@ThrokmortonDraft:
1. The alleged contravention is not proved because the video does not show the front of the sign allegedly passed.
2. Furthermore, since I am unaware, therefore, of the sign, I am unable to check whether it was/is subject to any illumination requirements as provided by TSRGD 2016. Clearly, you will note the inclement weather at the said time.
3. I make a collateral challenge in that your website page (attached) does not clearly indicate when the price will increase and, according to any reasonable perception, is couched in threatening terms i.e. without even had the opportunity to make a representation. In this regard, I refer you to
Ian Prideaux v London Borough of Lambeth case No: 2240362722
4. Last but not least, the PCN is a nullity because it conflates two entirely different legislations i.e. a Regulation 10 PCN - which is the only document which can "act as a Notice to Owner" - and a PCN pertaining to the 2003 Act. This PCN also contains a whole passage (56 days ff.) which belongs solely to parking legislation and so any reasonable person would be entitled to ask where are the grounds pertaining to the parking legislation and why they are not included? Finally, the use of the word "or" can be interpreted either conjunctively or disjunctively.
Ipso facto, this exacerbates the confusion.
In light of the above, please cancel the PCN.
