I make this collateral challenge on the basis that the Penalty Charge Notice fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
Paragraph 4(8 ) (a)(v) requires a Penalty Charge Notice to state:
"that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable."
The "28 day period" referred to in paragraph 4(8 )(a)(v) is plainly the period prescribed by paragraph 4(8 )(a)(iii), namely:
"the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice."
However, the PCN does not convey this mandatory information. Instead, it states:
"If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable."
This wording is defective for several reasons.
First, it omits the mandatory reference to the statutory payment period beginning with the **date of the notice**, substituting instead the period beginning with the **date of service**.
Secondly, by using the phrase "pay the Penalty Charge **or** make representations", the PCN conflates two distinct statutory periods into a single statement. A recipient is left uncertain as to which statutory period governs the issue of a Charge Certificate. The use of the word "or" does not resolve this ambiguity and, if anything, compounds it.
Thirdly, the parenthetical reference elsewhere on the PCN to the "date of service" further adds to the confusion by repeatedly directing the recipient to a different statutory date from that prescribed by paragraph 4(8 )(a)(iii).
The statutory requirements are mandatory. Parliament has prescribed the information that a Penalty Charge Notice must contain. A PCN that fails to accurately convey that information does not comply with the requirements of the 2003 Act.
Finally, I note that Brent Council's online representations process has previously been found by London Tribunals to be unfair in respect of motorists' ability to make representations. While those decisions concerned different issues, they demonstrate the importance of strict compliance with the statutory requirements governing civil enforcement. Please see the attached tribunal decisions in **Mashood Perwez Haque v London Borough of Brent (2240386185, 9 November 2024)** and **Timur Tagirov v London Borough of Brent (224040544A, 25 November 2024)**.
For all of the above reasons, I respectfully request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
