is this council parking ticket legal

took my wife to the doctors and parked in the disabled space outside the surgery. i displayed the blue badge. the only road markings were a disabled space.

no single or double yellow lines.

there is a sign 3hrs parking no return within 2 hrs

i forgot to put the time on the clock.

the receptionist called and said the traffic wardens taking photos of your car.

i went out and he hadn't issued a ticket.

i correct the clock but he said it doesn't matter i got a photos. and then went and issued a ticket and put it on the windscreen

i said are you taking a picture of it on the windscreen he said no

i said you should because it the clock is correct now. you should but he declined and walked off

is this ticket legal

street view is B66 3BQ

If its a time limited bay then the clock is required if the PCN had already been issued then the PCN was correctly issued. It is worth an apeal the Council often takes a generous view with BB holders.

my point is he issued it after i corrected the the clock. surely he should have taken the photos after issuing the ticket

If you were permitted to go back and amend the clock, then there would be no point in having a time limit. You could park all day, going back to change it every so often. As for your wanting him to photograph it after it had been changed, what good would that do, except to corroborate the fact that you altered it? It wouldn't affect what had already happened.

Your best best bet is to appeal by explaining the events as you have here, and ask for leniency. You stand a chance.

you can appeal to the council in writing saying your wife was late for the appointment, you just took her inside and came back to adjust the time before you could set time the ticket was issued.

go to (Edit)

ok

your missing the point

lets say you park in a council pay and display

your ticket expires at 10.30. the warden takes a photo at 10.31 before he issues the ticket

you quickly buy a ticket at 10.32 and display it.

the warden issues the ticket but because he took the photos first the ticket is issued at 10.32.

he does not take a photo of the ticket on the windscreen because it will show a valid ticket on display

you think the council is right

 

 

lets say you park in a council pay and display

your ticket expires at 10.30. the warden takes a photo at 10.31 before he issues the ticket

you quickly buy a ticket at 10.32 and display it.

the warden issues the ticket but because he took the photos first the ticket is issued at 10.32.

 

Naturally you are annoyed at your temporary lapse, but the lapse is yours and yours alone.

ok

your missing the point

 

lets say you park in a council pay and display

your ticket expires at 10.30. the warden takes a photo at 10.31 before he issues the ticket

you quickly buy a ticket at 10.32 and display it.

the warden issues the ticket but because he took the photos first the ticket is issued at 10.32.

 

he does not take a photo of the ticket on the windscreen because it will show a valid ticket on display

 

you think the council is right

The CEO would be entitled to issue a PCN, becuase you can't buy a second ticket to add to your time. It's called meter feeding and the same argument holds as in your situation. If a P&D bay has a time limit, then you're bound by it and can't add on more and more as you wish. The rule is - one ticket - then move the car, regardless of whether you are inside the overall time limit.

Of course if your hypothetical scenario is for a p&d bay without a time limit, then that alters things, but it also removes the relevance to your own experience.

my point is he issued it after i corrected the the clock. surely he should have taken the photos after issuing the ticket

How do you know he issued the PCN after you changed the clock? The PCN is considered 'issued' as soon as the first details are entered which is why a 'drive away' postal PCN is now possible. If a vehicle is seen in contravention a CEO is entitled to issue a PCN once the PCN has been commenced it doesn't matter if you buy a P&D, change your clock or move off of a yellow line provided the PCN was commenced whilst the vehicle was in contravention. You can prove the PCN was served after you changed the clock but can you prove the PC was 'issued' after you returned?

wow plenty of negative responses here. Let's put on some positives. I will be taking references from Drive Away-Patas Case.

1)

The PCN is considered 'issued' as soon as the first details are entered which is why a 'drive away' postal PCN is now possible

From above link case:

In my judgment, and accepting the definition of "issue" for which both sides have contended, merely jotting down some details before putting them into the computer to print the ticket or writing the ticket by hand cannot amount to an attempt to issue -- it is simply a preparatory act.

The words "issue" and "attempt" :

Hence it is said by both sides that "issue" must mean the act of fixing the penalty charge notice to the vehicle or giving it to the person appearing to him to be in charge of the vehicle. That being the case, one has to look to see how far back before the actual issue it can be said that the parking attendant was attempting to issue. The claimant contends that the attempt starts from the moment that (with the intention of eventually fixing the ticket on the windscreen or giving it to the driver) the parking attendant starts to write or to input into his hand-held device. Any other interpretation, the claimant submits, defeats the object of the whole exercise, and the process, once started, is effectively inexorable so that everything done from the first writing, up to the moment before the parking ticket is actually issued, constitutes the attempt.

