Andrew Malpass v London Borough of Bromley (2240008359, 7 February 2024)
Following the precedent set in the Andrew Malpass v London Borough of Bromley case, I contend that the PCN issued to me is defective due to the following inconsistencies:
Contravention Location: The PCN incorrectly specifies the location as "HORNS ROAD (A)". There is no designated area with this name. The accurate location is simply "HORNS ROAD". The inclusion of "(A)" appears to be an internal reference used solely by the Council and has no bearing on the actual location.
Notice of Representation (NOR) Date Discrepancy: A discrepancy exists between the date listed on the NOR (page 1) – 03-April-2024 – and the date indicated in the "office only section" of the London Tribunals documentation – 02-April-2024. This inconsistency renders the NOR defective.
Furthermore, the reduction of the appeals period constitutes a significant defect, as previously discussed. In my case, the wording within the NOR not only shortens the allotted time for submitting representations, but the issuing authority demonstrably reduced the actual time allowed by two days. Additionally, the council increased the penalty amount before the legal timeframe for representations had expired.
It is crucial to distinguish my case from the examples provided by cp8759. In those cases, the PCN itself contained an incorrect appeals period. While the PCN itself appears accurate in my case, the Council's implementation of the deadlines is demonstrably inconsistent with the information presented on the PCN. The truncation of the appeals period was solely implemented by the Council's actions.
