As Incandescent says, the decision in
Luke Moran v Secretary of State for Transport (IA01249-1803, 13 June 2018) is still good law.
Here is a draft for you:
Dear Bristol City Council,
I challenge liability for PCN BS58355171 on the basis that the contravention did not occur, and the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case.
The penalty charge notice is only permitted to demand payment of the penalty charge, there is no legal mechanism that allows the council to demand the toll charge in addition to the penalty charge on the PCN.
This is akin to a PCN for not paying in a pay and display bay: you can issue a PCN for £70 but the penalty charge notice cannot demand the unpaid pay and display fee on top of that. On this point, I refer you to the decision in Luke Moran v Secretary of State for Transport available from LINK
In this case the PCN may only demand £120, discounted to £60 for the first 14 days. The regulations do not allow the PCN to demand the additional £9 you are seeking, the amount demanded on the face of the notice therefore exceeds the amount due by law.
It follows that the penalty charge must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
I will PM you a link to put in the representation (to replace the word LINK in red above), it will redirect to
here but if you give them the link I'll PM you, we can use the click count to confirm whether they've looked at it or not (obviously do not click on the link I PM you as we want the click count to remain at zero). If they don't click on it, we can then prove they've failed to fully consider the representations. If they say in the rejection that they've fully considered the representations, we've got them for lying as well.
You don't want to use the same link for both PCNs, so if you give me the other PCN number I'll set up a separate link for it.
