Please rename the pdf files with something more meaningful.
(People are unlikely to wade through a list of files with meaningless numbers!)
That said, the last file,
https://acrobat.adobe.com/id/urn:aaid:sc:EU:38bd99aa-a5cc-46a0-9aaa-f04ff4f15ca0is the important one, the case summary. Hopefully you or someone more computer savvy than myself can put an image here.
Was there no list of contents? I could not see one.
---------------
EDIT - I've manged to copy and paste the text of their summary (but not the pictures which appear in the gaps between the paragraphs below). What is your view of the points they make? :
On the day the PCN was issued the Pay and Display bay in which the vehicle was parked was suspended from use; as was clearly stated on signage directly adjacent to the marked parking area stating ‘Parking Suspension No Loading North John Street X4 pay & display parking places (Opposite NYL restaurant) 17.05.24 & 18.05.24’:
The appellant claims that no such signage was in place to be seen when they parked, upon which they booked a Phone and Pay parking session (at 12:56 on the 17/05/2024); however the suspension signage (which was on the post next to the Pay & Display machine only a metre or so away from the appellants vehicle) was erected after the end of restriction (18:00) on the 16/06/2024 and before commencement of the restriction (08:00) on the 17/05/2024 – so we are satisfied that the suspension was clearly prescribed when the appellant parked on the 17/05/2024 (again, they booked their parking session at 12:56 – which was several hours after the signage had been erected) and given that it is the responsibility of the motorist to make a reasonable check of a location for any and all parking restrictions when they park – there is no viable reason why the suspension signage [and the information contained within] should not have been noticed, read, and complied with; but unfortunately such was not the case.
It may well be that it was inadvertently missed (which amounts to mitigation) – yet it was nevertheless in place to be seen and it is of note that although the appellant has previously submitted this photograph as some kind of proof that the signage was not in place: which was clearly taken ‘side on’ to the Pay & Display machine and thus is side on to the suspension signage, the thick edge of the suspension sign board and the slightly upturned bottom right corner of the A4 paper on the suspension sign board stating ‘Parking Suspension No Loading North John Street X4 pay & display parking places (Opposite NYL restaurant) 17.05.24 & 18.05.24’ can nevertheless be seen:
upon which we would submit that it was not enough to simply stand with the vehicle and look along the marked parking area; to reiterate, a reasonable check was required to be made and if such a check was made then the [distinctive] signage would have been noticed.
In line with the TRO (132C), the marked parking area in which the appellant was parked is comprised of 4 Pay & Display parking spaces - and the suspension signage adjacent to the marked parking area clearly stated that ‘X4 pay & display parking places’ were suspended. The entirety of 132C was therefore suspended and, ultimately, suspended bays may only be used by those persons authorised to do so under the terms of the suspension and the appellant had no authorisation to park and was thus parked in contravention. We are satisfied that the penalty charge was issued correctly, that the restriction was clearly and correctly prescribed, that the contravention has been established, and that no compelling mitigation/proof has been submitted to warrant cancellation. We therefore request that the appeal be dismissed and that the penalty charge remains payable.
