Further, I argue that the PCN issued is unenforceable due to a misinterpretation of the "vehicle use without consent" clause. The current grounds limits this clause to theft cases only, as evidenced by the requirement for a police report or insurance claim. Therefore, this inaccurate reflection of the statutory ground does not recognise other valid scenarios of unauthorised use, such as when a vehicle is used without the owner's consent by a friend or relative, in which case reporting to the police may not be relevant. The PCN's reliance on this incorrect understanding of “used without consent” makes it invalid in situations where the vehicle's use falls outside the strict definition of theft. Therefore, making this PCN unenforceable.
OR
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.
I would add this now so that they have to consider.