As far my interpretation goes on above case, G&M is totally wrong on his assumption. Feel free to correct me with some references and not merely on parking attendant justification.

An interesting read City of Westminster-VDA Reg 10 .

2)

it's not a statutory requirement to take photos before, after or indeed at all.

Ok not a requirement to take photos but remember photos is not only to prove contravention but a proof that a PCN was actually "served". When a photo of contravention is present but not of PCN attached to vehicle, argument can be made as above ie CEO was preparing PCN but not actually issued. Back to square, it's as likely that your words are as believable as of CEO's. However strong indication that CEO did not actually finished "issue of PCN". No one's is favored but burden of proof is with council to satisfy. Don't think merely CEO's note with Driver return, no conversation, Handed to driver and no photos taken is sufficient. On above linked document, case study on Enfield:

Anecdotally, most VDA PCNs challenged have proved difficult to uphold due to the lack of CEO evidence and few are pursued by the Council to appeal stage at PATAS. Even those PCNs with evidence deemed good enough to be taken to PATAS are generally allowed by the adjudicator (i.e. the adjudicator finds in favour of the appellant) due to the lack of irrefutable evidence. In Enfield’s experience, adjudicators require as a minimum: complete tax disc details; photos of the vehicle committing the contravention; a physical description of the driver; and confirmation that the CEO advised the driver that a PCN would be issued.

Note above the adjudicator's min requirement esp last 2.

The document was just a report on case study but shows the difficulty in enforcement when a clear lack of proof/evidence is not present.

Publication :

Essex County Council complained that parking adjudicators are requiring increasingly burdensome evidence that contraventions have taken place, including photographs.[264] The Chief Parking Adjudicator for England and Wales clarified the position. "There is no requirement for corroboration of the parking attendant's evidence but where the adjudicator is required to consider two conflicting accounts the decision will necessarily be made at least in part on the quality of the evidence presented (emphasis applied)."

I don't think the responses are negative, Starfarer, just factual.

In the case study you give, there are a couple of things which jump out - the phrase "merely jotting down some details before putting them into the computer" is distinct from actually putting them into the computer (ie the CEO's hand-held device) so not relevant.

Also, the adjudicator accepts a definition of "issue" on which both parties agree, but which is at odds with the normal definition. Issue means to generate the record on the hand-held, as distinct from serving, which is attaching it to the vehicle. In my view, the adjudicator should have better clarified why he was using an unusual definition.

In the case above, a contravention was seen, a PCN issued, then the clock changed, then the PCN served. This is, I think, procedurally valid - and that's not negative, just the truth as I see it.

I believe the OP should appeal with an account of what happened.

I don't want to copy paste whole case here but anyway:

If "issue" is confined to the act of fixing the ticket or giving it to the driver, then it cannot be an attempt to do that merely to input the details into the computer. That too is simply getting ready to attempt rather than attempting.

The case study provided is for the response on G&M's post but still can be apply to almost any PCN.

The question is of "PCN issued". Driver returned, CEO still preparing PCN, Driver adjusted the clock. Did CEO issued PCN? on the definition of issue: means to generate the record on the hand-held which I assume is to "Print PCN from handheld". So what if there was no PCN printing at this time? We are talking of time frame involving Driver return, open the door, took time clock and adjusted, close the door and point out to CEO. 10-15 seconds?? my guess a little over 1 minute and just for sake of argument, Is the CEO right to continue with PRINT OF PCN after whole 1 minute of eg if driver already moved his vehicle (or after whole 1 minute of no contravention)?

Yes agree OP should appeal on what happened. Demand the reason why CEO took the pictures before actually "serving" or "issued" PCN. Also point out that this practice is open to misuse by CEO. If possible include any appointment letter, a witness statement from recep.

If "issue" is confined to the act of fixing the ticket or giving it to the driver, then it cannot be an attempt to do that merely to input the details into the computer.

Issue is not about fixing or handing the ticket - that is serving the PCN, not issuing it. Issuing it means in effect, to create it. Serving comes later.

on the definition of issue: means to generate the record on the hand-held which I assume is to "Print PCN from handheld".

Your assumption is not correct. Issue does not mean print. It is already issued before the printing takes place.

Yes agree OP should appeal on what happened. Demand the reason why CEO took the pictures before actually "serving" or "issued" PCN.

