Yeah I know. I don't miss living in the London boroughs. Whenever I have to go that way, apart from my normal commute into New Malden from the south of Greater London, it feels worse every time.
Anyway, I have been going through the London Tribunal decision linked by Hippocrates.
Do we know if there was any more to the original appeal, because that looks like a decision that could have been a throw away decision, made simply because Hounslow representation did not show up.
Or is the decision really that strong?
I cannot for example find where in LLA&Tfl Act 2003 it says that a PCN must "...explain that, if no representations are made and, if payment of the penalty charge has not been made, before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the PCN, then an increased charge may be payable."
The text in bold only appears in the Act in Schedule 1, 5(2)(a) which covers charge certificates. PART 2 4( 8 ), does not appear to require any statements in the PCN regarding what happens if representations are not made. It only requires in (v) that it state that if not paid, then an increased charge may be payable, which I think it does.
If I can find any holes I would point out that (viii) requires that the PCN state that person on whom a notice is served may be entitled to make representations under Paragraph 1 of Schedule 1 to this Act. The PCN does not mention any part of the Act, other than to include the title of the Act under the heading of the PCN. I do not think this is strong.
I am happy to suggest making representations on the basis of the decision as published, if nothing else it delays things a bit. Wondering if something more concrete can be included though.
