Draft of the reps I will send once the NTO arrives in post.
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally challenge the above Penalty Charge Notice, issued under contravention code 81. I do not accept liability for this penalty and set out my grounds below.
1. The Penalty Charge Notice is defective on its face seems to be printed on top of the location field describing where the contravention took place. As these are mandatory elements of a compliant PCN, its defective condition means the notice should be considered invalid on procedural grounds alone. Photographs of the misprinted notice are enclosed.
2. No evidence the location is subject to a valid restriction
I have been unable to obtain any plan accompanying the relevant Order that clearly defines the boundaries of the car park or any restricted area within it. Without such a plan, there is no basis to establish that the specific stretch of roadway where my vehicle was parked falls within an area subject to the order relied upon. The council must demonstrate the restriction applied to this precise location; in the absence of a boundary plan, this has not been shown.
3. The wrong contravention code has been applied
The PCN was issued under code 81 — “parked in a restricted area in an off-street car park or housing estate.” This code is intended for parking in hatched areas, fire lanes, turning heads, or access ways, not for a vehicle positioned outside bay markings.
The terms board displayed on site (photograph enclosed) states that vehicles must be parked wholly within a bay or space. This describes a different and distinct contravention — code 86, “not parked wholly within the markings of the bay/space” — not code 81. As the facts alleged do not match the definition of code 81, the PCN has been incorrectly coded and should be cancelled on this basis.