Thanks for that case, helps immensely as it is Camden Council.
I was planning on submitting the following formal reps:
I do not agree that the alleged contravention observed by the CEO took place.
I have explained in my informal challenge as to why the Blue Badge (BB) Holder has parked there. Unfortunately, this couldn’t be taken in to consideration. Though you are welcome to look at the informal challenge and reconsider the situation of the day.
The alleged contravention of ‘Parking for longer than permitted blue (badge holder)’ could not have taken place. As, the vehicle was parked on a single yellow line with the (substitute) blue badge and timer clock correctly displayed.
The alleged contravention can not take place on single yellow lines (SYL) as the BB Holder can not be parked longer than permitted on a SYL. The BB Holder is exempted rather than permitted, to park on a SYL for 3 hours during restricted controlled hours as long as the badge and associated timer clock is displayed correctly.
After the 3 hours are up, the exemption for the BB Holder SYL restriction ceases to apply and should be dealt with as having no exemption. As, outlined in Camden’s Enforcement Protocol Document*: ‘Parking Operations Enforcement Protocol, page.15, rev. 18/10/24.
Upon reading the enforcement protocol, you can see that the contravention code 30(o) can only take place in a designated parking bay rather than a SYL.
Clearly, the alleged contravention can only take place in a designated parking place rather than a yellow line. Such as, on this occasion. Where another contravention may have allegedly taken place on the SYL, this should have been noted by the CEO however, it wasn’t.
I await for you to can cancel the PCN.
*The referenced document is available at:
https://www.camden.gov.uk/documents/d/guest/enforcementprotocol0925viewPl, do let me know what you think and if any changes should be made