Free Traffic Legal Advice

I pointed it out because we need to be accurate in what we say.

Indeed - I just wanted to be sure the OP wasn't getting the wrong message about their (very, very high) chances of winning because the regulars were having a technical discussion.

On the subject o helping the OP... as Incandescent says, all you need to do is prove this particular PCN isn't valid. There's a pretty rigid legal process for PCNs, Councils have to be precise when issuing them, in the same way you have to be precise about responding in time. If both sides carry with the process (you not paying and them not accepting your argument), eventually the case goes to an independent adjudicator who will make a ruling, and they won't let councils get away with any sloppiness like getting the location wrong or reissuing a ticket because they messed up.

It doesn't really matter how you write the representation as long as you get the key point across, which is that their own photos prove you were not parked in Warehead Road at the time stated on the PCN. It's unlikely the council  will reject this  (I wouldn't be surprised if the warden gets a bit of a telling off actually, as their mistake cost the council a few quid!). If they do reject you'll just have to stick with the process until either they fold or an adjudicator tells them off on your behalf.

Of course I agree wrong (or missing) location invalidates a PCN and there are numerous adjudicated examples, especially in moving traffic PCNs which may include traffic orders that specify a different location.
The London Tribunals register is constructed with location as a search field.
It is a fault with the legislation that it is not specified as mandatory and it is has to a large extent been adopted as mandatory in the enforcement and appeal system.

Yesterday there was a funny case (for two PCNs) where one of the more friendly adjudicators took the location at its exact wording.
Would be good though to see the reasoning for "if a precise location is identified, it must be the correct one".

-------

2240331128

This PCN was issued for the alleged contravention of being parked in a permit holder only parking place in Stanhope Gardens outside No.111. The photographs from the CEO show that Mr Livingstone's car was not parked outside No.111 Stanhope Gardens. Mr Livingstone's car was, in fact, parked at the far end of a bay which he has confirmed is outside his own property, No.115 Stanhope Gardens. This is the white painted property in the images. There clearly was no contravention at the location cited on the PCN and I allow the appeal for that reason. The identification of the precise location of an alleged contravention can often be critical and, if a precise location is identified, it must be the correct one.

Essentially they are upping the odds, forcing you to either pay the discount, or wait for the Notice to Owner, and accept the discount option is lost. Ultimately, if you wait for the NtO, you'll end up at London Tribunals if Redbridge prove to be obdurate. Their PCN says you contravened parking law at a location stated on the PCN, but the location is wrong. As this is a fundamental error, the PCN should be declared void at the adjudicators.
It would be interesting to see what location they put on the NtO.

The alternative is to cough-up now.

Pl post the full letter, including the 4 corners!

I want to see which moron signed the letter. It's as outrageous as it is legally inept. You might want to just play this through to its inevitable conclusion - you* win at adjudication and IMO make a successful claim for costs- or adopt a parallel channels approach.

*- are you the registered keeper.

What should I write, anyone?
They seem to think that the penalty is contravention is still enforceable despite stating the wrong road.