Free Traffic Legal Advice

In your initial appeal, did you identify as the driver? Does PCMUK now know the identity of the driver?

Whilst they claim to have issued the NtK under PoFA 2012, the notice is not technically compliant and only the driver can be held liable. They cannot rely on PoFA to transfer liability to the keeper. Of course, that is a moot point if you revealed the identify of who was driving in your initial appeal.

Can you show any pictures of the signs at the location?

I notice that the location is next to a railway and it is a "wharf". Is the location covered by Byelaws? If so, it is not "relevant land" for the purposes of PoFA.

Hello,

Thank you for your responses. For your information, this is what I wrote in my appeal letter:

Please accept this letter as formal representations against the above PCN on the grounds shown below:
1. No parking was made as I did not leave the car.
2. I am a private hire driver with a PCO license.
3. The vehicle is a private hire vehicle.
4. I was dropping off a customer at the end of Sopwith Way when the alleged offence took place.
5. I had to pick up another customer from the same location within minutes. I was waiting for this customer at this location. 6. I direct you to case number Commercial Plant Services Ltd & others v Transport for London (2230060716, 25 May 2023). In that case the panel of adjudicators held that there was no authority to issue a PCN to a vehicle based on CCTV evidence and accordingly any such PCN was unenforceable.
7. In any case I put you to strict proof that an approved device was used in issuing the PCN.
8. The appeal headings in the PCN do not reflect the above statutory requirements. For ease of reference, I have reference, numbered the appeal points in the order in which the appear on the PCN.
9. The contravention did not occur.
• The act say - 4 (a) “the alleged contravention did not occur”;
• Surprisingly the word “alleged” is missing. This is misleading as the contravention has not been proved.
• I submit this is a procedural impropriety
10. The traffic order was invalid.
• The regulations state “4(g) the order which is alleged to have been contravened in relation to the vehicle concerned, except where it is an order to which Part 6 of Schedule 9 to the RTRA 1984 applies, is invalid;”
• The appeal point fails to show an reference to “except where it is an order to which Part 6 of Schedule 9 to the RTRA 1984 applies”.
• Without this reference to Part 6 of Schedule 9 to the RTRA 1984 how can a motorist even begin to understand what order he can challenge.
• I submit this is a procedural impropriety

Each of the above errors and omissions constitutes a procedural
impropriety. Even if I am not correct that each error or omission is a procedural impropriety, the errors and omissions taken as a totality means that the PCN is not substantially compliant.
In the circumstances, please cancel the PCN.