Good afternoon, Stamfordman/H C Andersen... Apologies for the late response. I have been away for a week due other commitments. Please see my response to the council below, albeit a little longwinded.
To whom it may concern,
I make formal representations against PCN no. JK16745018, citing contravention 91: “Parked in a car park or area not designated for that class of vehicle.”
Southwark Councils case is that a penalty charge is payable for parking at the location. I argue that the PCN is not valid because the alleged contravention did not occur, and because the council has failed to establish that the bay is lawfully designated for “Car Club” use. My appeal is as follows:
1. Location and Contravention:
The councils own photographs show my vehicle adjacent to the carriageway marking “Club Parking.” I do not dispute this. However:
* “Club Parking” is not a prescribed traffic legend under The Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD 2016).
* Paragraph 1 of Part 5 to Schedule 7 to the TSRGD confirms that only the prescribed markings may be used to indicate parking restrictions. In this case 'Club Parking' is not a prescribed marking in any event.
Therefore, even if this were an on-street bay, the road marking relied upon by the council carries no legal effect. It therefore follows that the council is offering no evidence that parking at the location without permission would leave the 'owner' liable to the penalty being demanded.
2. On-Street vs Off-Street:
The contravention cited, Code 91, applies to car parks and off-street areas. By issuing a PCN under this code, Southwark Council effectively concedes that the location is not part of the public highway but rather an off-street car park.
If so, then:
* The TSRGD markings cannot apply in law to off-street areas.
* An off-street car park requires a proper entrance sign or conditions board, making it clear to motorists that they are entering a regulated car park and subject to statutory enforcement. No such signage exists at this location.
Accordingly, there is no evidence before the adjudicator showing signage such as a board, informing motorists that they are in fact in a car park subject to specific conditions and statutory controls indicating that this location was designated or regulated as an off-street car park in which a contravention 91 could occur.
3. Lack of Designation:
For a contravention 91 to be enforceable, the council/authority must demonstrate that:
* The land is lawfully designated for car club use, and
* This designation is clearly conveyed by prescribed signage.
The authority has provided no evidence of any such designation, Traffic Order, or lawful signage. Instead, it relies solely on photographs of my vehicle next to the ambiguous wording “Club Parking,” which is meaningless in law.
4. Conclusion:
Southwark Council has not discharged its burden of proof. There is:
* No prescribed road marking,
* No upright sign,
* No evidence that the land is an off-street car park subject to enforceable conditions,
* No Traffic Order or other legal instrument establishing the bay as reserved for car club use.
Therefore, it is clear from the councils evidence and the Signs Regulations that their claim to a penalty is meritless and that the PCN is not payable and must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
