Here you go:
Dear City of London,
I challenge liability for PCN CL01390216 on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur, the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case, and there has been a procedural impropriety.
The first point is that the allegation stated on the PCN is duplicitous, as the notice does not specify whether it is alleged that the vehicle was parked on a part of a road other than a carriageway, or on a City Walkway.
The second point is that if the vehicle was parked on part of a road other than a carriageway, this cannot be true because there is no segregation between vehicles and pedestrians on Change Alley, nor is there any prohibition or restriction of motor vehicles on this road.
To the extent that you might allege that Change Alley is a City Walkway, I put you to proof that you have complied with the requirements of paragraph 5 of Schedule 9 to the Traffic Management Act 2004 to publish the level of charges applicable for a contravention of parking on a City Walkway. Ordinarily the City of London would rely on the contravention code list and the level of charges published by London Councils, but the wording used on this occasion does not appear on the London Councils website. Failure to comply with the publication requirement is a procedural impropriety.
Further to this, the contravention wording indicates that a City Walkway is distinct from a "road", if a City Walkway were a "road" within the meaning of section 15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 then there would be no need to mention such a thing as a City Walkway on the PCN as the term "road" would cover a City Walkway in any event. However section 15 of the Greater London Council (General Powers) Act 1974 does not prohibit parking on a City Walkway, it only prohibits parking on a "road" somewhere other than on the carriageway. Therefore you are attempting to enforce something through the civil enforcement scheme for which there is no underlying offence, again assuming you content Change Alley is a City Walkway, which I cannot say with certainty because as I note above, the PCN wording is duplicitous.
I further challenge the penalty charge on the basis that there is no prohibition of parking at this location and there are no signs stating that there is any such prohibition. Bicycles, motorbikes and motor scooters frequently park at this particular location (photograph attached as an example, showing the parking of various motor scooters on a different day) and the racks provided appear to be a parking facility provided by the City of London. There is no indication that this facility is reserved to any particular type of vehicle.
I rely in particular on the decision in Simon Dale v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames which is based on similar facts and the Chief Adjudicator allowed the appeal, a copy of this decision is available from LINK.
For all the above reasons, the alleged contravention did not occur, the penalty exceeds the amount applicable (owing to the publication requirement not being complied with) and in any event there has been a procedural impropriety, it follows that the penalty charge must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
I will PM you a link to put in the representation, 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 that link yourself 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 consider all of the evidence. If they say in the rejection that they've considered all the evidence, we've got them for lying as well.
