Draft representation (you'll need to put this into a PDF in order to preserve all indentation and italics formatting):
-------------------
Dear London Borough of Barking and Dagenham,
Having received your PCN, I would like to make a representation as the penalty charge exceeds the amount applicable in the circumstances of the case:
Section 4 of the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 provides, insofar as is relevant, that:
A penalty charge notice under this section must—
(a) state—
...
(iii) that the penalty charge must be paid before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of the notice;
(iv) that if the penalty charge is paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the notice, the amount of the penalty charge will be reduced by the specified proportion;
(v) that, if the penalty charge is not paid before the end of the 28 day period, an increased charge may be payable;
The PCN served by the council wrongly states that the discounted penalty must be paid before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of service of the PCN. As the PCN is dated 19 June 2022 , which was a Sunday, the date of service would have been 22 June 2022, i.e. the following wednesday. The PCN therefore states that the last day when the discounted amount could be paid is 5 July June 2022. However according to the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003, the discounted amount would need to be paid no later than 2 July 2022, some three days earlier. The Penalty Charge Notice cannot therefore be substantially compliant as it does not convey the meaning required by the Act.
While it might be thought that this error on the PCN is in the recipient's favour as prejudice is not established, I refer you to
London Borough of Barnet Council, R (on the application of) v The Parking Adjudicator [2006] EWHC 2357 (Admin) where the High Court ruled as follows
40. Let me now turn to the present case. The two PCNs issued by the parking attendant in Barnet on 31st March 2005 both showed the date of the contravention. Neither PCN showed the date of the notice. The date on which the notice was issued ought to have been shown as a separate entry on the notice. On this ground alone, I hold that neither PCN achieved substantial compliance with section 66 of the 1991 Act.
41. Mr Lewis submits that even if there was non -compliance in this respect, nevertheless no prejudice was caused. PCNs should not be regarded as invalid. I do not accept this submission. Prejudice is irrelevant and does not need to be established. The 1991 Act creates a scheme for the civil enforcement of parking control. Under this scheme, motorists become liable to pay financial penalties when certain specified statutory conditions are met. If the statutory conditions are not met, then the financial liability does not arise.
42. In the present case, the two PCNs issued by Barnet on 31st March 2005 did not comply with section 66(3)(с),(d) and (e) of the 1991 Act. Accordingly, the requirements of section 66 were not satisfied and no financial liability was triggered either by the PCN or by any subsequent stage in the process such as the notice to owner.
In this case the PCN has been served under the 2003 Act, but the principle is the same: the PCN is not substantially complaint with the requirements of the statutory scheme because it does not state what the Act requires it to state, and it follows that no liability to pay the penalty charge can arise.
In light of the above, the only penalty that may be demanded is nil and the PCN must be cancelled.
Yours faithfully,