The BCP Trafweb confirms that where the vehicle was parked is subject to 24/7 no waiting and no loading restrictions. But whether this reflects accurately the
provisions in an order?
Probably, but it can be checked.
As regards the PCN's wording, the only variance I can find is its use of 'date served' instead of 'date of contravention'.
But this is a 'Must State' item - therefore exact wording is not mandatory - instead the PCN as a whole must convey the correct meaning and this one states:
Date of contravention - 26 April;
Date served - 26 April.
So, would any adjudicator find that using the term 'contravention' instead of 'date served' was a serious enough difference to constitute a procedural impropriety when immediately above it can be seen that these dates are identical? IMO unlikely, but no doubt stranger things have happened at adjudication.
