Hello everyone,
I am a user of the other forum where some of you used to post, but I am new here.
I have been fighting unfair traffic offences for others in my community for a while, so I am acquainted (but not an expert) with the principles of parking contraventions and the PCN enforcement/appeal process.
I have attached a redacted '
Letter of representation' to appeal against the PCN, and I would appreciate comments:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1bh_FTiFqNVr8JuJ_7Hvuj7zxkDQUHA4Y/view?usp=sharingPictures of PCN can be found in APPENDIX A of the appeal letter I plan to use.
Response 1 from Council: After I sent them an email asking to confirm if there is a PCN and what the grounds were:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1rXvAvZnFQDQFfY4rWGgUK4r7y5Vl-pJx/view?usp=sharingResponse 2 from Council: After my online appeal submission (the appeal content is within the document):
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XkMXYlGWZVjwm52M5ltx0rFb3mUW5uAX/view?usp=sharingCould you also advise me on the next step? Should I wait for the NTO to be issued and for the appeal to be rejected by the Westminster Council (again) before I take this to the London Tribunals?
Seeking your support to fight a unique case described below,
- Driver was on Garrick Street (Zone G). The street is littered with parking bays, which are pay by phone (paid), and resident bays
- Driver started unloading a passenger and offloading luggage
- When the driver looked up, they noticed a piece of paper on the wiper (as you will see in the attachment, it was not appropriately printed and not legible)
- No CEO was around, and the contravention was not apparent due to unclear text
- Since the PCN number was the only information clear with the vehicle VRN, the driver looked up the council's website, which showed the PCN was issued for parking in a 'residents' bay.
Surprisingly, no evidence images have been uploaded, and the council has refused to provide any since they are not required to provide any evidence.
My grounds for appeal are stated below. This is expanded upon in detail which individual sections of my
letter of representation regarding this PCN.
- GROUND 1 [Procedural Impropriety] The Driver was permitted to set down passengers and unload luggage as per the TMO and council parking policies on page 25 (para 4, 6) of the ‘City of Westminster Kerbside Management & Enforcement Code of Practice v4.0 April 2017’; this applies to both commercial and private vehicles. The Local Authority should review the evidence available to confirm this.
- GROUND 2A [The contravention did not occur] The driver was not parked in a ‘resident bay’ and was in a ‘pay by phone’ parking bay. Garrick Street has a mixture of both resident and paid parking bays.
The Local Authority has refused to share evidence proving their case on the balance of probabilities that the vehicle was parked in a ‘residents bay’. - GROUND 2B [Procedural Impropriety] The CEO did not maintain an observation period despite being required to. As shown below, CEOs are expected to maintain an observation period regardless of whether the parking bay is a ‘resident bay’ or a ‘pay by phone’ bay.
If the driver had not accidentally been issued the PCN, they would have purchased paid parking ‘after’ the unloading activity took place. The driver left Garrick Street in shock upon noticing the PCN was issued incorrectly (without observation). - GROUND 3 [Procedural Impropriety] The registered keeper required reasonable accommodations for their disability, which the Local Authority should permit in providing a public service under the Equality Act 2010.
- GROUND 4 [Unlawful enforcement] The Local Authority has incorrectly applied the lawful basis of Garrick Street being a ‘traffic-sensitive street’ as designated through the New Roads and Street Works Act 1991 (‘NRSWA 1991’).
This prevents the Local Authority from waiving any requirements set out within its policies regarding parking enforcement.
