Hi all,
Thanks for your input once again, it's hugely appreciated.
I replied to all PCNs just now as follows (attaching the 12 page scan of them plus the screenshot in my previous post):
Representation against PCN x:
"To whom it may concern,
1. There appear on the PCN two lists of grounds, which clearly do not agree with each other and, indeed, another incorrect ground concerning the TWOC: "The vehicle had been permitted to rest in the place in question by a person who was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner." Clearly, this and the aforementioned ground belong to parking legislation and are irrelevant to the alleged contravention.
2. This issue is further compounded by the council’s website (attached as a screenshot), which contains additional grounds pertaining to parking legislation and other irrelevant grounds. This discrepancy between the PCNs and the council’s website is misleading and prejudicial. I would add that the council has had similar issues with its Code 34J PCNs, as evidenced in decisions such as Gar Poon v London Borough of Havering (223043932) and Tal Ofer v London Borough of Havering (2230533614). In the latter case, the council did not contest the costs application.
3. Specifically, I rely upon the following decisions, allowed by the following adjudicators, which highlight the importance of clarity and consistency in the grounds for representation:
- 2230228494, 2180498755, 2230274232, 2230398949, 2230446542, 2230494501, 2230541860, 2230539585, 2230487415, 2230464748, 2230545861, 2230483130, 2230496595, 2230534763, 2240258389, and 2240138955.
- The adjudicators in these decisions are Miss Alderson, Ms Brennan, Mr Greenslade, Mr Harman, Mr Styles, Mr Teper, and Mr Walsh.
The case of Commercial Plant Services Ltd v London Borough of Islington (2230483130) is particularly relevant. The adjudicator in that case ruled that discrepancies between the grounds for representation listed on the PCN and those on the council’s website rendered the enforcement unfair and invalid. This precedent underscores the council’s duty to ensure clarity and consistency in communicating grounds for representation, a duty that has clearly not been met in this instance.
4. In addition to the procedural inconsistencies noted above, I have received three PCNs (x, y, z) for what is evidently the same alleged contravention at the same location. While the PCN numbers and evidence differ slightly in framing and duration, all three pertain to a single continuous event. This triplication of penalties:
- Unfairly inflates the penalty from £130 to £390 for one alleged contravention.
- Violates the principles of fairness and proportionality inherent in the enforcement process, as the penalty is grossly disproportionate to the alleged contravention.
- Demonstrates a failure in the council's enforcement processes.
The principles of fairness and proportionality are essential to ensure that enforcement actions remain just and reasonable. Issuing three PCNs for one alleged continuous contravention constitutes an excessive response and undermines the legitimacy of the enforcement process.
For the reasons stated above—procedural inconsistencies, errors in the grounds provided for representation, and the unfair issuance of three PCNs for the same continuous alleged offence—I respectfully request that all three PCNs be canceled in full."
I will keep you all posted on what happens next.