Free Traffic Legal Advice

OP, I'm confused by your account.

Pl correct if this is incorrect.

You have two cars.
The car in question was parked correctly in a permit holder space on 13 April.
A suspension came into effect on 14th.
At some time on 13th you had to take your father to the hospital in the second car where you remained with him until he was discharged on 14th after a PCN had been issued because no-one was in the house to move the car before the suspension came into effect.


Your references to breakdown and having another confuse me. The reason the car in contravention wasn't moved is because no-one was there to move it, or have I got this wrong?
The 'had someone been there they couldn't have moved it anyway because it had broken down' is secondary IMO.

But pl clarify the sequence of events and why you stayed with your father overnight and into the next day. If the answer is because he's your father and at that time returning home to move a b****y car was not your No.1 priority, then so be it!

Thank you.

Therefore IMO you defence is 'contravention did not occur' (due to circumstances beyond your control).

These being:
You weren't there to move the car. You had not planned to remain at the hospital but that due to the circumstances(which you will set out) you could not return to move your car.

And, as it happens, the battery or whatever was flat therefore even if you had returned it is questionable whether you could have arranged to move the car in time.

Wait for others.

IMO, your initial reps placed the stress in the wrong place i.e. the main plank of your defence is NOT that your car wouldn't move, it's that you weren't there to move it.

So VAT, who cares!

Whether you go for the grounds of 'contravention did not occur.....circumstances...' or 'penalty exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case' they both engage the key issue of 'circumstances' which gives an adjudicator(if it got that far) considerable scope which is not closely prescribed in law, it's where subjectivity comes in.

I think your next step should be to wait for the NtO.

------

Having re-read their letter rejecting your challenge, I find the letter self-contradictory:

1) It asks for further evidence (that suggests they are on the road towards acceptance)

2) they state they do find the evidence you have provided substantiates your claim (that suggests the evidence is good enough)

then

3) they refuse to cancel.....

----

Use the time whilst waiting to make a a draft formal rep against the NtO, uising the points HCA has made.

Hi mrmustard, thank you for your offer of help and for watching my thread. I appreciate your willingness to assist pro bono and your impressive success rate. I'd like to take this opportunity to thank everyone who has contributed to this thread, including John U.K. and H C Andersen and stamfordman, for their advice and support. I'm sorry for the delay in responding - yesterday was a challenging day as I was in the hospital with my father. I'll definitely keep your offer in mind and email you once I receive the Notice to Owner. Thank you again for your support.

Hello senior members - apologies - did anyone get a chance to view this latest post ? Any inputs would be much appreciated thanks

IMO,

As far as I can see in the circumstances of your case the grounds would be:

'The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case';

The circumstances being as follows:

You were aware of the Temporary Traffic Order requirements and had planned to move your car on Sunday evening to an adjoining road reserved for permit holders.(the restriction came into effect on Monday 14th) 

Matters did not go to plan, however.

At *** on Sunday my father had an episode of rectal bleeding. I am his carer and contacted the hospital who advised us to bring him in immediately for examination. Unfortunately, my car would not start and therefore I had to call upon my neighbour **** to take us. We arrived at the hospital at approx. ***. My neighbour returned home(could you have called them later to pick you up?). My father, who is 77, was admitted and was in severe discomfort. As he also suffers from a neurological condition similar to dementia and is not able to manage interactions in a hospital environment. I therefore felt it was essential that I remain with him. At this time no-one knew for how long he would be kept in but in the event he was not released until *** on ***. 

My circumstances were therefore:

Had my car started, then it would have been parked at the hospital and not on the road and the contravention would not have occurred. But it didn't start.

Had my father not been taken ill, not been admitted and only discharged at ** on ** then we would have returned home on Sunday and I would have called assistance to get it started in order to move from the location in order to avoid being in contravention on the Monday (which I did once we arrived home - see attached). But he was taken ill and admitted.

I respectfully submit that the above support my representation grounds and that the PCN should be cancelled.


Only write what's true and provide supporting evidence as per your initial reps.

Thanks H C Andersen and mrmustard