Please do this online using the webcode and enter the PCN and VRM details:
Dear Havering Council
I make the following representations against the PCN
1. The PCN is unenforceable because the sentence under Enforcement Notice on the PCN wrongly states the period in which to pay and make representations The Law states this @
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/1996/9/section/4/enacted(3)A penalty charge notice under this Part of this Act must state—
(c)that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(e)that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an enforcement notice may be served by the council on the person appearing to them to be the owner of the vehicle;
Therefore, the references to date of service in the following sentence is not only wrong but also creates an ambiguity:
If after the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which this PCN is served no such representations have been made, and the penalty charge has not been paid, an Enforcement Notice may be served.....
2. Furthermore, the payment option on the PCN does not state the address to which payment may be made:
(f)the address to which payment of the penalty charge must be sent;
3. I bring a collateral challenge on the basis that the PCN is unenforceable because the taken without consent ground clearly fetters to theft by its very wording that a crime report be provided. Therefore, this inaccurate reflection of the statutory ground does not take into account that a relative, or friend, may have taken the vehicle without the owner's permission so that the owner would not necessarily, if at all, report the matter to the Police in such circumstances or, indeed, make an insurance claim.
4. I put you to strict proof that the camera at the location has the correct VCA certificate to satisfy the criterion of admissibility of evidence as provided at para. 7(2) Schedule 1 of The London Local Authorities Act 1996 (as amended). If this is not possible, it follows that the evidence is inadmissible.
5. The video footage does not show any bus lane signage i.e. 958 and/or 959B allegedly passed.
In light of the above, please cancel the said PCN.