Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi, I'm having an issue with Barnet Council on this PCN and would like to hear your point of view and possibly some help with the appeal + probably the Parking Adjudicator.

In brief...

On the 31st of August 2025, the driver parked my Grey Nissan at 9:26am, noticing a single yellow line. She couldn't find any signage on the nearest pole, so she walked up the road looking for a sign to understand what the prescribed hours were. After a brief walk, the driver saw a parking sign and soon found out the signage was reporting 8-9:30 am as prescribed hours, then walked back to the car to move it but found a PCN already left on the windscreen. Observation time, 1 min.

In the photo evidence later consulted online (I'm the owner/keeper), I saw 8 photos of the car on a single yellow line taken in a way to well hide the absence of the sign on the nearest pole. 8 photos taken from every possible angle with no parking signage at all, but in a way that hides the section of the pole where the signage was missing.

Now comes the interesting part, as photo no. 9 this CEO added finally a photo of the sign, but obviously taken in another location, a different pole not at all in the vicinity of my car. Just a zoom of a sign, with nothing else, i.e. my car or general contest.

At the end, as photo no. 10 and please see the cheekiness here, a complete photo with everything: signage, a yellow line and a car parked there, but that's not mine! It's a random grey Mercedes with a different registration.

I sent them informal representations explaining everything, with further photo evidence, they obviously rejected.
Then I sent another letter reiterating the presence of a different car as "evidence" and the missed sign that put the driver in a position to not immediately understand the prescribed hours. And once again, they quite rudely wrote back very dry, telling me I must wait for the NTO to make a formal appeal.

In my opinion, this PCN shouldn't reach the NTO level, and this CEO should be retrained or disciplined. I'm also not happy about how the informal representation was managed, as they didn't answer any questions or even acknowledge the obvious missing signage and a random car used as "evidence".

Thanks for your attention, look forward to hearing from you!

I can post everything, definitely. Please, tell me what would you like to see, just the photos?
V5C is up to date, I received already their rejection of informal representation and the 2nd letter where they basically said shut up and wait for the NTO.
No NTO received so far.

This is the timeline

31st Aug - PCN found on windscreen
3rd Sep - Sent informal representations
12st Sep - Received their rejection
4th Oct - Sent further letter to reiterate
22th Oct - Received their response rejecting again and telling me to wait the NTO

Thank you so much. I will post everything shortly.

Just wait for the NTO. The driver - who is this - did due diligence in searching out the sign. It looks like she parked midway between two timeplates that are quite far apart.

They are obviously wrong about being parked by a timeplate.

There is no observation on the PCN and it was issued just three minutes before the end of the restriction. London Councils guidance is not to issue within 2 mins so this could be said to be 1 second away...

Did the driver see the CEO? If not I find that odd.

I don't think the CEO did anything wrong but the official hasn't looked at the pics properly.

Thank you very much all for your help, your work on this forum is very useful and highly appreciated.

The driver did the due diligence in walking down the road searching out the sign. I went there yesterday and measured with steps, the nearest signs are 55 steps down and 53 steps up. Being not a tall person, one step of mine is obviously not 1 mt, so definitely there's a length of well over 100 mt without signs, and a pole with a missing sign in the middle, just where driver parked. She parked midway between two timeplates that are quite far apart, near a pole with a missing sign and did all what was possible to find information about prescribed hours and comply.

Both CEO and Authorised Officer are obviously wrong when stating my car was parked by a timeplate. It wasn't. Timeplate was missing. They sent a photo of timeplate taken from a different pole and one with a different car underneath.
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cbtphtKgIBanpcBWO8xPxVjFqoemWrxb/view

Do we members of the public really must cough-up the money and shut up, even when both CEO and Authorised Officer are insisting in presenting as evidence a photo with a timeplate far apart and even a different car near it?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1cbtphtKgIBanpcBWO8xPxVjFqoemWrxb/view

Considering the above, I find really hard to conclude that the CEO did anything wrong and was not mendacious, but the Officer who hasn't read my representation and/or not looked at the pics properly, and is insisting on presenting a different car as evidence, did not commit procedural impropriety?

