draft representation below, I will PM you some links to put in the representation, they will redirect to
but if you give them the links I'll PM you, we can use the click count to confirm whether they've looked at them or not (obviously do not click on the links I PM you as we want the click count to remain at zero). If they don't click on them, we can then prove they've failed to consider all of the evidence. If they say in the rejection that they've considered all the evidence, we've got them for lying as well.
Dear West Suffolk Council,
I contend that the alleged contravention did not occur owing to inadequate and incorrectly sited signage. I have now found the map tile at
https://store.traffweb.app/suffolk/documents/parkmap/msched/EA63_rv0_5.pdf and I note the restricted area starts at the junction of Northgate Street with Angel Hill, but there are no zone signs at the junction.
Part 2 of Schedule 5 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 describes the sign as "Entrance to a zone or area (other than a pedestrian, or a pedestrian and cycle, zone) where parking controls apply", and the sign design you have adopted matches the item in the table at Part 3 of Schedule 5 under item 2 "Entrance to a restricted parking zone", but plainly you have not placed that sign at the entrance to the zone at all, as there are zone repeater signs before the zone entry sign.
If the zone entry signs were located where the zone legally commences, then I would have noticed the signs at the junction. The sign you rely on is located on the nearside just past my right-turn onto Angel Hill, and is likely to be missed by motorists who would not be looking in that direction while effecting a right-hand turn.
Furthermore the notice to owner is defective, because it does not convey the correct 28 day periods. A notice dated 20 May is deemed served on 22 May and the 28 day period thus expires on 18 June, not 20 June. The council is not empowered to alter the statutory timeframes in this way and this amounts to a procedural impropriety, on this point I refer you to the decision in Papjinder Gahir v London Borough of Havering at LINK1
Lastly the notice to owner indicates that the penalty will increased by 50% if no payment or representation is received, but the notice to owner cannot states this: the notice to owner can only state that the council may increase the penalty, not that it will do so. On this point I refer you to the comprehensive decision of adjudicator Jill Yates in Anthony Hall v Kent County Council available from LINK2
This is also a procedural impropriety.
For all the above reasons the penalty charge notice should be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
This representation must be sent online, if it doesn't fit into the council's representations form you might have to save it in a PDF and upload it as an attachment (do not trim the text to make it fix in the text box on their website).
Remember to get a screenshot of the confirmation page.
