Thanks for the feedback
@Incandescent - I have tweaked some of the wording. Feedback is welcome.
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing to challenge the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued to me on 1st Feb 2024 for the contravention code "23 - Parked in a parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle." I firmly believe that the PCN was unjustly issued due to procedural impropriety on the part of the Hereford Council.
During my informal representation, I explicitly brought to the attention of Hereford Council the failure to adhere to the procedural requirements outlined in the Road Management Act 2004. Despite highlighting this crucial aspect and providing supporting evidence, the council failed to acknowledge or address this issue in their response to my informal challenge.
Furthermore, it has been demonstrated in previous cases that contravention code "23" has been successfully challenged due to motorists' lack of understanding regarding the class of vehicle designated for the parking space [Reference, A, B, C]. The PCN received only states that the vehicle was parked in a "Parking place or area not designated for that class of vehicle", the PCN does not contain any wording around what class of vehicles are permitted.
According to the Traffic Management Act (2004) Part 2, Chapter 1, Section 3 (1), Paragraph C [that if a notice to owner is served despite the representations mentioned in sub-paragraph (b), representations against the penalty charge must be made to the enforcement authority in the form and manner and at the time specified in the notice to owner]. However, the PCN which was issued fails to meet this requirement. This oversight on the part of the council constitutes a clear violation of the Road Management Act 2004 and undermines the fairness and legality of the PCN issued to me.
In light of the above, I kindly request that Hereford Council review the evidence and withdraw the PCN issued to me. I trust that upon further examination of the facts presented, the council will acknowledge the procedural impropriety and rectify this matter accordingly.
Thank you for your attention to this matter. I look forward to receiving a prompt response.
References:
A: Mary Harding v Royal Borough of Kingston Upon Thames (2160271291, 26 July 2016) [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1QtmX9lLTLTQx6uRa9NDzJvfXcJuhzylV]
B: Yuriy Myronovyh V The City Of Edinburgh Council (ED00154-2107, 04 October 2021) [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1OUYGSdtOnnkZXwyyv3pZrXjhnyjMAMbe]
C: Robert Piatt v Manchester City Council (MC00876-2010, 15 October 2020) [https://drive.google.com/file/d/1XqKhehvagEzi4MgvPQZEk65cZ2VuCDDg]