All in all, I find this unfair. We normally follow the rules, honestly comply and pay if we have to, but shell out on a photo of a different car makes us feeling duped as if we are being laughed at.

Thank you.

There isn't a missing sign, which would have been a good point.

Which way did the driver walk to check the sign.

The obvious hole in the argument is there were two people there - driver and CEO yet driver didn't see them?

One possibility is that the CEO was driving that Mercedes...

The driver went down the road to look for the sign (55+55 steps, plus the time of examination, checking the actual time etc etc), while the CEO went up the road to look for a sign to photo and also take a photo of a different car near it to add as "evidence".

It's possible they didn't meet, or if they did she easily could be distracted from her phone or have not recognised the person as the CEO, plus that person probably well knew what he was doing and made sure to slap the ticket on the windscreen just when she was not looking.

I'm seriously thinking too that the CEO was sitting in the Mercedes... I thought that since the beginning. If is true, to take the liberty to act like that they must be on a high bonus scheme and know to be well covered from any possible trouble...

Who is the driver?

So they went to the other sign rather than the one the CEO went to?

That's fine but you need to be clear about the event.

It's no good worrying about the CEO - in large areas they often use motorbikes and cars to patrol and here this is presumably just a commuter restriction at start of morning.

The driver is my wife. She went down the road to look for a sign (55 steps going + 55 coming back, plus the time of examination, checking the actual time etc etc), and yes, the CEO went up the road to look for a sign to photo and also take a photo of a different car near it to add as "evidence". This is well shown by the photos he took.

Basically my car was parked near pole 43 (no timeplate), CEO operated near pole 44 and wife went down to pole 42. All this comedy because of a missing sign. The whole Winnington Road, over 1,1 miles long, have timeplates on every single pole to the left side, except the pole 43!

Hi, today, 27/11, I received the NTO by post. On the NTO, there's 21/11 as "Date of this notice". The letter mentions a period of 28 days beginning with the date on which the NTO was served. With this, have I already lost 6 of my 28 available days?
In the next 3 weeks, I have 2 business trips abroad already booked, which will take away more crucial days. Is there something I can do to have more time, my whole 28 days, to prepare the formal representations?

This is the NTO:
Page 1 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1vEdCaLCokqrJqS09D-tEMt65ffA_mD_0/view?usp=sharing
Page 2 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1MA9wZMxZs2OGc17usebzfmbaVQoooS14/view?usp=sharing
Page 3 https://drive.google.com/file/d/1PolG9JmYiiJrH2js9udVf2rfYW_zQ6a8/view?usp=sharing
Page 4 https://drive.google.com/file/d/19pwtSFHr5rj00fnU-pNGg0-ZxS_olzHu/view?usp=sharing

Previous timeline: 31/08 ticket issued on windscreen, 12/09 date of rejection of my informal representations, 22/10 2nd letter of rejection to my further correspondence.

All the other details are in the earlier posts.

I'm preparing the formal representations. Normally, I pay tickets when I get it and I have to, but here I still have many doubts.

The CEO took many photos of my car with no signs at all in sight. Then he went up to the road to look for a sign to photograph and, as obviously my car was not there, he took a photo of a totally different car near the signage and added it as "evidence". This is well shown by the photos he took.

The driver is my wife. In the same time, she went down the road to look for a sign (55 steps going + 55 coming back, plus the time of examination of the sign, checking the actual time etc etc), found it, checked the road markings, and yes, indeed when she was back she found the ticket slammed on the windscreen.

Basically my car was parked near pole 43 (no timeplate), CEO operated near pole 44 and wife went down to pole 42. All this comedy because of a missing sign where the car was parked. In first instance, in the presence of a time plate, my wife would have never parked there. The whole Winnington Road, over 1,1 miles long, have timeplates on every single pole to the left side, except the pole 43!

I never paid a ticket where another car was posted as evidence. Your support in reviewing the NTO and the whole situation would be highly appreciated.

Thank you!