I don't see the direct relevance of this decision to the OP's case.
In the former, TfL committed a procedural impropriety by not submitting a true copy of the PCN. The appeal was allowed on these grounds. The adjudicator then added:
'..which ought to have been noted as 'Parked longer than permitted'.
Having made that finding [procedural impropriety] I do not need to consider whether the contravention has occurred.'
But he did, 'the contravention was 'Stopped or ....red route'. '
IMO, as the adjudicator did not examine this aspect in depth, their bald statement should be treated with caution and of course those facts don't apply here anyway.
In that case, the driver parked, left and returned and re-parked when not permitted i.e. returned within 2 hours. The PCN was issued in respect of the second parking period. TfL's logical position is that as the TMO does not permit parking for vehicles which have returned within 2 hours the correct contravention is 'stopped red route not permitted'. I could imagine a host of adjudicators agreeing with this position.
In the current case, the OP was parked for more than the maximum period allowed on their first, not second, parking event. Contraventions are not necessarily mutually exclusive and therefore IMO 'stopped on red route..' is a perfectly acceptable contravention, as is parked for longer than permitted, the latter being the concomitant of the former in the context of the facts here.
However, as I understand the SoS's Stat Guidance, the contravention which attracts the lower penalty level should have been used and therefore I believe the grounds should be PI and Penalty Exceeded..etc.
Parking in a place where it is always prohibited (such as on a red route, on double yellow lines or in a disabled bay without displaying a valid badge) is considered more serious than overstaying where parking is permitted (for example, in a parking place).
The use of 'stopped ..red route' is targeted at where 'parking ..is always prohibited' which does not apply here.
The tactic of testing whether they consider the full reps is another matter, but I feel that as the OP's case could fail based solely on that decision without being expanded, possibly as above, and is a risk.
