Hey Hippocrates
So to confirm: I should challenge both PCNs by simply including the arguments you shared below. I do not need to instruct the Council to “cancel one automatically”, as the point is already made by explaining that the two PCNs arise from the same continuous sequence of events only one minute apart. Likewise, I do not need to separately state that the Fulham 10k road closures made it impossible to use alternative routes?
To whom it may concern,
The PCN fails to include mandatory information required by para. 4(
of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 -
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukla/2003/3/section/4/enactedThe Act requires the PCN to state:
at 4(
(iii): that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice; and
at 4(
(v): that if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of that 28-day period, an increased charge may be payable.
Your PCN instead states:
“If you fail to pay the Penalty Charge or make representations before the end of a period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of this notice an increased charge of £240 may be payable.”
This wording is defective because:
It substitutes the statutory definition (“date of notice”) with an entirely different one (“date of service”).
The mandatory statutory wording is omitted from the PCN. Your substituted wording only adds to the lack of clarity caused by this omission. Even taken on its own terms, the statement is defective because it conflates two separate statutory periods by using the word “or”, which many would interpret conjunctively. Even if interpreted disjunctively, the statement still fails to provide clarity because the required statutory information is missing. It follows that the notice cannot possibly be interpreted correctly and therefore does not comply with Section 4(
of the 2003 Act.
Show Posts