Suppose an individual had some rocks for landscaping dropped off at their house, and placed in the street in front of their house. Without any correspondence from the city on the issue, the city removed the rocks, paid to have them dumped as waste, and is now billing this hypothetical individual 200$.
Suppose upon investigating the city code, it would seem these actions are not in line with how the process is supposed to take place; namely, they did not notify this hypothetical individual that it was an issue that needed to be addressed. Suppose this hypothetical city code is verbatim the code found here:
or here, under Chapter 38: Section 81: Removal of Obstruction: http://www.cityblm.org/index.aspx?page=262
Also suppose the superintendent in charge of this particular branch of the city government, upon being spoken to, claimed the city acted properly, and was otherwise dismissive.
What might one suppose would be the legal basis for challenging this decision? Is this a proper interpretation of these hypothetical city codes given this hypothetical circumstance? Thank you
EDIT: for whatever reason this SE requires 50 rep to comment, so in reponse to user6727's answer: The city has the home-owner on file, they know where to send the water bill to; they even had the address on hand to send this fine to. Therefore, it would stand to reason that "they we're unable to contact" the responsible party would not be a very solid legal defense, no?