@wolvoman I will PM you a link to put in the representation, it will redirect to here (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=19iEpXVLmlNGcipsJwCaaAU0rQu4jFtRH) but if you give them the link I'll PM you, we can use the click count to confirm whether they've looked at it or not (obviously do not click on that link yourself as we want the click count to remain at zero). If they don't click on it, we can then prove they've failed to consider all of the evidence. If they say in the rejection that they've considered all the evidence, we've got them for lying as well.
Dear Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames,
Firstly I challenge liability because the video evidence does not show my vehicle enter the box, so it does not actually show any contravention, nor does it show the circumstances at the point of entry.
Furthermore, a contravention of this type occurs at the point of entry into the box: a vehicle is prohibited from entering the box if it is later caused to stop, so the contravention occurs at the point of entry and not later on when the vehicle stops. The vehicle had already entered the box markings at 17:27:51.928 according to your video, so while a contravention might have occurred at 17:27, a contravention did not occur at 17:28.
As the PCN alleges a contravention at 17:28, the contravention alleged on the PCN did not occur.
I further bring a collateral challenge on the basis explained by the adjudicator in the decision in Chidi Egenti v London Borough of Islington which can be accessed at LINK and for the reasons explained there, the PCN is invalid in any event.
In light of the above, the PCN must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
Send the representations online and keep a screenshot of the confirmation page.
You could include this too for them to consider. The more the merrier.
I do not believe that the PCN is enforceable 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.
A more appropriate wording would be to include "for example" so that the absence of such a phrase clearly implies theft only as a taken without consent ground.
The PCN is also a nullity because of the conflation of the two periods of payment and making representations. According to the relevant legislation, there are two distinct periods in which the recipient may either pay the penalty charge or make representations. The following statement creates prejudice and confusion: "If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice, an increased charge of £195 may be payable." I interpret the use of "or" as a conjunctive and so I do believe it to be a simple matter of syntax in that the conditional phrase "if you fail to pay the penalty charge notice or make representations...." clearly refers to and governs grammatically both periods and I contend that any other interpretation would fall under Wednesbury unreasonableness. I refer to the Barnet case at the High Court, which set a legal precedent, of course, in terms of the statutory obligations placed upon an Authority in its production of penalty charge notices, what they must contain in order to justify their legal enforcement and, lastly, that prejudice does not need to be proven i.e. R (Barnet) v The Parking Adjudicator (2006) EWHC 2357 (Admin): "Prejudice is irrelevant and does not have to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme motorists become liable to pay financial penalties if certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise." The conflation of the two periods creates ambiguity, confusion and could even be interpreted that a charge certificate may be served even if representations have been made. In light of the above I would be most grateful if the Representation is given due consideration and the PCN cancelled on this occasion.
@wolvoman I will PM you a link to put in the representation, it will redirect to here (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=19iEpXVLmlNGcipsJwCaaAU0rQu4jFtRH) but if you give them the link I'll PM you, we can use the click count to confirm whether they've looked at it or not (obviously do not click on that link yourself as we want the click count to remain at zero). If they don't click on it, we can then prove they've failed to consider all of the evidence. If they say in the rejection that they've considered all the evidence, we've got them for lying as well.
Dear Royal Borough of Kingston upon Thames,
Firstly I challenge liability because the video evidence does not show my vehicle enter the box, so it does not actually show any contravention, nor does it show the circumstances at the point of entry.
Furthermore, a contravention of this type occurs at the point of entry into the box: a vehicle is prohibited from entering the box if it is later caused to stop, so the contravention occurs at the point of entry and not later on when the vehicle stops. The vehicle had already entered the box markings at 17:27:51.928 according to your video, so while a contravention might have occurred at 17:27, a contravention did not occur at 17:28.
As the PCN alleges a contravention at 17:28, the contravention alleged on the PCN did not occur.
I further bring a collateral challenge on the basis explained by the adjudicator in the decision in Chidi Egenti v London Borough of Islington which can be accessed at LINK and for the reasons explained there, the PCN is invalid in any event.
In light of the above, the PCN must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
Send the representations online and keep a screenshot of the confirmation page.