Can I suggest a slightly different drafting?
---
I am challenging the issuance of the above PCN on the statutory grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.
The PCN explicitly alleges a contravention for parking on a "carriageway raised to meet the level of a footway." This physical infrastructure does not exist at the location of the vehicle. As demonstrated in the attached photographic evidence (IMG20260504102158 (2).jpg), the carriageway is entirely flat. It is the footway that is sloped down to the carriageway. Because the CEO has cited a topographical feature that is not present at the location, the specific contravention alleged on the PCN could not have occurred.
Notwithstanding the fatal procedural error above, the infrastructure that actually exists at the location my car was parked is a footway lowered strictly for the engineering purpose defined in Section 86(1)(a) of the Traffic Management Act 2004: assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway.
Therefore, the absolute exemption detailed in Section 86(3) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 applies in full. The statute dictates that the prohibition is nullified "where the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises."
My vehicle was parked immediately adjacent to the crossover exclusively serving my residential property at [the address]. As the sole occupier of these residential premises, I provided explicit consent for my vehicle to be parked at this location. No reward was given or received for this consent. Attached is proof of address and proof of ownership.
The alleged infrastructure does not exist, and the existing infrastructure is subject to an absolute statutory exemption. Please cancel the PCN immediately.
