In that case you argue that the signage does not conform to requirements of TSRGD ate the time it was installed and means that the contravention did not occur on the grounds of inadequate signage.

When was the bay installed and when was it last painted?

In general, if there is a bigger issue at play here. I can only really think of where not to do so would have a material adverse impact on the RK. Circumstances may be where the PPC is the employer or the agent of the employer of the RK and failure to pay may put the employment at risk (fairly or unfairly isn't really the issue). An alternative situation is where the aggro involved may be harmful to the health of the RK or a loved one. In the above circumstances I would suggest that the template letter approach may be an appropriate first route. I would have thought that the absence of details in such a log assists the RK as it casts doubt on the existence of the claimed contract agreement to its purported terms.

Thought you may like to know that I now have a "Final Warning" from our friend Michael Sobell. My time is up. I await the request to disclose documents under the "Civil Procedural Rules 31.16" with interest. Can't possibly think what would help him by way of documents that I have. Hey ho!

Take it! Bird in the hand and all that. Then you can crow! lol

What was the date of the district judge's order n respect of the original PCN? In the council's letter they say that failure (by you) to make representations or pay the PCN "will incur further charges" . That is an untrue statement. At this juncture it may result in the loss of a discount. That is not the same as a further charge. I would argue that it is an unlawful attempt to get you to pay (in addition to all the other points you have).

Irrespective of the forum etiquette, no you cannot do this. When you say "we" have 2 fines - are the vehicles owned by the same people? The penalties are the responsibility of the owner (unless you come to a private arrangement.

PATAS does not carry out judicial reviews. If you have had a decision from PATAS you should first ask them to carry out a review for one of the few reasons that they are allowed to do so (a matter of law not a finding of fact) "in the interests of justice" may be a good starting point. If you then want to go for a judicial review, I suggest you consult a lawyer. There are costs involved and you first may want to find out what they could be.

Your, frustration with this is entirely understandable. However, I wonder if you were, perhaps a bit unrealistic in thinking that you might see cash so soon. If the LA say they cannot locate the PATAS letter, I would write to them, enclosing a copy and possibly a link to the decision on the PATAS web site and ask for a cheque within 14 days.

Brill. Worthy of note is that if you enter %% as the surname and select the london borough in question you get the cases relevant to that borough if you want a trawl!

I reckon that this is a PPC contracted by the council on a local authority estate. As such it has the validity of any other PPC ticket IMHO

Er, no. You appeal on the grounds that you feel your PCN is invalid. What did or did not happen to others is of no consequence.

I don't know if it has been repealed or amended but S36 of the RTA 1972 says: So, if you said you were turning around you may find yourself stuffed and the parking exemption does not apply. However, you could clarify in that what you intended to say was (provided it is true!) along the lines of "I pulled off the road to park so I could consult my map. I established I needed to turn around and in so doing became bogged down". If you contest, I cannot see that there will be evidence to convict or that there will be a will to prosecute.

What was the FPN actually issued for?

Possibly, or you didn't read properly, or you didn't understand what you were reading. Because as well as what dw190 references I also said earlier:

OK the issue of the bay has been well covered so I can see that is going nowhere. That leaves you with the misalignment issue and the potential invalid bay markings (on which there is no certainty without local knowledge and a tape measure etc - even then it's not an exact science). So it comes down to whether you want to risk the discount. One advantage of making reps is that councils often foul up at a later stage and they still may do so in this case. Up to you.

No the doesn't, I pointed this all out in my post. I covered the issue of photos in my post.

It's also worth checking when the bays were last painted because it looks as if there is a possibility that they are non-compliant. Worth chucking that in as an inadequate signage issue too if you appeal.

None of which is relevant because the council needs evidence to show where OP parked because much as they may wish to do so they cannot rely on where sailor sam thinks the op parked.

Londonwest, could you upload the photos please and we can take a look.

In your shoes I would appeal on 2 grounds. 1) If as you say there are P&D bays in the road in question, the PCN is inadequate in its description of location to identify the bay you are parked in, you can reasonably say "I made what I consider to be reasonable investigations to ascertain that I was lawfully parked, purchased a ticket from the machine nearby and displayed it. The ticket was on full and clear view at all times I was parked and valid for the entire period". You are under no obligation to provide any more details and what you state is entirely true. Much will then depend on what evidence the council have to show what bay you were parked in. 2) Owing to what appears to be a misalignment of the PCN printing device the amount of the discounted penalty is illegible. Display of the amount of the discounted penalty is a statutory requirement on PCNs and the failure to ensure that this is clear renders the PCN unenforceable. I would tick the boxes, "The contravention did not occur", "The penalty exceeds the applicable amount", "There has been a procedural impropriety", on the NTO. Best of luck.

Unclear signage is not one of the statutory grounds for appeal. You have to fit your appeal into one of those. In your shoes I would tick the "contravention did not occur" and the "penalty exceeds the applicable amount" boxes on the NTO.

It seems to me that OP is suggesting perpetrating a fraud. Is that something CAG condones?

Absolutely agree that we hope it goes in OP's favour but the only "sort" of precedent it will set is a fantasy one. It may or may not be persuasive for future similar cases but it will be no legal precedent at all.

Doesn't really help you but this thread is the same location. http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?276230-Insufficient-location-on-PCN&highlight=right+turn+harrow We don't know how the OP got on it that case though.