Thanks for your guidance
@Hippocrates , I have submitted below representation and kept screenshots, hope this looks ok?
I make representations against this Penalty Charge Notice on the following grounds.
The PCN fails to comply with mandatory statutory requirements
The PCN does not correctly convey the statutory time periods required under Schedule 1 to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003.
The legislation requires that a Penalty Charge Notice clearly state that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice. However, the wording used in this PCN instead refers to, or conflates, the “date of service” and the “date of the notice”, which are legally distinct concepts.
This creates ambiguity as to the applicable time period. A recipient cannot be expected to infer the correct legal position where the notice itself is unclear. The statutory requirements are mandatory, and a failure to properly state them renders the PCN invalid.
Further, the PCN uses wording such as “pay or make representations,” which improperly combines two separate statutory rights. The right to make representations and the obligation to pay are distinct, and the wording used fails to accurately convey this, creating further uncertainty.
The wording relating to any increase in the penalty charge is also unclear and does not properly reflect the statutory sequence required by the Act.
It is well established that a PCN must strictly comply with the requirements of the enabling legislation. Any ambiguity or misstatement amounts to a procedural impropriety and renders the notice unenforceable.
The alleged contravention did not occur due to inadequate signage
Without prejudice to the above, I submit that the alleged contravention did not occur because the signage at the location was not adequate to clearly convey the restriction.
The enforcing authority is put to strict proof that the signage complied with the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 and was sufficient to inform a reasonably diligent motorist of the restriction.
The signage was not sufficiently clear, prominent, or comprehensible when approached in normal driving conditions. Any restriction must be conveyed in a manner that allows a driver adequate time to read, understand, and safely comply. If signage is obscured, positioned too late, or otherwise confusing, it fails to meet this requirement.
If the authority contends that the signage was compliant, I require strict proof in the form of contemporaneous photographs, a site layout plan, and evidence demonstrating that the signage was correctly positioned, visible, and maintained.
In the absence of such evidence, the authority cannot discharge its burden of proof, and the alleged contravention cannot be established.
In light of the above, I request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.
Show Posts