a sign to diagram 668 (from Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016) at both ends of the road, one outside number 9 St. Mary's Road and another outside number 59 St. Mary’s Road/Hayes Town Chapel. The conveys the meaning that on this side of the road a vehicle may park with 4 wheels on the footway. This permission remains in effect until terminated by a sign to diagram 668.2. There is no such sign between either end of the road (number 9 St. Mary’s Road/number 59 St. Mary’s Road) and St. Mary's Walk. The CEO's photos show that I was parked in this length of street and therefore permitted to do so by virtue of this sign. For this purpose, it is irrelevant that I was parked within the scope of a waiting restriction whose presence may not form a part of the authority's consideration.
Strangely, in the authority's rejection of my informal representations reference is made to me being parked 'before a sign' which as explained above is totally incorrect. What I would accept is that beyond my car in St. Mary's Walk (situated by the flank wall of number 33 St. Mary's Road) are further footway parking signs. However, these are conflicting because one of these indicates the end of a non-existent 'two-wheel' parking area (at this point the sign outside number 9 St. Mary’s Road still has effect) while the other indicates the beginning of a different permitted footway parking permission, which I may add is with a non-specified sign which is therefore unlawful unless the council have obtained the Secretary of State's authorisation.
In short:
My car was parked within a permitted '4-wheel' footway parking area;
My car was parked in contravention of a waiting restriction which I accept was poor parking on my part but not the contravention in dispute;
The effect of the sign outside number 9 St. Mary’s Road is conflicted by a mix of signs outside 33 St. Mary's Road (albeit situated in St. Mary's Walk), one of which is prima facie unlawful.
In conclusion, the contravention did not occur, and the authority has no basis on which to reject these representations. The PCN must therefore be cancelled. Should the authority not be minded to do so, then they must give cogent reasons based upon evidence and not, as in their earlier rejection, simply make statements which are not supported by objective facts.
Yours,
Attachments:
Diagrams 668; 668.2 (source Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016);
Google street view screenshots of signs outside numbers 9, 59 and 33 St. Mary’s Road.
Should I add the attachments as links to images uploaded somewhere or directly attach the images?