Show Posts
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Does the "date of service" Vs "date of notice " difference make the PCN invalid @Hippocrates ?
This PCN fails to contain mandatory information at Part 2 Para. 4(8 )(v)
provided at:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enacted
(v)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28
day period, an increased charge may be payable
This in turn refers to (iii)
(iii)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the
period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
The following statement does not clarify this:
If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations
before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date
of service of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable.
In light of the above, I ask that the PCN be cancelled.
I write in response to the Notice to Keeper issued in respect of the above PCN.
I make this representation on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur.
Footway parking is a permitted activity on Hall Place Crescent, evidenced by the presence of multiple marked parking bays which are painted partially on the footway. The existence of such bays necessarily implies that a resolution under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 has been passed to allow footway parking on this road. The question is therefore not whether footway parking is prohibited on Hall Place Crescent in general, but whether any such resolution applies selectively and whether the council can demonstrate that the location where my vehicle was parked falls outside the terms of the resolution.
If the council believes that I contravened the terms of a footway parking resolution that permits parking only in specific areas, it is incumbent on the council to produce a copy of that resolution and to show precisely how it applies to the road in question, including any maps or diagrams referred to in it.
Unless and until the council provides evidence of such a resolution and shows how the location in question falls outside its scope, I contend that the contravention did not occur. It is not for the keeper to prove the existence or content of a traffic resolution; the burden of proof lies squarely with the enforcement authority.
In light of the above, I respectfully request that this PCN be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
I write in response to the Notice to Keeper issued in respect of the above PCN.
I respectfully submit that the alleged contravention did not occur. Footway parking is clearly permitted on Hall Place Crescent, as evidenced by the marked parking bays that are painted partially on the footway. There are no signs or markings in the vicinity indicating that footway parking is restricted only to the marked bays, nor is there any signage indicating a general prohibition on footway parking on this road.
In areas where footway parking is generally prohibited, but selectively permitted by resolution, the council must ensure that the effect of the resolution is clearly conveyed through signage, in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD). The absence of such signage in this location leads to a legitimate expectation that footway parking is permitted throughout the road, and not confined strictly to the painted bays.
If the council believes a contravention has occurred, I request that you provide, as part of your response to this representation, a copy of the footway parking resolution under section 15(4) of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974, which governs footway parking on this road. It is for the council to demonstrate the legal basis for any restriction, and to show that this restriction was clearly and lawfully conveyed to motorists at the location.
Given the apparent absence of any signage, and the existence of marked bays that imply permission to park partially on the footway, I believe it was entirely reasonable to conclude that footway parking is permitted along this street.
In light of the above, I respectfully request that this PCN be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
IMO, it's not the authority's task to prove that there isn't a prohibition,More than one adjudicator has stated that where footway parking is permitted on a particular road, the burden shifts on the enforcement authority to show that the vehicle was parked in breach of the underlying resolution.
