Thanks for the confirmation and clarification.
I would not simply resubmit your informal reps because I cannot see that they contain any statutory defence. The council's response at the informal stage counts for little in the evidential scales, let's see what we can get from them at this stage. I'm sorry that my draft is long, but I've done this so that perhaps there are parts you could take and raise with a local councillor NB. not the council because officers don't need your vote.
Pl amend any inaccuracies.
Perhaps:
Re PCN *********
I live at ****** and hold a Resident's Permit for zone ID-S, I therefore use the bays reserved for permit holders in Brewery Road whenever possible. Unfortunately, the council's policy makes this more difficult than it should be for permit holders because these bays do not operate 24/7, in fact they're active for only 5 days per week and 7 hours per day (Mon-Fri 0930-4.30pm) which means that they may be used more by motorists who don't pay than those who do, like me, at a rate of £*** per year. This situation is worsened because, even during their active hours, I believe the bays are sometimes used without issue by council staff for their personal vehicles i.e. not liveried or 'council' vehicles. This lack of provision means that permit holders jockey with all and sundry for permit bays during their non-operational hours. If we're successful, fine. But if not, as happened on the day in question and preceding evening, then permit holders have to look elsewhere.
On ***(insert the day before the PCN) I couldn't find a vacant permit bay but managed to locate a vacant pay bay during its (identical) non-operational hours. From that moment, the Sword of Damocles was hanging over my head: could I find a vacant permit bay in that instant when an all and sundry motorist vacated a permit bay, something my husband and I juggle with too often? You will see from our otherwise unblemished PCN record*, that we're normally successful, but on the day in question we weren't. He thought it was my turn to move the car and I thought it was his. By the time we realised our error, we had already fallen between two stools and had been caught in the arms of your CEO with their £110 penalty.
Damocles's fate was more fortunate.
I understand that the above does not fall within any of the statutory grounds listed on the NTO, but none the less I hope they give you compelling reasons to exercise your discretion on this occasion and I should be grateful if you would.
However, as regards substantive grounds, I would state the following:
Time allowed to pay
A motorist is allowed a reasonable period of time to comply with a parking place restriction, in this case to pay. This limits a CEO who may not determine that a contravention has occurred until all possible exemptions have been examined e.g. loading, collecting, motorist in the process of paying etc. Contrary to the comment in your letter rejecting my husband's informal representations, a driver is not obliged to remain by their vehicle. With this in mind, issuing the instant PCN in this case is procedurally improper. NB. I note the reference in your letter to an observation period beginning at 9.38, but this is not supported by the PCN which quite clearly states: 'Observed from: 9.41 to 9.41'. If you are saying that the PCN is at variance with the CEO's notes, then this is a serious matter in itself.
*- is it?
