It's the same photos on both PCNs, the photo on the earlier PCN is just zoomed-in for some reason. It matters not, you now have a compelling case, draft reps:
Dear Bristol City Council,
I challenge liability for PCN BS00000000 on the basis that the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case.
The PCN carries an 0870 premium rate telephone number, and I contend that as in Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022) this amounts to an excessive demand. While I appreciate other payment methods are available, binding authority from the High Court in the case of London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) determined that where one payment method carries a surcharge, the availability of other payment methods is irrelevant and the penalty demanded is excessive.
It follows that the penalty charge must be cancelled.
I also challenge liability on the basis of a procedural impropriety. The council served a PCN dated 10 July 2023, then a few days later it issued a further PCN for the same contravention but with a date of issue of 17 July 2023.
Regulation 8(4) of The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 defines a procedural impropriety as "the service of any notice or document, otherwise than... in accordance with the conditions subject to which or at the time or during the period when it is authorised or required by these Regulations".
Service of a second penalty charge with a different date of issue in respect of the same allegation is service of a document which was nether authorised nor required by the regulations, that is a procedural impropriety on the basis of which the PCN must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
Don't forget to upload a copy of Paul Bateman v Derbyshire, and keep a screenshot of the confirmation screen.