hi, here's what I submitted on the online submission form:
============================================================================
Question 1 : 'Please explain in as much detail as possible why you think your PCN should be cancelled
Answer : 'I am challenging PCN EF99478889 on the ground of procedural impropriety. The PCN fails to comply with Section 4( 8 ) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, which requires it to state that the penalty must be paid within 28 days from the date of the notice and that, if not paid by the end of that period, an increased charge may be payable.
Enfield’s PCN instead states:
“If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £240.00 may be payable.”
This wording is non-compliant and misleading, as it substitutes “date of service” for “date of notice” and implies a charge may increase even if representations are made. This ambiguity prejudices the motorist and renders the notice invalid.
Please see my attached full letter (PDF) for detailed reasoning and references.'
Question 2 : 'Would you like to upload any other documents to support your case?'
Answer : 'Yes'
Question 3 : 'Please upload a copy of your supporting document(s)'
Answer : 'File uploaded'
==========================================================================================
And then I attached the following letter:
==========================================================================================
Subject: Formal Representations against PCN No: EF99478889
Vehicle Registration: YH09 CDV
Date of Notice: 05/11/2025
Contravention Code: 52M Failure to comply with the prohibition of motor vehicles
________________________________________
To whom it may concern,
I am writing to make formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on the grounds that the PCN fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Section 4( 8 ) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, thereby constituting a procedural impropriety.
________________________________________
1. Failure to Include Mandatory Information
Section 4( 8 ) of the 2003 Act sets out the information that must be contained within a penalty charge notice. Specifically, it requires under subsection (iii) and (v) that the PCN must 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, the PCN issued by Enfield Council instead states:
“If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £240.00 may be payable.”
This wording is not compliant with the statutory requirements for the following reasons:
• The legislation requires the 28-day period to begin with the date of the notice, not the date of service.
• The PCN’s wording conflates the payment and representation periods, creating ambiguity as to when the increased charge may be applied.
• It does not clearly state that no increased charge or charge certificate will be issued if representations are made within the 28-day period.
As has been observed in similar adjudications, this creates uncertainty for the motorist and fails to convey the mandatory legal position that making representations within the 28-day period prevents any escalation of the charge.
________________________________________
2. Resulting Ambiguity and Prejudice
The PCN as issued gives the misleading impression that the charge may be increased even where representations have been duly submitted within the statutory period. This uncertainty is prejudicial to the recipient and renders the notice non-compliant with the Act.
This defect has been recognised in previous adjudications where councils have been found to have used non-compliant wording, resulting in appeals being allowed on the grounds of procedural impropriety (e.g. Eleanor Macwhinnie v London Borough of Hounslow, Case reference 2250221909).
________________________________________
3. Conclusion
For the reasons stated above, the PCN fails to comply with the statutory requirements of Section 4( 8 ) of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003. Consequently, the PCN is invalid and unenforceable, and I respectfully request that it be cancelled forthwith.
Please confirm in writing that the PCN has been cancelled.
Kind regards,
XXX
==========================================================================================
