Schedule 6 para. 2(4) of the RTA 1991:
An Act to amend the law about road traffic.
Their website is wholly improper as is the NTO because individually and in combination they misinform an owner of their right to make representations which, as the Act makes clear, is not restricted to a single ground, neither do they fall into the website's arbitrary groups of PCN Improperly Issued etc.
It is wholly improper for the authority to restrict an owner to selecting one ground. So, IMO tick 'contravention did not..', ' penalty charge exceeded..' and 'other reasons'. Under the 'other..' ground put that it is contrary to the Act's requirements for the authority to attempt to restrict an owner to a single ground!
Now do you think they really know what they're doing or are they just doing it 'their' way because that's what they've always done!