They're as above!
Just put in your own words (top and tail with contextual matters) and pl just stick with the substantive issue.
Please find my response for informal challenge response. Can you check and let me know if this sounds ok ?
I make these representations on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur.
The PCN was issued on the assumption that the yellow advance warning board in place—said to give effect to a Temporary Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO)—have had the legal effect of suspending the existing parking controls and imposing alternative restrictions, specifically a prohibition on waiting and loading.
This assumption is incorrect. The TTRO relied upon does not suspend any parking provisions, nor does it create any prohibition on waiting or loading. Its operative effect is limited solely to restricting traffic access to certain roads. A restriction on vehicular access cannot, as a matter of law, impose or substitute parking restrictions. The statutory parking controls governing the location therefore remained fully in force and were not displaced.
For this reason, the alleged contravention could not have occurred and the PCN must be cancelled.
If the authority maintains that the TTRO created a waiting/loading restriction, then in any Notice of Rejection it must identify and provide the specific provision of the TTRO that it alleges was breached. A general statement that “a restriction existed and was breached” would not constitute proper consideration of these representations and would be procedurally improper.
For clarity, section 14(7) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 provides that an order made under that section may suspend statutory provisions. The TTRO in question does not do so. It merely restricts traffic access; it does not suspend, amend, or replace the statutory parking controls applicable to the location.
In the absence of any lawful suspension of the parking place, no contravention occurred.
