Here is what I have:
Dear London Borough of Barking and Dagenham,
Having received your PCN, I would like to make a representation as the penalty charge exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of this case, based on the following provision within the relevant legislation and the resulting contradiction regarding the 28-day periods as follows.
Section 4 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 provides, insofar as is relevant, that:
A penalty charge notice under this section must –
(a) state–
…
(iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
…
(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
However, it has come to my attention that the PCN I received fails to comply with the statutory requirements. The PCN provides two different 28-day periods, one starting from the “date of notice” and the other one from the “date of service of notice”, which occurs two days later. Therefore, as this terminology is not interchangeable, this inconsistency raises further doubt about the validity of the PCN and the associated financial liability. While it might be thought that this error on the PCN is in the recipient’s favour as prejudice is not established, I refer you to London Borough of Barnet Council, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin) where the High Court ruled as follows:
40. Let me now turn to the present case. The two PCNs issued by the parking attendant in Barnet on 31st March 2005 both showed the date of the contravention. Neither PCN showed the date of the notice. The date on which the notice was issued ought to have been shown as a separate entry on the notice. On this ground alone, I hold that neither PCN achieved substantial compliance with section 66 of the 1991 Act.
41. Mr Lewis submits that even if there was non -compliance in this respect, nevertheless no prejudice was caused. PCNs should not be regarded as invalid. I do not accept this submission. Prejudice is irrelevant and does not need to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme, motorists become liable to pay financial penalties when certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise.
42. In the present case, the two PCNs issued by Barnet on 31st March 2005 did not comply with section 66(3)(с),(d) and (e) of the 1991 Act. Accordingly, the requirements of section 66 were not satisfied and no financial liability was triggered either by the PCN or by any subsequent stage in the process such as the notice to owner.
In this case, the PCN has been served under the 2003 Act, but the principle is the same: the PCN is not substantially compliant with the requirements of the statutory scheme because it does not state what the Act requires it to state, and it follows that no liability to pay the penalty charge can arise. It is imperative that the PCN adheres to the clear and unambiguous requirements outlined in the legislation to ensure fair enforcement of penalty charges.
Considering the above, the only penalty that may be demanded is nil and the PCN must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
Name
