Free Traffic Legal Advice

So you didn't notice this prominent sign as you drove into the car park ?
https://maps.app.goo.gl/u5NTd4GGJ2r828zx6

Ticket machine and sign here: -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/oR6JnGTeBnYYfsSc7

Clearly you knew you had to pay, so why didn't you pay when you were at the car park ?

Sorry to sound harsh, but your argument about nothing telling you you have to pay to park holds water in my view. However, there may be a 'technical' appeal based on Chester & CW mismanaging the enforcment process, so please post all sides of the PCN so we can check it for fatal errors.

Other thing in your favour is that you did actually pay.

The PCN is not compliant with Regulation 3 (1)(c) of the The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022

3.—(1) A regulation 9 penalty charge notice must include the following information—

(a)that a person on whom a notice to owner is served may, in accordance with these Regulations, make representations to the enforcement authority against the penalty charge and, if those representations are rejected, appeal to an adjudicator;

(b)that if, before a notice to owner is served, representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified in the notice for the purpose those representations will be considered by the enforcement authority;

(c)that if a notice to owner is served despite the representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), representations against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner.

Whilst they state that you can submit reps against a Notice to Owner, for me, it is not compliant with "if a notice to owner is served despite the representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b),
This particular clause is there to alert a PCN recipient that if reps are submitted but no response has been received to them, before an NtO is received, that reps must be made against the NtO despite reps having already been submitted.
This error really should win at the adjudicators on its own, but nothing can be guaranteed, I'm afraid.

IMO, their PCN clearly excludes the 'if a NTO is issued despite those representations..' because it specifies the scenarios:

Penalty not paid and either:

a. Reps have not been made within the 28-day period, or
b. Reps have been made but rejected.

But IMO the law as highlighted by Incandescent is specifically aimed at the omitted third scenario i.e. reps made but response not received.

The PCN is probably a recent rewrite and they think that rather than use the, admittedly rather convoluted, language of the regs they'll try and put the provision in plainer English. But IMO they've c**ked-up but because it's their printed text they'll not concede readily.