Please see a draft of the London tribunals appeal. Kindly provide feedback
London Tribunals Appeal
Appellant: [Name]
PCN:
Vehicle Registration:
Enforcement Authority: London Borough of Redbridge
Grounds of Appeal:
* The alleged contravention did not occur.
* There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the Enforcement Authority.
⸻
1. The alleged contravention did not occur
The vehicle was not stopped for the purpose of waiting at a bus stop.
The driver observed a vehicle already occupying a nearby lawful parking bay. Its occupant had entered the vehicle and closed the door, making it clear that the vehicle was about to leave. The driver therefore waited behind that vehicle for approximately 20 seconds while it started and vacated the bay, before immediately parking in the now vacant space.
The driver remained in the vehicle throughout and never left it. During this brief period, the passenger exited the vehicle safely.
The Council’s CCTV supports this explanation by showing the other vehicle driving away immediately before the appellant parked. However, the CCTV does not show the full sequence before recording commenced and therefore fails to provide the complete context of why the vehicle was stationary.
The Enforcement Authority has relied upon incomplete CCTV evidence and has failed to prove the contravention.
⸻
2. Failure to consider the representations
My formal representation stated:
“I put you to strict proof that this bus stop is legally signed. If you are unable to do so, please cancel the PCN.”
The Notice of Rejection simply asserts that compliant signage exists but provides no contemporaneous evidence whatsoever.
Instead, the Council relies upon Google Street View images dated August 2025. The alleged contravention occurred on 16 June 2026, approximately ten months later.
Historic Street View imagery does not prove that the required upright sign existed, remained unobstructed and was compliant on the date of the alleged contravention. The Council has therefore failed to provide strict proof of lawful signage at the material time.
The recent decision in Fahim Muhammad Haque v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (Case 2260000010, 29 July 2026) confirms that an enforcement authority must prove that the required upright sign was sufficiently visible. In that case, although the road markings were present, the appeal was allowed because the authority failed to establish that the required sign was adequately visible. Attached: Fahim Muhammad Haque v London Borough of Tower Hamlets (2260000010, 29 July 2026).pdf
⸻
3. Failure to properly consider the representations
The Notice of Rejection fails to address the substance of my representations.
It does not address:
* the incomplete CCTV evidence;
* my explanation that the driver was briefly waiting for a lawful parking bay to become available; or
* my request for strict proof that the bus stop was lawfully signed.
Instead, it simply repeats that stopping is prohibited. That is not proper consideration of the representations as required by the 2022 Regulations.
⸻
4. The Notice of Rejection demonstrates a failure to consider this case
The Notice of Rejection states:
“Our enforcement officer observed your vehicle…”
This statement is plainly incorrect.
The PCN itself confirms that it was issued solely on the basis of evidence from an approved CCTV device. No Civil Enforcement Officer observed the vehicle.
This factual error strongly suggests that the Council has issued a generic template rejection without properly considering the facts of this particular case. Whilst this point may not be decisive on its own, it reinforces the wider procedural impropriety that my representations were not genuinely considered.
⸻
5. The Notice of Rejection misstates the statutory right of appeal
Regulation 9(4)(b) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 requires that a Notice of Rejection informs the recipient of the right to appeal under Regulation 10.
Regulation 10 expressly provides that an appeal may be made:
(a) within 28 days beginning with the date of service of the Notice of Rejection; or
(b) such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.
The Notice of Rejection omits this statutory right entirely and therefore fails to comply with the mandatory requirements of the Regulations.
⸻
6. The Notice of Rejection compounds that error
The Council goes further by stating that after 28 days there will be no further opportunity to appeal.
That is incorrect.
Regulation 10 expressly permits an adjudicator to accept a late appeal where appropriate.
By informing the motorist that there is no further opportunity to appeal, the Council has misrepresented the statutory position and is capable of discouraging a motorist from exercising rights expressly conferred by Parliament.
This amounts to a procedural impropriety.
-----
For the reasons set out above, I respectfully request that the Adjudicator allows this appeal and directs the London Borough of Redbridge to cancel PCN