They invariably take photos before serving the PCN. It won't do any good asking questions like this - if he's going to appeal, he needs to state his case, not enquire as to why CEOs work the way they do.

2)

 

Ok not a requirement to take photos but remember photos is not only to prove contravention but a proof that a PCN was actually "served". When a photo of contravention is present but not of PCN attached to vehicle, argument can be made as above ie CEO was preparing PCN but not actually issued.

Demand the reason why CEO took the pictures before actually "serving" or "issued" PCN. .

as you previosly noted, it would be to prove the contravention ie wrongly set clock.

Also point out that this practice is open to misuse by CEO..

Possibly, but not in this instance

If possible include any appointment letter, a witness statement from recep.

how would that help with regards to re-setting the clock

The meaning of "issue" of PCN on case referenced above is either "fixed to vehicle" or " handed to driver".

What is "issue"? The obvious meaning to a lay person would be to fix it at the moment when the ticket has been completed and "issued" in normal parlance, either in handwriting or by being printed out from the hand-held device. But both sides before me have agreed that while that might be the obvious answer, it is in fact the wrong answer. This is because of the wording which links the concept of "issue" to section 66(1) of the Road Traffic Act, which reads:

"Where, in the case of a stationary vehicle ... a parking attendant has reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle, he may

(a) fix a penalty charge notice to the vehicle; or

(b) give such a notice to the person appearing to him to be in charge of

the vehicle."

22. That is related to section 5(1) of the London Local Authorities Act 2000, which reads:

"(1) Where a parking attendant attempts to issue a penalty charge notice in accordance with section 66(1) of the Act of 1991 but is prevented from doing so by any person—

(a) Transport for London, if the attendant was acting on its behalf; or

(b) in any other case the council on whose behalf the attendant was acting, may serve a penalty charge notice on the person appearing to it or them to be the owner of the vehicle."

And "service", as is accepted by all, in that instance may be by post.

Note the bolded part above. That part clearly differentiate when at what stage a PCN is actually issued. Normal practice of belief is when a command for print is already started or it start printing from printer. On next sentence, there's a clear indication that it is a wrong answer. Then the argument for "issue" continues and comes to conclusion that it HAVE to be either attached to vehicle or handed to driver. So the stages for PCN:

a) preparation ie inputting the details and print PCN

b) attempt to issue ie try to attach or hand it over. Again referencing the case above:

The attempt to issue must, in my judgment, start either when the attendant begins to put the details into the computer in order to generate the ticket or to write the ticket, or, when he has removed the completed ticket from the computer

or the pad and starts to approach the driver or the windscreen.

c) issue (either attach to vehicle or hand it over to driver)

d) if failed to issue, then serve ie send it by post (red part above)

So coming back on topic of issue and referencing the case study linked above:

Issue is not about fixing or handing the ticket - that is serving the pcn, not issuing it. Issuing it means in effect, to create it. Serving comes later.

Issue of PCN is either only about fixing or handing. To create a PCN is not even an attempt to issue, it is a stage at preparation of PCN. Yes serving comes later which is in case CEO is prevented from issue (ie attach to vehicle or handed to driver), it'll be served (which reads: it'll may be send by post).

Your assumption is not correct. Issue does not mean print. It is already issued before the printing takes place.

Exactly, merely CEO standing with a PCN printed on his hand does not mean a PCN is "issued". Do I need to elaborate on next sentence? Just to clarify again: Anything before the stage where a CEO actually tries to attach or hand PCN is a preparatory stage. When CEO moves closer to vehicle or driver with intention to issue is an attempt to issue and actual attach or handed is issued.

I was giving an example in worst case scenario where even PCN was already printed whereas in OP's case, PCN came lot later.

They invariably take photos before serving the PCN. It won't do any good asking questions like this - if he's going to appeal, he needs to state his case, not enquire as to why CEOs work the way they do.

This is a case. Why would CEO take a photos without establishing a contravention. When I say "establish contravention" , it include CEO have to make certain that no exemptions applies and follow the local guidelines on minimum observation time allowed to motorists. What if, the local council have procedure for "only to take photos after attach to vehicle". Then CEO's action of taking photos before issue constitutes a procedural impropriety. Council may allow for photos before issue but still OP need to make sure that it is a normal guideline in local council.

I will always question why CEO works the way they're working if not a normal procedure. I know dead certain that in my local borough and place where I work, no CEO will take pictures before PCN is printed. I know that all CEO wears hat and supplied uniform. Well I'll defo question if CEO issue a PCN wearing jeans and leather jacket.

