We obviously can't check the accuracy of what you say (but you could check by calling DVLA and asking them to confirm the registered address), but based on what you've said here's a draft:
Dear Royal Borough of Greenwich,
I challenge liability for PCN GR22038057 on the basis that the alleged contravention did not occur. The image at (link) clearly shows that the box junction markings extend well beyond the confined of the junction. While I accept that the requirements for box junction markings were significantly relaxed by the Traffic Signs Regulations 2016, the requirement for the markings to be at a junction (or other authorised location) has never been removed.
Furthermore, the PCN has not been properly served. Section 7 of the Interpretation Act 1978 provides that:
Where an Act authorises or requires any document to be served by post (whether the expression “serve” or the expression “give” or “send” or any other expression is used) then, unless the contrary intention appears, the service is deemed to be effected by properly addressing, pre-paying and posting a letter containing the document and, unless the contrary is proved, to have been effected at the time at which the letter would be delivered in the ordinary course of post.
The words "
properly addressing" imply that the address must be the best or last known address for the recipient, rather than any address where the recipient might have been in the past. While this is a motability vehicle, I have checked motability and they have confirmed the vehicle is registered at my current address, however you purported to effect service of the PCN at an address which I have not lived at since June 2022.
Because the PCN was not properly addressed it was not served. You should of course know that the concepts of service and receipt are quite distinct from one another, see for instance the judgment of the Supreme Court in
Barton v Wright Hassall [2018] UKSC 12 or the more recent High Court decision in
Karanja, R (On the Application Of) v University of the West of Scotland [2022] EWHC 1520 (Admin): in both those cases the claim form was in fact received by the relevant party but service was held to be ineffective because it had not been effected in accordance with the applicable rules.
The fact that service and receipt are not the same for the purposes of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 is confirmed by paragraph 7(2)(a) of Schedule 1, where the words used ("
did not receive the penalty charge notice in question") make it clear that a document might be served but not received. There is no reason in principle why the opposite cannot also be true, and a document might be received but not served, as the aforementioned court cases indicate.
Given the severe consequences for a party to whom a PCN is issued but from whom no response is received, it is clear that a PCN has the same effect as originating process has in the civil courts, and that receipt of a document (which in this case was purely fortuitous due to the fact that I still have a mail redirection service in place) does not necessarily mean that the document has been legally served.
As the PCN has not been served either properly or at all, the authority has materially departed from the requirements of the statutory scheme, as a result of which the penalty charge must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
, you can then upload it to the council website as an attachment and just write "
" when asked for your reasons for challenging the PCN.
I'll send you a private message with the link to use where I've put (link) above. It will redirect to
but the reason for using the one I'm sending you is that if they don't click on it, the click count will be zero. This can then prove that they've failed to properly consider the representations (they can't consider them if they don't look at the evidence), and that alone can win an appeal at the tribunal.
as we need the click count to remain at zero.
