proceduralUnited States · Chicago, ILDifficulty: Easy
Facts Inconsistent / Do Not Support Finding (Catch-All Defense)
Chicago Municipal Code §9-100-060(a)(5): a powerful catch-all defense covering wrong vehicle make/model on ticket, wrong location, wrong time (e.g., 3 PM ticket for 7-9 AM rush hour zone), wrong day of week, internally contradictory ticket, illegible/missing officer signature, missing required fields, and tickets for restrictions not actually in effect at the alleged time.
Legal basis
Chicago Municipal Code §9-100-060(a)(5); §9-100-030(b); 625 ILCS 5/11-208.3
Sample appeal wording
TO: City of Chicago, Department of Administrative Hearings RE: Violation [TICKET_NUMBER] I request dismissal under §9-100-060(a)(5): facts alleged are inconsistent or do not support a finding. The notice [DESCRIBE INCONSISTENCY: e.g., 'lists make as FORD when my vehicle is HONDA' / 'lists time 8:30 AM Saturday but rush-hour applies only Mon-Fri' / 'lists ordinance §9-64-XXX which by its terms requires [element] not alleged']. Under §9-100-030(b), the issuing officer must certify correctness. The factual inconsistency means a prima facie case is not established. Evidence: (1) photograph of notice; (2) registration; (3) photograph of posted signs; (4) calendar. Signed, [FULL_NAME] Date: [DATE]
Replace [PARKING DATE], [NtK DATE] etc. with your own dates before sending.
Beat It writes this argument automatically
Scan your PCN — our AI checks if this ground applies to your specific ticket, drafts a properly-cited appeal letter, and submits it to the council on your behalf. Only pay if you win.
Scan my ticketSources
- Chicago Municipal Code §9-100-060(a)(5)
- Chicago Municipal Code §9-100-030(b)
- 625 ILCS 5/11-208.3