Free Traffic Legal Advice

OP, here are the regs which apply:

https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2022/71/schedule/2/made

I have not referred to the 'appeals' regs because they don't bear upon this matter.

Whether what's printed on the PCN is misaligned is not material because the regs don't refer to alignment! You are concerned with the regs and if the 'information' from one or more of the mandatory matters is not 'included' then these are your grounds(others will deal with any website issues).

So, what's not included?

IMO, it's obvious i.e. the penalty charge. And this is only obvious now because you've received the NTO.

Correct me if I'm wrong but your PCN states:
Penalty charge £11 

You have subsequently found out from the NTO that this figure should be £80.

Once one knows what the sum should be, then it's possible to see this in the PCN albeit that the reader has to ignore what is printed - £11 - and view the next line under a microscope knowing what one is looking for.

But as drivers are not blessed with the gift of clairvoyance, it would be and was impossible to determine with confidence the penalty being demanded by reading the PCN alone, and this is the correct procedural test. 

In the council's response to these representations, I would take it badly if they repeated the non sequitur of their rejection to my challenge with a reference to 'you also made an informal challenge' as if this undermines my grounds which it does not i.e. this permanently printed part was readable, because it was acted upon, which shows that all free field information must have been similarly readable. 

I think the time for thin submissions on this point is over.

I suggest.

PCN ******

Procedural Impropriety
I refer to the NTO issued on **** in respect of the above PCN.

When I made my initial representations I included a copy of my PCN and described the printing as being misaligned. At that time I did not realise that it would be necessary for me to go into regulatory detail given that the CEO's error was so blatant and one which a proper consideration of those representations could not have failed to recognise.

Your subsequent rejection and the NTO show that I was wrong.

As the authority will see, the amount of penalty demanded in the PCN is £11 but in the NTO it is £80. Self-evidently therefore the PCN is defective and constitutes a procedural impropriety given that the 'amount of the penalty charge' is a 'regulatory matter' which must be included in the PCN. So, either £11 or £80 is incorrect or perhaps both. But whichever is correct still represents a procedural impropriety as regards the PCN or the NTO.

The authority cannot have it both ways and I submit would do well to accept now what is manifestly the case rather than let the adjudicator determine the same outcome.

Please screenshot all pages of their website and get back.