DIR Return Create A Forum - Home
---------------------------------------------------------
FreeTrafficLegalAdvice
HTML https://ftla.createaforum.com
---------------------------------------------------------
*****************************************************
DIR Return to: Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so ...
*****************************************************
#Post#: 124345--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Issued - "And Opposite"
DIR By: bees
Date: July 10, 2026, 5:17 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> They're as above!
>
> Just put in your own words (top and tail with contextual
matters) and pl just stick with the substantive issue.
>
--- End Quote ---
Please find my response for informal challenge response. Can you
check and let me know if this sounds ok ?
I make these representations on the basis that the alleged
contravention did not occur.
The PCN was issued on the assumption that the yellow advance
warning board in place—said to give effect to a Temporary
Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO)—have had the legal effect of
suspending the existing parking controls and imposing
alternative restrictions, specifically a prohibition on waiting
and loading.
This assumption is incorrect. The TTRO relied upon does not
suspend any parking provisions, nor does it create any
prohibition on waiting or loading. Its operative effect is
limited solely to restricting traffic access to certain roads. A
restriction on vehicular access cannot, as a matter of law,
impose or substitute parking restrictions. The statutory parking
controls governing the location therefore remained fully in
force and were not displaced.
For this reason, the alleged contravention could not have
occurred and the PCN must be cancelled.
If the authority maintains that the TTRO created a
waiting/loading restriction, then in any Notice of Rejection it
must identify and provide the specific provision of the TTRO
that it alleges was breached. A general statement that “a
restriction existed and was breached” would not constitute
proper consideration of these representations and would be
procedurally improper.
For clarity, section 14(7) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act
1984 provides that an order made under that section may suspend
statutory provisions. The TTRO in question does not do so. It
merely restricts traffic access; it does not suspend, amend, or
replace the statutory parking controls applicable to the
location.
In the absence of any lawful suspension of the parking place, no
contravention occurred.
#Post#: 124368--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Issued - "And Opposite"
DIR By: bees
Date: July 11, 2026, 4:03 am
---------------------------------------------------------
--- Quote from: tincombe link ---
>
> They're as above!
>
> Just put in your own words (top and tail with contextual
matters) and pl just stick with the substantive issue.
>
--- End Quote ---
Hello Tincombe,
How does this draft version of message look like ? Please let me
know.
I make these representations on the basis that the alleged
contravention did not occur.
The PCN was issued on the assumption that the yellow advance
warning board in place—said to give effect to a Temporary
Traffic Regulation Order (TTRO)—have had the legal effect of
suspending the existing parking controls and imposing
alternative restrictions, specifically a prohibition on waiting
and loading.
This assumption is incorrect. The TTRO relied upon does not
suspend any parking provisions, nor does it create any
prohibition on waiting or loading. Its operative effect is
limited solely to restricting traffic access to certain roads. A
restriction on vehicular access cannot, as a matter of law,
impose or substitute parking restrictions. The statutory parking
controls governing the location therefore remained fully in
force and were not displaced.
For this reason, the alleged contravention could not have
occurred and the PCN must be cancelled.
If the authority maintains that the TTRO created a
waiting/loading restriction, then in any Notice of Rejection it
must identify and provide the specific provision of the TTRO
that it alleges was breached. A general statement that “a
restriction existed and was breached” would not constitute
proper consideration of these representations and would be
procedurally improper.
For clarity, section 14(7) of the Road Traffic Regulation Act
1984 provides that an order made under that section may suspend
statutory provisions. The TTRO in question does not do so. It
merely restricts traffic access; it does not suspend, amend, or
replace the statutory parking controls applicable to the
location.
In the absence of any lawful suspension of the parking place, no
contravention occurred.
#Post#: 124426--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Issued - "And Opposite"
DIR By: bees
Date: July 12, 2026, 6:21 am
---------------------------------------------------------
Bump... Can someone review the response I have drafted please ?
#Post#: 124427--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Issued - "And Opposite"
DIR By: tincombe
Date: July 12, 2026, 7:35 am
---------------------------------------------------------
You're looking to get the substantive points in play which you
have.
IMO, get it submitted, otherwise you're in danger of missing the
28-day window(ends on 17th).
#Post#: 124460--------------------------------------------------
Re: PCN Issued - "And Opposite"
DIR By: bees
Date: July 12, 2026, 5:43 pm
---------------------------------------------------------
Thank you [member=7970]tincombe[/member] so much for your time
and effort. I really appreciate the time and effort you have
taken to read this post and suggest options and expert opinion.
I will keep you updated how I progress.
Also thanks to @ John U.K. for your inputs.
Take care both....
*****************************************************
Page 2 of 2
DIR Previous Page