Free Traffic Legal Advice

As I posted previously, they're judges in their own cause at present and, as here, will tell you that black is white or vice-versa if it suits them without any regard for the law.

It's shocking, but there you are. The problem is actually nothing to do with parking legislation, it's a problem of local authority finances and accountability. For info, the reason for this is that penalty charge income (despite dwarfing all other third party income other than council tax!)is NOT treated as debt for the purposes of internal financial scrutiny, therefore every Do Not Contest at adjudication, every cancellation, every adverse adjudication decision escapes the scrutiny of internal audit who otherwise want to know the whereabouts of every biro with a gnawed top!

You just have to see it through to the end by appealing and make this end the bitterest you can for them by asking for costs against the authority.

At this stage the authority are judges in their own cause. C'est la vie.

Stamfordman has identified some tribunal decisions which show that the authority's position is incorrect in law.

Sadly, the authority don't recognise this.

Why? Ignorance or bullying? Sorry if this shatters your illusions about your local council, but you just can't get the staff these days....as opposed to my day! 

Contravention did not occur
Procedural impropriety

The authority's position is that the traffic sign in situ - Disabled badge holders only 4 hours; No return 2 hours - conveys the requirement that a motorist must display a 'parking disk' (AKA clock) to show when parking commenced thereby allowing the authority to establish when the 4-hour limit is breached. However, there is no legal support for this position. The issue is the effect of the sign and not whether a traffic order might require display, not that this applies in this case, and the law is clear: there is no requirement imposed upon a motorist to display a parking disc therefore not displaying one cannot be a contravention.
The authority either accept this argument or not. But if not, then they are obliged to support this with legal argument and not simply an assertion.

Procedural Impropriety
The PCN does not comply with Regulation 9(7)(b) of the General Regulations, namely regulation 3(1) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations.

Welcome to our acronym world!

PCN -penalty charge notice
NTO -notice to owner
CC- charge certificate
OfR- order for recovery
TEC-traffic enforcement centre
WS-witness statement
TSRGD- traffic signs regulations and general directions
RTRA-road traffic regulation act
TMA-traffic management act
JR-judicial review...or Jim Reeves!

I can't find the order. I would wait for the NTO.

Is the car registered to you and is the V5C logbook name/address correct?

The bay is 4 hours not 3 hours so they are wrong to say 3 hours here.

But we have key cases that show the clock is not necessary in timed disabled bays. We also know that some councils don't even include the clock in its traffic orders.

I'll did out the necessary later.