Here's my draft reps based on the arguments put forward by
@H C Andersen.
It's a bit long, but any advice on what to remove will be much appreciated! I've tried to simplify it, but it wasn't that obvious what I should take out.
-------------------
I am submitting a formal representation against the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued to me, as I believe it was issued based on an incorrect interpretation of the relevant parking regulations.
It is not in dispute that I parked on a yellow line while displaying a valid Blue Badge in accordance with the statutory requirements. The crux of the issue lies in the interpretation of the footway parking prohibition and its interaction with the no-waiting restriction indicated by the sign.
The Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) who issued this PCN appears to have interpreted the disapplication of the footway parking prohibition as applying solely outside the hours specified by the no-waiting sign. However, as a Blue Badge holder, I am legally exempt from the waiting restriction at all times. Consequently, the exemption should extend to footway parking as well, thereby permitting me to park with two wheels on the footway regardless of the time.
It is important to note that I have discussed this matter with several other Civil Enforcement Officers in the area, all of whom have consistently advised that, as a Blue Badge holder, I am permitted to park with two wheels on the footway and that the issuance of a PCN in such circumstances would be incorrect. They have also encouraged me to challenge the PCN, confirming that my understanding of the regulations aligns with standard enforcement practices.
Legally, once an exemption from the waiting restriction is established, it follows that footway parking should be permitted at all times for those exempted, including Blue Badge holders and those engaged in exempted activities such as loading. To interpret otherwise would render the exemption meaningless and would be contrary to both the letter and spirit of the law.
Furthermore, from a traffic management perspective, it is illogical to suggest that the council intends for disabled motorists to be forced to park entirely on the carriageway, particularly in an area where footway parking is generally permitted. Such an interpretation would expose disabled motorists to unnecessary risks by requiring them to park alongside larger vehicles, thus creating safety hazards and undermining the overarching traffic management objectives concerning carriageway width and available space.
My research into the council's policy further substantiates my position. It is evident that the prohibition on footway parking has been expressly disapplied 24/7 on this road and others. The council’s policy is clear: disapplying the prohibition does not grant carte blanche for unrestricted parking; it merely allows parking in accordance with existing restrictions. In the context of a part-time waiting restriction, this permits footway parking outside the restricted hours for those exempted, such as Blue Badge holders.
The issue, therefore, is not with the underlying policy but with the erroneous interpretation by the CEO, which has resulted in the misapplication of the footway parking regulations and the incorrect issuance of this PCN.
To summarize the legal position:
1. The prohibition on footway parking has been disapplied 24/7 at this location.
2. A part-time waiting restriction is in place.
3. As a motorist displaying a valid Blue Badge, I am legally entitled to park with two wheels on the footway at any time.
Additionally, I would like to bring to your attention the precedent set in London Tribunals Case reference 2190057621, where the adjudicator stated that "the local authority may face wasted costs order in the future if they continue to issue PCNs for footway parking to disabled badge holders". Should this PCN not be reviewed and cancelled in light of the clear legal position and consistent advice from other CEOs, I will be compelled to request that the council reimburse any costs incurred as a result of pursuing this appeal to London Tribunals.
Furthermore, I remind the council of its obligation to provide a full and detailed explanation should my representation be rejected. The council must address each of the points I have raised and explain the reasoning behind any decision to uphold the PCN.
If the CEO’s interpretation is correct, then the current footway parking signage is fundamentally flawed and should be removed. It is apparent that the signage in question does not conform to the prescribed form as required by law. Consequently, it may be argued that the signs do not adequately convey the applicable restrictions, failing to meet the legal requirement of clearly communicating the regulations to motorists. It must be replaced with standard permissive signage that excludes any timing restrictions, and loading restrictions should be implemented to align with the waiting restriction.
In light of the foregoing legal arguments, the advice I have received from other CEOs, and the potential for wasted costs orders, I respectfully request that the PCN be reviewed and cancelled.
-------------------------
Thanks in advance for any help given!
Show Posts
