Barking and Dagenham PCN Code 62 Options

[Jambon]

Hi all. I went away on holiday for a few days and returned to two parking tickets both for the same thing (Parked with one or more wheels on or over a footpath or any part of the road other than a carriageway), and was just wondering if it was worth challenging.

https://ibb.co/bJyq59
https://ibb.co/fWDnJU
https://ibb.co/i8bXJU
https://ibb.co/bZd9Xp
https://ibb.co/cSQ1dU
https://ibb.co/fu6wCp
https://ibb.co/dGQpXp
https://ibb.co/mQ0dQ9
https://ibb.co/i24isp

https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5591155,0...3312!8i6656

I also took a few photos of other cars surrounding as the majority were also over the bay like this, and in some cases causing more of on obstruction (due to overgrowing hedges making the pavement thinner etc) but no signs of PCN's on any windscreens.

Any input would be greatly appreciated, thanks.

[cp8759]

I've amended the last ground, keep all bold and italics formatting as I have used it below:

2b) There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the enforcement authority. The wording provided on the initial PCN is misleading.

1) The information provided in your PCN is misleading. Regulation 3(2)(b)(ii) of The Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions (England) Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 provides that a PCN must state that:

"if representations against the penalty charge are received at such address as may be specified for the purpose before a Notice to Owner is served -
(i) those representations will be considered;
(ii) but that, if a Notice to Owner is served notwithstanding those representations, representations against the penalty charge must be made in the form and manner and at the time specified in the Notice to Owner"

There is nothing on the PCN that conveys the warning in bold above, it follows that the council has failed to comply with a mandatory requirement imposed by the regulations. While there is no need for the PCN to quote the regulations verbatim, the correct meaning must be conveyed and in this instance you cannot argue the PCN is substantially complaint. Failure to comply with a mandatory requirement of the regulations is a procedural impropriety, it follows that regardless of whether the alleged contravention occurred, the PCN must be cancelled.

[Advertisement]

[Jambon]

Representations were accepted and the second PCN has been cancelled.

cp8759 thanks for all your help and advice. It is greatly appreciated. All the best.