Free Traffic Legal Advice

Can I suggest a slightly different drafting?

---

I am challenging the issuance of the above PCN on the statutory grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.

The PCN explicitly alleges a contravention for parking on a "carriageway raised to meet the level of a footway." This physical infrastructure does not exist at the location of the vehicle. As demonstrated in the attached photographic evidence (IMG20260504102158 (2).jpg), the carriageway is entirely flat. It is the footway that is sloped down to the carriageway. Because the CEO has cited a topographical feature that is not present at the location, the specific contravention alleged on the PCN could not have occurred.

Notwithstanding the fatal procedural error above, the infrastructure that actually exists at the location my car was parked is a footway lowered strictly for the engineering purpose defined in Section 86(1)(a) of the Traffic Management Act 2004: assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway.

Therefore, the absolute exemption detailed in Section 86(3) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 applies in full. The statute dictates that the prohibition is nullified "where the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by or with the consent (but not consent given for reward) of the occupier of the premises."

My vehicle was parked immediately adjacent to the crossover exclusively serving my residential property at [the address]. As the sole occupier of these residential premises, I provided explicit consent for my vehicle to be parked at this location. No reward was given or received for this consent. Attached is proof of address and proof of ownership.

The alleged infrastructure does not exist, and the existing infrastructure is subject to an absolute statutory exemption. Please cancel the PCN immediately.

5/6/26

Thanks for the quick replies. How is this revised draft ?

-----

Formal Representation Against PCN [Insert PCN Number]

Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]
Location of Alleged Contravention: [Insert Location]
Date of Issue: [Insert Date]

Grounds for Representation: The alleged contravention did not occur.

I am the registered keeper of the vehicle [VRM] and the occupier of the residential premises at [Insert Address]. I am challenging the issuance of this Penalty Charge Notice on the basis that a statutory exemption applies.

1. Statutory Exemption for Residential Occupiers
Under the Traffic Management Act 2004, a vehicle is exempt from the prohibition of parking adjacent to a dropped footway if it is parked outside residential premises by, or with the consent of, the occupier.

The following conditions of this exemption are met:

- The premises are strictly residential.
- The driveway is for a single occupancy and is not shared with any other property.
- I am the occupier of the property and explicitly grant myself consent to park there.
- The vehicle was parked outside of any controlled hours for waiting restrictions (yellow lines) at this location.

2. Topographical and Structural Facts
The physical layout of the location confirms its sole purpose as a private crossover. Specifically, the footway slopes to meet the carriageway at this precise point to facilitate vehicular access exclusively to my property. It is not a pedestrian crossing point, nor does it serve any other public utility.

3. Evidentiary Submission
Attached to this representation is documentary evidence confirming:

- Proof of address and occupancy, establishing my right to the statutory exemption.
- Photographic evidence demonstrating that the footway slopes to meet the carriageway directly in front of my unshared, private driveway, and that the vehicle was parked in accordance with the exemption.

The enforcement officer has failed to establish that an actionable contravention occurred. I require the immediate cancellation of this PCN.

How is this ?

---

Formal Representation Against Notice to Owner
PCN Reference: [Insert PCN]
Vehicle Registration: [Insert VRM]
Location: [Insert Location]

I challenge this Notice to Owner on the primary ground that the alleged contravention did not occur. The PCN is both factually incorrect regarding the topography of the location and legally void due to the application of a statutory exemption.

1. Procedural Invalidation via Topographical Error
The PCN states the vehicle was "parked in a special enforcement area on part of the carriageway raised to meet the level of a footway, cycle track or verge" (Code 28). This physical description is false. The carriageway at this location has not been raised. Rather, the footway is sloped down to meet the level of the carriageway to facilitate vehicle access to a residential driveway. The Civil Enforcement Officer has conflated a dropped footway (Code 27) with a raised carriageway (Code 28). Because the PCN alleges a contravention that physically cannot have occurred at this location, the penalty is procedurally defective and must be cancelled.

2. Statutory Exemption under Traffic Management Act 2004
Notwithstanding the CEO’s fatal error in coding the topography, no parking contravention occurred. The location is a dropped footway serving a single residential driveway. Section 86(3) of the Traffic Management Act 2004 explicitly exempts vehicles parked in a special enforcement area adjacent to a dropped footway if the vehicle is parked outside residential premises by, or with the consent of, the occupier.

As the registered keeper of the vehicle and the occupier of the property at [Insert Address], I authorised the vehicle to be parked in this location. The statutory exemption is fully engaged.

I require immediate cancellation of the PCN. If this representation is rejected, you must provide the CEO’s complete topographical survey notes and photographic evidence specifically proving a raised carriageway, rather than a sloped footway, exists at this exact coordinate.

To accelerate the cancellation of this PCN, I have attached photographic evidence confirming the existence of a dropped footway, demonstrating unequivocally that the carriageway has not been raised. Furthermore, I have attached proof of residency at [Insert Address] to validate my authority to engage the Section 86(3) exemption.

No, this was not the case.

ok thank you so much. So on what basis do I challenge the NTO ? Simply that I was parked in front of my driveway, which is why the kerb was lowered, and not in front of a pedestrian crossing ?

I've shared all the photos from the counsel and a google maps link.

What else would you like to see ?