Okay this is what I've emailed to them:
I would like to make representations against PCN EAXXXXXXXX.
The alleged contravention is "62J Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any other part of a road other than a carriageway".
The reason I stopped the car where I did was to let a passenger off so they could enter the train station.
I do realise that I should not have stopped on or near zigzag lines, and that those markings indicate stopping is not allowed. I apologise for this. I do not make a habit of stopping on zigzag lines, and I will certainly be much more careful in future not to stop the car in such a place.
However in this case, contravention 62J did not occur, for two reasons:
1) I was not "parked". As you will see from the video, the car was only stationary for the absolute minimum amount of time necessary to let my passenger get out of the car, i.e. 9-10 seconds.
The Traffic Management Act 2004 states:
QUOTE
References in this section to parking include waiting, but do not include stopping where—
(a) the driver is prevented from proceeding by circumstances beyond his control or it is necessary for him to stop to avoid an accident, or
(b) the vehicle is stopped, for no longer than is necessary, for the purpose of allowing people to board or alight from it.
In this case, the video shows my vehicle stopped for no longer than was necessary to let a passenger off (the car door opens as soon as the car stops, and the car pulls away as soon as the door closes), and therefore falls under clause (b).
I also quote here from a related PATAS decision:
QUOTE
Case Reference: 2110164868
Appellant: Shazia Mughal
Authority: Camden
VRM: AO03AYF
PCN: CU28734727
Contravention Date: 09 Jan 2011
Contravention Time: 04:01
Contravention Location: Museum Street WC1
Penalty Amount: £120.00
Contravention: Footway parking (one - four wheels on footway)
Decision Date: 16 May 2011
Adjudicator: Michael Lawrence
Appeal Decision: Allowed
Direction: cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons: The alleged contravention is parked on a road other than a carriageway, usually referred to as the pavement.
Was the vehicle parked ? Schedule 7 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 defines parking as only that the vehicle be stationary and it is immaterial whether any one remained in the vehicle or not. Prior to the 2004 Act the term to park was always defined as to wait and that was considered in the High Court most recently in the case of City of Bradford v Obaid (2001) QBD . " The word "wait" should be given its natural and ordinary meaning in the appropriate context. The word denoted stopping which is more than purely nominal". There is no minimum time for a "wait" and it does not depend on the driver leaving the vehicle and/or switching off the engine or indeed the reason why he stops (except if beyond her control e.g. breakdown, medical emergency etc when an exemption might apply). However, common sense dictates that anything less than about a minute cannot be said to be other than purely nominal and therefore not within the meaning.
The dvd footage shows the vehicle stationary for about 40 seconds before it drives away. Given this I find that the vehicle was not parked.
In these circumstances, I must allow this appeal.
The amount of time I pulled over for (9-10 seconds, see video) was nominal, much less than 1 minute, and even much less than the 40 seconds in this PATAS decision.
Other similar PATAS examples are cases 211014884A, 2110185700 & 2110108867.
2) The place I had stopped the car was actually the entrance leading to a petrol station, which is a vehicle crossover, not a footpath. It cannot be a footpath, because there are yellow lines on it (albeit very faded ones), which follow the kerb (see attached images).
My vehicle did not cross the yellow lines, so it cannot be said to have left the carriageway, therefore the contravention did not occur.
I understand there are good reasons for not allowing vehicles to park on the footpath. Vehicles would wear the footpath down, and would obstruct pedestrians. However, this area of the carriageway is not a footpath, and is actually intended for heavy traffic, i.e. tankers and other vehicles entering the petrol station. Also I did not obstruct any pedestrians while my car was stationary for these few seconds (see video).
Another point I would like to make is that I think the camera operator was bored, and really stretching themselves to find contraventions that were not there. The reason I think this is the 2 minutes of video following the alleged contravention show the operator messing around, playing with the camera, and doing frivolous things like zooming in to bus stop signs. I can provide this video evidence if required.
Thank you for taking the time to review my case.