Free Traffic Legal Advice

It's your use of terms which might confuse them.

You are claiming a statutory defence (not mitigation) of: I was not the owner at the time of the contraventions. TPT's response to you isn't helpful because who legally owns the vehicle is not determinative, the issue is 'by whom is the vehicle kept'.


I suggest something along these lines:
As the adjudicator will know, 'owner' is the person by whom a vehicle is kept and this is presumed to be the registered keeper unless the contrary can be proved.

On ***, I neither legally owned the vehicle nor was it kept by me as I transferred title to **** by way of an arm's length bona fide sale on *** for the sum of *****. *****(insert the person or company to whom you sold the vehicle) took possession of the vehicle on **** and I relinquished my role as keeper at that time.

That ****(the person) has accrued numerous penalty charges and private parking charges(some of which have been cancelled on presentation of exactly the defence set out here) was beyond my control and, I submit, something for which I may not be held liable. I apologise for my naivete in not notifying DVLA to remove my name from the registered keepers' list, I was misled by the buyer on this but I have now taken my name off the register.

My attached evidence comprises:

Bank statement;
Bill of Sale;
Notification to DVLA of cancelled VED;
Correspondence with insurance company;
Personal details of the person to whom you sold the vehicle.
DVLA correspondence;

....and?

OP, the fundamental point is this which underpins all civil enforcement:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/schedule/7

See para. 3(2)(b)(i): the authority claim you breached the provisions of a traffic order whereby they were empowered to issue a PCN.

But they have no evidence to this effect and therefore because the adjudication system is creaking and an adjudicator won't adjourn for the authority to get its act together they should allow the appeal.

Signs are irrelevant because their role is to convey via traffic signs, the meaning of which a driver is presumed to know by virtue of holding a licence, provisions in an order.

No order in evidence = no case.

And as I remember, the TTO merely amended a principal order(and it's this amendment which they claim was breached) therefore both should be in evidence. But instead you appear to have neither.

Not at this stage. It's always worthwhile making reps within the 14-day period which ends on 18 June.

Does that make any difference?

To whom and for what? Certainly not the authority and definitely not any excuse for not contacting the respondent.

Send the email pl

Yes, I am prepared to do it on principle

I'm struggling to see this. You parked on an unmarked length of highway less than 1/2 mile from the Etihaad Stadium and adjacent to a tram stop and yet you didn't expect it to be subject to parking controls?

Doesn't happen, I'm afraid.

Also, earlier in the thread you were happy to pay the discount.

But you are where you are. Would you please post their reply(ies)(your transposed version omits important details like date and offer to accept the lower payment). As per others, it's probable that the discount would be re-offered

IMO, the sign is perfectly clear, compliant with regs as regards content and placed correctly*.

*- if the zone has an entrance at this point.

RK is the driver and car is not leased, was not planning to disclose the driver in any appeals.

It's owner(RK) liability and therefore as the driver was the RK, the driver is known. In any event, this can be useful at adjudication because the appellant would therefore have first-hand knowledge.

But in truth, if you were there 5 minutes then I can't see a defence against the contravention.

No photos may just be a timing issue regarding uploading and the intervening weekend.

Doesn't the statutory exemption only apply for a dropped kerb in front of a driveway?

As per stamfordman, NO.

86Prohibition of parking at dropped footways etc.
(1)In a special enforcement area a vehicle must not be parked on the carriageway adjacent to a footway, cycle track or verge where—

(a)the footway, cycle track or verge has been lowered to meet the level of the carriageway for the purpose of—

(i)assisting pedestrians crossing the carriageway,

(ii)assisting cyclists entering or leaving the carriageway, or

(iii)assisting vehicles entering or leaving the carriageway across the footway, cycle track or verge; OR

(b)the carriageway has, for a purpose within paragraph (a)(i) to (iii), been raised to meet the level of the footway, cycle track or verge.

This is subject to the following exceptions.

...
3)The second exception is 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.

This exception does not apply in the case of a shared driveway.