3
« on: October 26, 2023, 10:58:31 am »
OK, how about this:
I am challenging this PCN due to multiple procedural improprieties on the part of the charging authority:
1 The PCN references the Bristol City Council Clean Air Zone Charging Order 2022, legislation that does not exist. The PCN should in fact refer to the Bristol Clean Air Zone Charging Order 2022
2 The PCN is seeking to claim the CAZ charge in addition to a penalty. There is no provision for this in The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 which means that the PCN amount is greater than the amount that may legitimately be claimed. This was clarified by the Traffic Penalty Tribunal Chief Adjudicator in Mr Luke Moran - v - Secretary of State for Transport, case number IA01249-1803, on 13 June 2018 when she stated "There is no power in Regulation 7 for the PCN to require the road user charge to be paid in addition to the penalty charge"
3 The Road User Charging Schemes (Penalty Charges, Adjudication and Enforcement) (England) Regulations 2013 7(3)(f) requires that a PCN states the amount of penalty charge that is payable if the penalty charge is paid in full:
(i)within 14 days of the day on which the penalty charge notice is served;
(ii)after the expiry of such 14 day period but within 28 days of the day on which the penalty charge notice is served;
(iii)after the service of a charge certificate
Only (i) and (ii) are included in the PCN, the amount for (iii) has been omitted therefore the PCN is invalid
4 The PCN includes an 0870 premium rate telephone number for payment. In Paul Bateman v Derbyshire County Council, case number DJ00037-2209, on 10 November 2022) the Traffic Penalty Tribunal Adjudicator found that this amounts to a demand that exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case making the PCN invalid.