Free Traffic Legal Advice

Don't do anything in a rush, you've got 28 days from the 18th December to respond, so take the time to get all your ducks in a row, and wait for more experienced forum members to chip in before doing anything.

Having said that, I think your list of likely winning arguments is pretty lengthy, and I would be surprised if they don't drop the PCN before an adjudicator gets to see how much of a mess they made.

1) There's no evidence of any actual suspension signs, just an advanced warning notice. The order says it's only valid at "such times then appropriate traffic signs are displayed in accordance with TSRGD 2016(c)", and that "Parking restrictions will apply when the appropriate signs are displayed", so you will put the council to strict proof that such signs were in displayed.

2) The suspension sign says the restriction lasts "until Monday 29th September 8am-4pm". As the observation time was after 8:07-8:19am, the signposted restriction had already ended.

3) The suspension sign contains incomprehensible gibberish.

4) PCN is for the wrong contravention (see page 1 of this thread)

5) Failure to consider (as their claim that the right signs were in place is complete rubbish)

6) You will put the council to strict proof that "Tree works - Green Space, Cleansing and Gristwood and Toms" occurred after 08:07 on that day. They will have difficulty proving this as it's hopelessly garbled.

As you say, the full £160 is in play, and that's the upper limit if you carry on to the tribunal, so it's a no brainer to fight on.

Another +1 here

Not just because you'll probably win but also because there's a chance you'd get Mr Stanton-Dunne as the adjudicator, which would be immensely entertaining.

Agreed. I'd be firing off a subject data access request for all notes about the PCN if I was the OP.

I think we're in danger of reading too much into that decision on the meaning of "match day".

While Carl Teper might not "have jurisdiction to strike down the Traffic Management Order as invalid, nor can I disregard a statutory definition on the basis of fairness or otherwise" he does have the ability (and duty) to determine if the signage accurately conveys the contents of the TMO to a diligent motorist, which it does not. If not, then we're in a ludicrous situation where councils can dispense with signage entirely.

I suspect he would have accepted this argument had appellant had brought it up, but didn't need to go there on this occasion because he'd already ruled in the appellant's favour.

I'm not suggesting actually doing this without getting a lot more official legal advice than I'm able to offer in my role as a completely unqualified random stranger on the internet, but In your shoes I'd consider a note saying something like:

Dear Parking

Bearing in mind that that putting up a sign that says I can park somewhere then fining me for believing that sign obviously constitutes entrapment, and I've heard nothing from you for a while, I believe my current options are:

1) Hire a legal team, apply to the Court for a stay, and ask the Court to award costs

or

2) Pay up then hire a legal team, prosecute the Council for unlawful enrichment, get my money back and ask the Court to award costs.


...unless of course can you confirm that you've dropped the matter?

There is literally no way for a website to send you a page without temporarily storing your IP address, so it's actually just a question of how long that information is retained.

No.

This is not as simple as you think it is. We need to fully understand what's happened here in order to give you the correct advice. The signage IS relevant!