This case stinks, the CEO is up to something very odd to say the least and we should put them to proof:
Dear London Borough of Newham,
I dispute liability for PCN PN35317555 on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur. I did not see any signs when I entered the street, and I am aware that signs in this location had previously been vandalised. I note that rather than taking a photo of the signs themselves, the CEO appears to have taken a photo of a photo that was displayed on some other device, this raises the question of whether there were any visible signs at the material time. I put it to you that at the material time there was no adequate signage, or else the CEO would have taken a photo of the sign rather than a photo of his hand-held device which was showing a photo taken at some earlier time.
Yours faithfully,
Thanks cp8759 I will respond with this
This case stinks, the CEO is up to something very odd to say the least and we should put them to proof:
Dear London Borough of Newham,
I dispute liability for PCN PN35317555 on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur. I did not see any signs when I entered the street, and I am aware that signs in this location had previously been vandalised. I note that rather than taking a photo of the signs themselves, the CEO appears to have taken a photo of a photo that was displayed on some other device, this raises the question of whether there were any visible signs at the material time. I put it to you that at the material time there was no adequate signage, or else the CEO would have taken a photo of the sign rather than a photo of his hand-held device which was showing a photo taken at some earlier time.
Yours faithfully,