Here are the council photos:
@new-tothis this is fairly easy:
Dear London Borough of Hackney,
The alleged contravention did not occur. The CEO's own photos show that by that by 10:35:57 my vehicle had left, so a contravention could not have occurred at 10:41.
Furthermore it appears likely that the time of the contravention as stated on the regulation 10 PCN is the time that the CEO started preparing the regulation 9 PCN for service at the roadside. The CEO should have known that if he only started preparing the PCN after the vehicle had left, then neither the regulation 9 PCN nor the regulation 10 PCN could be served, because a regulation 10 PCN can only be served where the process of preparing the PCN had started before the vehicle is driven away.
The CEO might not know any better, but the enforcement authority should know the regulations it purports to enforce and regulation 10 clearly provides that a CEO who has observed a contravention is not to be taken to have started to prepare a penalty charge notice.
If your records confirm that the CEO only begun to prepare the PCN at 10:41, at least four minutes after the vehicle had been driven away, then you must know that the power at regulation 10(2)(c) cannot have arisen because the CEO had not begun to prepare the PCN prior to the vehicle being driven away.
In such circumstances it would be wholly unreasonable for you to attempt to enforce a penalty charge which you now know you had no power to serve in the first place, because I have drawn these discrepancies in your evidence to your attention and you are legally bound to consider what I say.
Should you therefore issue a notice of rejection, I will seek an order for costs at the tribunal on the ground that your notice of rejection is wholly unreasonable. I will pursue this course of action even if you decide not to contest the tribunal appeal.
Yours faithfully,
Send this online via
https://parkingdisputes.hackney.gov.uk/pcnonline/index.php and keep a screenshot of the confirmation screen.