The question for OP is not that he re-set the clock or is in contravention. The witness statement is to prove that CEO did issue PCN but after OP returned back to vehicle from inside of building,open car's door, took his time clock, re-set it, displayed and had another few words with CEO. I don't know how long will it take but even usain bolt will struggle to manage it within couple seconds. The question here is the action of CEO. Why would he/she continue to prepare PCN long after the driver returned and displayed time clock? The question here is the practice of taking photos before issue of PCN. A set of photos without one of PCN attached to vehicle may indicate that the PCN was not issued (in simpler words it does shows where a vehicle was parked but does not tell about PCN issue). When the PCN was not issued then there is no question of contravention.

"The obvious meaning to a lay person would be to fix it at the moment when the ticket has been completed and "issued" in normal parlance, either in handwriting or by being printed out from the hand-held device. But both sides before me have agreed that while that might be the obvious answer, it is in fact the wrong answer."

The meanining of 'issued' in the above is correct in the case referred to as it relates to the connection between s.66 Road Traffic Act 1991 and s.22 London Local Authorities Act 2000 which is where the CEO is prevented from 'issuing' penalty notice.

s.22 L.L.L.A. Act doesn't apply to the OP's case so neither does that definition of 'issued'.

The meaning of "issue" of PCN on case referenced above is either "fixed to vehicle" or " handed to driver".

 

What is "issue"? The obvious meaning to a lay person would be to fix it at the moment when the ticket has been completed and "issued" in normal parlance, either in handwriting or by being printed out from the hand-held device. But both sides before me have agreed that while that might be the obvious answer, it is in fact the wrong answer. This is because of the wording which links the concept of "issue" to section 66(1) of the Road Traffic Act, which reads:

"Where, in the case of a stationary vehicle ... a parking attendant has reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable with respect to the vehicle, he may

(a) fix a penalty charge notice to the vehicle; or

(b) give such a notice to the person appearing to him to be in charge of

the vehicle."

22. That is related to section 5(1) of the London Local Authorities Act 2000, which reads:

"(1) Where a parking attendant attempts to issue a penalty charge notice in accordance with section 66(1) of the Act of 1991 but is prevented from doing so by any person—

(a) Transport for London, if the attendant was acting on its behalf; or

(b) in any other case the council on whose behalf the attendant was acting, may serve a penalty charge notice on the person appearing to it or them to be the owner of the vehicle."

 

And "service", as is accepted by all, in that instance may be by post.

 

Note the bolded part above. That part clearly differentiate when at what stage a PCN is actually issued. Normal practice of belief is when a command for print is already started or it start printing from printer. On next sentence, there's a clear indication that it is a wrong answer. Then the argument for "issue" continues and comes to conclusion that it HAVE to be either attached to vehicle or handed to driver. So the stages for PCN:

a) preparation ie inputting the details and print PCN

b) attempt to issue ie try to attach or hand it over. Again referencing the case above:

The attempt to issue must, in my judgment, start either when the attendant begins to put the details into the computer in order to generate the ticket or to write the ticket, or, when he has removed the completed ticket from the computer

or the pad and starts to approach the driver or the windscreen.

c) issue (either attach to vehicle or hand it over to driver)

d) if failed to issue, then serve ie send it by post (red part above)

 

So coming back on topic of issue and referencing the case study linked above:

 

Issue of PCN is either only about fixing or handing. To create a PCN is not even an attempt to issue, it is a stage at preparation of PCN. Yes serving comes later which is in case CEO is prevented from issue (ie attach to vehicle or handed to driver), it'll be served (which reads: it'll may be send by post).

 

 

Exactly, merely CEO standing with a PCN printed on his hand does not mean a PCN is "issued". Do I need to elaborate on next sentence? Just to clarify again: Anything before the stage where a CEO actually tries to attach or hand PCN is a preparatory stage. When CEO moves closer to vehicle or driver with intention to issue is an attempt to issue and actual attach or handed is issued.

I was giving an example in worst case scenario where even PCN was already printed whereas in OP's case, PCN came lot later.

 

 

This is a case. Why would CEO take a photos without establishing a contravention. When I say "establish contravention" , it include CEO have to make certain that no exemptions applies and follow the local guidelines on minimum observation time allowed to motorists. What if, the local council have procedure for "only to take photos after attach to vehicle". Then CEO's action of taking photos before issue constitutes a procedural impropriety. Council may allow for photos before issue but still OP need to make sure that it is a normal guideline in local council.

