Free Traffic Legal Advice

I'd go with it.

It fails to explicitly include information that if a Notice to Owner is served following initial representations, any further representations must adhere to the specific requirements set out in the Notice to Owner, including the form, manner, and timeline for response. This lack of comprehensive information in the PCN about the process for contesting the charge at all stages, particularly post-issuance of a Notice to Owner, is a notable procedural deficiency. This omission compromises my ability to fully comprehend and exercise my appeal rights as mandated by regulation, thereby undermining procedural fairness and my entitlement to contest the charge.

Is NOT the point which arises from the PCN.

A PCN is essentially in 3 parts:
1. The vehicle and contravention details;
2. Payment;
3. Challenges and further steps.

As regards 3, the PCN does not state that reps received before a PCN is issued will be considered, in fact consideration is only implicit. But this is not the key issue. The PCN must state, in effect warn, that even if reps are received before a NTO is issued then the recipient of the NTO MUST comply with the NTO's instructions e.g. pay or make formal reps. Not just 'is entitled to' but must.

The issue is not the 'form and manner..' it is that in order to protect the recipient's legal position they must act upon the NTO even if they or someone else has submitted 'informal' reps.

Your reps need more work IMO and you have until the 31 March to refine them and submit. (date of issue Thurs. 29 Feb. = service Mon. 4 March which is day 1 of the 28-day period).

But remember...that as the defect arises in the printed (as opposed to CEO-entered) part of the PCN, then the authority are unlikely to accept that it's not substantially compliant because the officer who considers your reps did not draft the PCN, neither are they likely to take it upon themselves to believe you over the 'system' which in its infinite wisdom drafted the PCN.

In short, they'll likely reject your reps, so prepare yourself.

However, an adjudicator wouldn't care about the internal dynamics and reputational damage to any officer.

Hi all,

hope you're enjoying your bank holiday weekend!

@HC Andersen, thanks for your input, i've updated my notice to include your response, i'll get it sent out today.

thanks again!

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to formally contest the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 19/12/23, for contravention code 62, based on procedural improprieties linked to both the initial appeal process as outlined by Regulation 9 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, and the subsequent actions required in relation to a Notice to Owner (NTO).

Firstly, the PCN falls short of the detailed requirements set forth in Regulation 9, specifically failing to provide comprehensive guidance on how to contest the charge through all stages of the process, particularly if a Notice to Owner (NTO) is issued following initial representations. This lack of clarity undermines the procedural fairness of the enforcement process and impairs my ability to exercise my rights to appeal effectively.

Upon reviewing the initial PCN, it states, “...the registered owner/keeper will be entitled to make representations to the council against the penalty charge and may appeal to an independent adjudicator if those representations are rejected.” However, this wording does not adequately convey the obligatory nature of the actions required upon receiving an NTO. It is crucial for recipients to understand that, irrespective of any informal representations made prior to the NTO issuance, they must comply with the directives of the NTO—either by making payment or by submitting formal representations as instructed. The use of "entitled" significantly dilutes the imperative to comply, which could mislead recipients regarding their legal obligations and affect their ability to safeguard their rights.

The combined effect of these deficiencies not only compromises the procedural integrity of the PCN issuance but also significantly hampers the rights of individuals to navigate the appeals process with a full understanding of their obligations and entitlements.

Given these procedural and informational shortcomings, I respectfully request the reconsideration and subsequent cancellation of this PCN.

Yours sincerely

Dear Sirs,

I am writing to formally contest the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued on 19/12/23, for contravention code 62, based on procedural improprieties linked to both the initial appeal process as outlined by Regulation 9 of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007, and the subsequent actions required in relation to a Notice to Owner (NTO).

@smurf-e did you read my reply above?

@smurf-e well you didn't challenge the notice to owner within 14 days, in fact you challenged it on the last day of the 28 day period. If you don't challenge the notice to owner within 14 days of the date of issue, the council will not normally reoffer the discount, so as things stand there's no point in paying now because if you go to the tribunal and lose the penalty stays the same. On the other hand you might win, so there's really nothing to be lost in carrying on.

It might be possible to construct an arguable case around legitimate expectation, I wouldn't have suggested risking the discount on that alone but at this point you might as well have a go.