I am making formal representations under the ground of Procedural Impropriety.
I acknowledge that I stopped on the markings outside a school when not permitted, therefore I should be grateful if the authority would not belabour this common ground in its response.
My representations are based upon objective facts, namely the omission from the PCN of contents which are mandated under the regulations i.e. Appeals regulation 3(2)(g), and therefore regulation 3(3). These facts cannot be refuted by the authority because they are objective. Should the authority be in any doubt, I have reproduced the regulatory requirements below:
As stated on the PCN, the governing regulations are the 'General' and 'Appeals' Regulations 2022. The offence was captured by an 'approved device', the PCN is therefore 'an approved device notice'. The offence is classed as an Outer Greater London(OGL) contravention which meets the requirements of regulation 11, thereby bringing it within the scope of regulation 10, specifically 10(2)(a)(i). Consequently, regulation 10(5) applies:
10.—(1) This regulation applies in relation to the notification, by an enforcement authority, of a penalty charge payable in respect of a relevant road traffic contravention.
(2) An enforcement authority may give notification of the penalty charge by serving a penalty charge notice by post where—
(a)on the basis of a record produced by an approved device, the authority has reason to believe that a penalty charge is payable with respect to—
(i)a regulation 11 parking contravention,
10(5) The penalty charge notice—
(a)must be served on the person appearing to the enforcement authority to be the owner of the vehicle involved in the contravention in consequence of which the penalty charge is payable, and
(b)must include the information set out—
(i)in Schedule 2, and
(ii)in regulation 3(2) of the 2022 Appeals Regulations.
Appeals regulations:
3(2) An enforcement notice must include the following information—
(a)that—
(g)where the enforcement notice is a regulation 10 penalty charge notice served under regulation 10(2)(a) of the 2022 General Regulations (an “approved device notice”), the effect of paragraphs (3) and (4).
(3) The recipient (“R”) of an approved device notice may, by notice in writing, request that the enforcement authority—
(a)makes available, at one of its offices specified by R, free of charge and at a time during normal office hours so specified, for viewing by R or R’s representative the record of the alleged relevant road traffic contravention produced by the approved device pursuant to which the penalty charge was imposed, or
(b)provides R, free of charge, with such still images from that record as, in the authority’s opinion, establish the alleged relevant road traffic contravention.
(4) The enforcement authority must comply with any request under paragraph (3) within a reasonable time.
The PCN was issued under regulation 10(2) of the General regulations;
Regulations 3(2)(g), 3(3) and 3(4) therefore apply.
The regulatory obligations which fall to the authority are unarguable as is the fact that the PCN omits the mandatory requirements and, with respect, this must be the starting point as regards its consideration of this ground of representation.
It is an unarguable fact that a failure by an enforcement authority to observe a requirement imposed on it by the 2022 General Regulations is a 'procedural impropriety' which is a statutory ground of appeal.
As I have clearly established by reference ONLY to the regulations and the PCN, there has been a procedural impropriety by the authority. The only question is what it intends to do.
As judges in its own cause at present, it could adopt what I understand is known as the Private Baldrick approach and deny everything in the hope that a re-offered discount might tempt me to cut and run.
Alternatively, it could simply cancel the PCN and hope that this would be an end to the matter and that it could continue to issue these defective PCNs.
I suspect that internally you would examine when the defect crept into the PCN - I understand the council adopted these powers in 2025- and assess what financial damage might be caused if this defect were to be exposed to a wider audience. I understand that the London Boroughs of Southwark and Croydon provide useful case histories in this regard.
I would hope that whichever route you choose, you would reprint the PCN so that those keepers who do not wish to carry out their lives online, who prefer everything to be in writing, including requesting to view the evidence against them(personal viewing being the only option for them) and who might still pay by postal order obtained from the Post Office would be offered the protections provided by Parliament under the regulations.
Some thoughts.
Wait for others.