Draft reps:
Dear London Borough of Newham,
In Andrew David Rush v London Borough of Southwark (2120562288, 5 January 2013) the tribunal held that:
"I see that the allegation in the Penalty Charge Notice is the standardised and rather complex wording of a "12" allegation. It consists of 36 words and encompasses the possibility of application to three different types of parking location and four different ways in which a contravention might occur.
The reason for this standardisation relates to how the Mayor of London authorises rates of penalty.
However this does not exempt the local authority from the legal necessity of giving to the Appellant an adequate description of why the claim to penalty is being made: he must be able to make an informed decision as to whether to pay the discount rate or dispute the PCN.
The PCN did not, in my judgement, adequately explain to Mr Rush that his displayed voucher was not valid in a permit bay.
I regard this as a procedural impropriety and I allow the appeal."
This was followed in Natalie van Dijk v London Borough of Islington (2150275729, 23 September 2015), and the same circumstances apply in this case: the wording on the penalty charge notice does not adequately particularise the alleged wrongdoing, and for that reason the notice should be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
Send the representation online and keep a screenshot of the confirmation page.
The traffic order is
The Newham (Forest Gate) (Parking Places) (Special Parking Area) (No. 1) Order 2002 but I'll need to check if there are any relevant amendments for this road, and also if there is an amendment to deal with the switch from pay & display machines to pay by phone (absent such an amendment it's hard to see how they could enforce at this location).