 

I will always question why CEO works the way they're working if not a normal procedure. I know dead certain that in my local borough and place where I work, no CEO will take pictures before PCN is printed. I know that all CEO wears hat and supplied uniform. Well I'll defo question if CEO issue a PCN wearing jeans and leather jacket.

Great argument but as already pointed out uses the wrong defunct legislation giving it to the driver or attatching to vehicle is clearly not issuing a PCN that is serving a PCN. Issuing a PCN is entering the vehicle details into the PDA in order to generate a PCN but even if you disagree it doesn't really have any relevance as it is just a case of the wrong term being used by the OP. At the time he began to prepare the PCN for service the vehicle was in contravention trying to prove otherwise when there are photos to show the wrong time on the clock is unlikely.

errrr...thanks for compliment. Not many do come from gr8 G&M . I'm well aware of what the original appeal was based on. But please remember that the case study referenced was a High court verdict (and not PATAS case) claimant being Transport for London vs defendant Parking Adjudicator. The objective of the claim as put forward is :

15.In spite of that concession and the lack therefore of any need, if successful, for the court to refer the matter back to the Parking Adjudicator, both parties have agreed that these proceedings may serve a useful purpose in clarifying the circumstances in which the claimant and other authorities may resort to posting a penalty notice if the parking attendant has been unable to serve the notice, either by fixing it on the windscreen or handing it to the driver or person appearing to be in charge.

16.It is said in particular that it is important to achieve such clarification because regulations similar to those in force in London with which we have been concerned are in the near future apparently to be issued in respect of all those authorities, and they represent the majority in the country, the court was told, which have decriminalised parking contraventions.

Section 66(1) RTA above stated is not much in different than The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) General Regulations 2007:

9. Where a civil enforcement officer has reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable with respect to a vehicle which is stationary in a civil enforcement area, he may serve a penalty charge notice—

(a)by fixing it to the vehicle; or

(b)giving it to the person appearing to him to be in charge of the vehicle.

The word "serve" is an addition but the definition of "issue" is not again separated or defined.Edit: just to be more clearer, the word "serve" replaces the exact same purpose as of "issue". OK CEO didn't "serve" PCN until OP re-set his time clock. One can always reference or quote the hight court definition of the word even if the acts/charges are not related unless it's been challenged in recent times.

The definition of 'issue' in the High Court case is only relevent to cases where the CEO is prevented from issuing a penalty notice, even though the actual legislation may have changed, the definition may stay the same.

That definition does not apply in the OP's case, so a more normal parlance definition of 'issue' can be used in those circumstances.

Not sure I understood the first part above (esp ...the definition may stay the same). I've gone through few "judicial reviews" on parking related and all over, I found the judge did refer back to other cases (even not closely related) to find the actual "meaning" or how a word is defined and most importantly, applied to the case regardless the act or provision.

1) Legal Requirement for meaning of road, highway and footway parking : The meaning of "Highway" was applied from common law as was not defined in relevant act nor in relevant statute. Note on same document:-

Although the 1991 Act decriminalises contraventions of parking restrictions, the primary statute- the Act under which the relevant traffic regulation or management orders are usually made - is The Road Traffic Regulation Act 1984 (“the 1984 Act”)

2) Non-compliant PCN: Although the regulation,guideline, legislation and Act is outdated, still can be referred. A brief mention:-

(6) In this judgement I shall use the term "serve" as a compendious term to embrace the two alternative methods of delivering a PCN set out in section 66(1).....

3)Wolman vs Islington: A barrister seeking the meaning of "on" or "over". It's an interesting one to waste everyone's time and effort but nonetheless, good arguments can be found.

However, as Lord Hoffmann observed in Investors Compensation Scheme Ltd v West Bromwich Building Society [1998] 1 W.L.R. 896, 913, the meaning of words is a matter of dictionaries and grammars; the meaning of a document is what the parties using those words against the relevant background would reasonably have been understood to mean.....

In my view one does not obtain much assistance in interpreting the present statutory provision from a detailed examination of the possible meanings of the word “on” as it might be used in different phrases. Nor do I think that one obtains much help from debating the application of the section to a variety of more or less unlikely factual situations. In the end one must simply decide what Parliament intended by the use of the words in question

4)Loading/Unloading exemption : A landmark review case on the meaning of loading/unloading, goods, shopping and exemption etc. Act no longer exists but still the definition can be borrowed for a successful challenge

The reason for my belief is that PCN is a legal document and words on document plus relevant regulation need to be defined. It can exist without a definition but a challenge will result in a formation of one which will stand until an appeal is made. One can always borrow or refer to these definitions and meanings for a challenge of PCN regardless of the regulations or acts. I've done few google but failed to find any recent judicial reviews on the "issue" and "serve". A link will be greatly appreciated.

