An open letter to the Chamberlain of London

Dear City of London,

                                    I write with regards to payment of Penalty Charge Notice CL55350099.   I wish to complain to the Council that the money has been obtained by deception.  Firstly the wording of the letter is wrong.  It says “Failure to pay the charge in full before the end of the 28 day period may lead to the charge increasing by 50 per cent to £195".  However strictly speaking this is a 300 per cent increase.  Therefore motorists are forced to pay the fine by deception and unreasonable threats.  The letter further pressurises the customer to pay within 14 days at the risk of the fine increasing rather than challenge the ticket.  However, the small print on the City of London website which is not on the letter tells a different story.

“You have 14 working days from the date of the ticket to make an informal challenge at the discount amount for tickets attached to the vehicle or handed to the driver.

The case will be placed on hold until we respond; if we reject your challenge, you will be re-offered the discount amount for 14 days from the date of that letter.”

Therefore the letter is deceptive in suggesting to the reader that they must pay within 14 days without challenging the fine or risk the fine increasing.  Whereas actually if the driver appeals the fine within the 14 days the 14 day clock is started again and the driver is informed in writing whether their appeal is accepted or rejected at which point they can still pay at the £65 rate.  This automatically forces anyone for whom it is impractical to revisit the locus in quo within the timeframe specified to not challenge the ticket.  Therefore the money taken is being obtained by deception.

The letter then advises the reader that they must not pay the fine if they intend to dispute it which I have done.  However, I would point out that payment is not a one-sided affair.  I sent you a cheque which is a push pull method of payment and asked you to take payment at your discretion.  This means you must make a decision to cash the cheque and be responsible for making such a decision.  I submit that the decision to cash the cheque was so outrageous in its defiance of logic or accepted moral standards that no sensible person who had applied his mind to the question to be decided could have arrived at it and that the only reason you cashed the cheque is that no one had applied their mind enough to question the procedural mistakes outlined above and therefore I would like to apply for my money back.

Yours sincerely

Anthony Miller