Dear Tunbridge Wells Borough Council,
In the first instance I contend that the alleged contravention did not occur owing to the signage being inadequate and misleading, as has been widely reported in the press.
I further challenge liability on the basis of a procedural impropriety. Regulation 3 of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 provides that:
(2) An enforcement notice must include the following information—
...
(g) where the enforcement notice is a regulation 10 penalty charge notice served under regulation 10(2)(a) of the 2022 General Regulations (an “approved device notice”), the effect of paragraphs (3) and (4).
(3) The recipient (“R”) of an approved device notice may, by notice in writing, request that the enforcement authority—(a) makes available, at one of its offices specified by R, free of charge and at a time during normal office hours so specified, for viewing by R or R’s representative the record of the alleged relevant road traffic contravention produced by the approved device pursuant to which the penalty charge was imposed, or
(b) provides R, free of charge, with such still images from that record as, in the authority’s opinion, establish the alleged relevant road traffic contravention.
(4) The enforcement authority must comply with any request under paragraph (3) within a reasonable time.There is no CCTV footage on the council website and the information specified at paragraphs (3) and (4) of regulation 3 above has been omitted from the penalty charge notice. A failure to substantively convey the mandatory information required by the regulations is a failure by the enforcement authority to comply with an obligation imposed on it by the regulations, which by definition amounts to a procedural impropriety.
It follows that there has been a procedural impropriety and the PCN must be cancelled in any event.
Yours faithfully,