Not sure I understood the first part above (esp ...the definition may stay the same). I've gone through few "judicial reviews" on parking related and all over, I found the judge did refer back to other cases (even not closely related) to find the actual "meaning" or how a word is defined and most importantly, applied to the case regardless the act or provision.

It means that although the actual legislation may change, if the circumstances of the case are similar, the meanings and definitions of the older legislation may be used in decisions made under later legislation.

As the High Court case you refer to has no relevance to the OP's case, neither has the definition in it.

OK understood now. But the question still is How is OP's circumstances different?

Very close meaning of the word "issue" as in "normal parlance" but clearly defined is found in CEO Handbook Guide:

(b) If the CEO has begun to write the PCN but the vehicle was driven away before the PCN could be served.

Yes only a guide but still something. Another useful information on Parking Practice Note:

The CEO must have begun to prepare the PCN before an action can be taken to issue PCN by post; otherwise the postal PCN is invalid. "begun to prepare" is interpreted in operational guidance as "started to write PCN or input data to HHC". But this phrase specifically excludes simply observing the vehicle or making notes which might relate to contravention.

Thus CEO cannot be taken as having "begun to prepare" a PCN until the end of any observation period.

It is only when CEO start to create a PCN and would otherwise would have to formally cancel it, that it he/she has started to issue a PCN.

A PCN that has been started and cannot be issued because of a drive away must be cancelled.

Authorities should note the advice in paragraph 6.17 in Operational Guidance:- “…an enforcement authority may wish to consider issuing a verbal warning rather than a PCN to a driver who has committed a minor contravention and is still with, or returns to, the vehicle before a PCN has been served.” Operational guidance goes on to say - “The enforcement authority should have clear policies, instructions and training for CEOs on how to exercise such authority.These policies should form the basis for staff training and should be published.”

What happens When motorists return

If the motorist returns and drives away before the CEO begins to prepare the PCN, he should be allowed to do so. No PCN can be issued.

If the motorist returns before the CEO begins to prepare the PCN and talks to the CEO, the CEO should establish whether the vehicle is parked in contravention (for example, if loading/unloading is taking place). If the vehicle is in contravention, the CEO should explain this to the motorist and ask him/her to move the vehicle or bring it within the restrictions.

If the motorist returns after the CEO has begun to prepare the PCN, the CEO should explain the position to the motorist, ask him/her to wait for the PCN to be issued and handed to the motorist, and advise that if he/she does not wait a PCN may be sent in the post.Whether or not he waits, the CEO should direct the attention of the motorist to the procedures set out on the PCN for lodging representations. Authorities may want to prepare leaflets explaining the regulations which can be handed to the motorist.

Talking to the driver or giving him/her a leaflet will indicate that a PCN may follow in the post.The driver may then be prompted to keep any evidence, such as a pay and display ticket.

NB. CEOs have no powers to require a motorist to wait whilst a PCN is completed.

Any conversation with the motorist and actions of the motorist, before and after any conversation or beginning to prepare the PCN, and the reason the PCN was not served should be noted in the CEO’s pocket book or HHC record.

Again just a note or guide but do set out clearly what is required. (I can't help but again think that the word "issue" is for the same purpose as of "serve" and "attempt to serve"). It is also clear that the definition of word "issue" have relevance on the problem of same background.

I've related OP's case as of drive away as OP managed to return back to his car before a PCN was served and no photographic evidence taken of PCN served. Option was there for OP to just drive away (then this will be vehicle driven away or handed to driver) but decided to stay and correct time clock. It's still a debate whether CEO had already "begun to prepare" but given the chain of events of what OP claim to happened and short conversation, the time taken for CEO to actually print PCN seems an odd longer and can be assume that CEO actually not finished observation period (though I believe most disabled bays are an instant). Questions can be raised why CEO still continue with PCN as driver returned before observation period or what local guidelines exists for such situations as operational guidance state that The enforcement authority should have clear policies, instructions and training for CEOs on how to exercise such authority

Not sure why the big debate here. the OP has openly admitted not correctly displaying his clock so he contravened the rules. He has been issued with a PCN unfortunately which he should appeal on the grounds that he merely forgot to set the clock.

Game over, move on.