I've just received the Notice to Owner. This now quotes the telephone payment as an 0345 number so not premium so does this rule out the premium rate number argument, also does the fact they given the option for online payment which is free also rule it out ?
The answers are no and no. If an excessive demand is made, the council cannot cure that defect by later demanding the correct sum. The fact that there are other payment options that do not incur a surcharge is also irrelevant, this was specifically ruled on by the High Court in London Borough of Camden v The Parking Adjudicator & Ors [2011] EWHC 295 (Admin) (https://www.bailii.org/ew/cases/EWHC/Admin/2011/295.html) at paragraph 29:
It makes no difference that the Council identified four mechanisms of payment, only one of which included the surcharge. Having offered that method all motorists were freely entitled to use it and were exposed to the potential demand for 101.3% of the appropriate penalty charge. In these circumstances the Council was demanding a sum to discharge the motorist's liability which was greater than that prescribed by law.
The Notice doesn't reinstate the discounted payment option as I was informed was likely to be the case.
For clarity, the notice to owner must, by law, demand the full amount. However when rejecting representations made against the notice to owner, the council can chose to reoffer the discount and in our experience, virtually all councils do this as long as you challenge the notice to owner within 14 days.
OK so there's the 0845 argument as per Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022) (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=11TEzgfHFInCTo-JTFFtWJ8pbIXnMvJCd) and I have this handy FOI response (https://drive.google.com/uc?id=17f1Fby3mtkAmjeRfXPCTW-zE7pdTKEAQ) to use as evidence of their wrongdoing.
Then there's the requirement to convey that you must park within bay markings, see the decisions linked in column D of rows 297 to 307 here (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1pVrE76_RYY6bNmEpYGbsZkxtpfIeud_BT3SKfg7TzQM/edit#gid=642784037).
Finally I will request the traffic order. For now you only need to make informal reps, these will undoubtedly be rejected but it gets the ball rolling.
Dear Denbighshire County Council,
Firstly I challenge liability because the alleged contravention did not occur. There was no indication that vehicles must park within the painted bays, if sucha requirement exists in the traffic regulation order this has not been conveyed to motorists.
I refer you to the decision in Cooper v London Borough of Richmond Upon Thames (1990292199, 18 July 2000) available from LINK1 as followed in the following cases:
Ernesto Villa Blandino v London Borough of Barnet (2110474195, 28 November 2011) at LINK2
Michal Budai v London Borough of Barnet (2120008348, 06 February 2012) at LINK3
Caroline Ratner v London Borough of Barnet (2140338414, 10 September 2014) at LINK4
Cheryl Kuczynski v London Borough of Barnet (2160033974, 30 April 2016) at LINK5
Sultan Gangji v London Borough of Barnet (2160439695, 15 November 2016) at LINK6
Tecwyn Evans v London Borough of Merton (2160499981, 05 January 2017) at LINK7
Gerald Halibard v London Borough of Barnet (2170225166, 15 June 2017) at LINK8
Lamin Sesay v London Borough of Southwark (2180188510, 22 June 2018) at LINK9
Anthony Westmore v London Borough of Barnet (2180064744, 15 March 2018) at LINK10
Keren Lewin v London Borough of Haringey (2190290943, 28 August 2019) at LINK11
Secondly the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case, because the PCN provides a premium rate number that attracts a surcharge for the council's benefit. For the reasons explained in Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council (DJ00037-2209, 10 November 2022) available from LINK12.
In light of the above the penalty charge must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,
I will PM you the links to put in the representation, they will redirect to the same locations as given on the spreadsheet but if you give them the links I'll PM you, we can use the click count to confirm whether they've looked at them 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 them, we can then prove they've failed to consider all of the representations. If they say in the rejection that they've considered everything you've said, we've got them for lying as well.