Free Traffic Legal Advice

Parked in EV charging bay at Cazenove Road. Had valid Zone T visitor voucher book on dashboard but didn't scratch voucher for that day - thought the large "ELECTRIC VEHICLES" road marking meant active charging was sufficient. Never seen an EV bay requiring a zone permit before.

CEO issued Code 19 (invalid permit displayed), not Code 12, confirming voucher book was visible.

Informal challenge: Explained I held Zone T voucher book, was entitled to park in Zone T bay, provided photo evidence.

Hackney's rejection letter (23/01/26) says:
"parking in bay for electric vehicles... for Zone F permit holders only"

Enforcement photos clearly show sign says "Zone T"

I had Zone T voucher for Zone T bay. Council rejected based on Zone F.

Also:

Code 19 says permit was displayed, rejection letter says "no permit... nor displayed"

My evidence of Zone T voucher completely ignored

Question: Zone F/T error - is this as fatal as I think? Waiting for Notice to Owner.


https://maps.app.goo.gl/NdDMUbpDXYyupwQo8
Thanks.

Thanks

Thanks stamfordman for looking at this.

I understand it might not invalidate the PCN itself, but doesn't it demonstrate failure to properly consider my representations under the 2007 Regulations?

My informal challenge specifically stated:
- I held a valid Zone T visitor voucher book
- I was entitled to park in that Zone T bay 
- I provided photographic evidence of the voucher book

Their rejection letter says:
- "parking in bay for... Zone F permit holders only"
- "no valid permit... nor displayed at the time"

The enforcement photos clearly show the sign says Zone T.

So they rejected my challenge claiming I needed Zone F when:
1. The actual bay requires Zone T
2. I told them I held Zone T voucher
3. I provided evidence of Zone T voucher

Can they just argue this was a "typo" at Notice to Owner stage and correct it then? Or does the fact they got the zone wrong in their formal rejection show they never actually reviewed what I submitted?

It looks like they just used a template rejection, rather than addressing my specific claim about holding the correct Zone T permit for that Zone T bay.

Does this support a procedural/statutory duty breach ground, or am I overestimating how significant the Zone F/T error is?

Thanks.