Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi

Firstly, thank you for being such angels as to offer this service.

I received a ticket at 0717 on 28/2/25 in Riffel Road NW2 4PG for parking in a suspended bay/space. The nearest signpost to where I parked (at the end of the bay) displayed no advice regarding the suspension.

I parked on the evening of 27/2/25, checked the sign, saw nothing unusual, and walked to the shops.

I disputed the PCN by submitting the following explanation along with three pictures:

I live in Riffel Road. Occasionally resident parking bays are suspended and yellow signs advising the suspension details are attached to all the posts in and near the prohibited zone, usually with plenty of notice (1-2 weeks), to advise where we must not park. In this case the prohibited zone is outside houses numbers 8-12. As you can see from the pictures, there is no yellow sign attached to the parking signpost outside number 8 where I was parked. Since I always check the signpost nearest to where I park, I saw no reason that I shouldn’t park there last night. It was only when I came out to find a PCN on my Smart car KX04BOC this morning that I looked further down the street and saw the yellow sign attached to the parking signpost in between houses 12 and 14. Therefore this PCN should be cancelled because (a) the signage is evidently insufficient (it is unreasonable to expect residents to look further than the nearest sign) and (b) because only two days notice was given for this suspension. Please would you reply to confirm that the PCN has been cancelled.

As you can see in the pictures in the response letter, the signpost with the yellow suspension sign (also shown in my 2.jpg picture) is further down the road. Their pictures (unsurprisingly) do not show the angle in my picture with the signpost that has no suspension sign on it.

They write that:

The point that needs to be addressed here is whether the suspension signs were clearly visible and
did they supply sufficient information on them as not to mislead the motorist. Due consideration has
been given to the circumstances described, however, Brent Council is satisfied that the signs present
were clear and that they provided sufficient information to motorist's.

Obviously, in this case, it is untrue that: "... the signs present were clear and that they provided sufficient information to motorist's". Furthermore, since I looked at the nearest sign to my space, it is also untrue that: "... the suspension signs were clearly visible".

Presumably the sign nearest the parking space can be deemed to be displaying correct advice and motorists are not expected to then investigate further signage?

I can't really afford to pay the £65 just because it's the least hassle option but I don'ty know how to progress this.

Please would you advise.

Huge thanks!

Robin

@cp8759 [ Guests cannot view attachments ]

[ Guests cannot view attachments ]

You are entitled to reply on a parking sign by your car and they should have cancelled this.

I would wait for the notice to owner - are you the registered keeper and is the logbook address correct?

Thank you, @stamfordman.

Yes I am the registered keeper and the logbook address is correct.

I presume you meant that I am "entitled to RELY on a parking sign by your car"?

So, just to clarify, I am waiting for a Notice To Owner.

When this arrives will I have the opportunity to challenge it again?

Many thanks

Robin

Quote

When this arrives will I have the opportunity to challenge it again?

You will have the opportunity to submit a formal representation against the NtO. Hopefully, it will be considered by someone higher up the food chain who will see sense.

Signs only govern the side of the road on which they are placed.

Thank you, @John U.K.!

Sorry yes rely not reply. You have a great pic of your car by the sign.* There are lots of cases at the tribunal where authorities have messed up suspension signage like this that are found in favour of appellants.

*Can you preserve a timestamp of the pic as I presume it was taken on the day.

Thanks!

Yes the picture was taken on the day.

The time/date of the picture (‎28/‎02/‎2025, ‏‎15:46:55) is in the picture's "properties" on my PC but I don't have the picture in my phone any more.

Looks like they should be found guilty of crimes against English language.

Post the rejection in full, not a transcript.

But that sign by your car can only be for the bay you were in as it's adjacent to a yellow line.

You've posted two pages of personal stuff about something else instead of the second page of the rejection. First page is OK.

They are offering the discount but I would take them to the tribunal.

Wait for others to have a look.

Also, the sign they rely on was put up on 26 Feb for a suspension on 28 Feb but as you say they've put suspension signs on the post by your car before anyway.

I can't see you losing this and they may not contest.

Cases below show the principles for suspended bays, and a specific case like yours.

---------

Case reference 2240447643
Appellant
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM BW16 FSJ

PCN Details
PCN AF07202027
Contravention date 30 May 2024
Contravention time 16:08:00
Contravention location High Street
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention Parked wholly/partly in a suspended bay or space

Referral date -

Decision Date 09 Dec 2024
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons The Appellant has attended his appeal.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a suspended bay when in the High Street on 30 May 2024 at 16:08.
The Appellant denies the contravention on the basis that the suspension notice was not clearly on display.
In a case of a vehicle alleged to be parked in breach of a bay suspension the Authority is required to prove:
First, that the bay in question had in fact been lawfully suspended;
Secondly, the terms of the suspension (time, extent etc.);
Thirdly, that the terms of the suspension were correctly indicated on any suspension signage in place;
Fourthly, that the signage was clear and;
Finally, that the vehicle was in fact parked within the bay, or part of it, that was covered by the terms of the suspension.
I have considered the evidence and I am not satisfied that the Authority has proved the fourth point above. I find, on a balance of probabilities, and as a fact, that the suspension notice was clearly identifiable and could be too easily missed.
In light of my finding this PCN cannot be upheld.
The appeal is allowed.

---------

Case reference   2240513191
Appellant   
Authority   London Borough of Tower Hamlets
VRM   LW15HHN
   
PCN Details
PCN   TT57643816
Contravention date   26 Jul 2024
Contravention time   20:32:00
Contravention location   Empson Street
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Parked wholly/partly in a suspended bay or space
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   10 Feb 2025
Adjudicator   Michael Burke
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons   The allegation in this case is that the vehicle was parked wholly or partly in a suspended bay or space. Mr. x does not dispute this but he criticises the quality of the signage which he asserts was non-compliant with Traffic Signs Manual as it was approximately 100 meters away from the vehicle. he has provided photographs as supporting evidence.
It happens from time to time that the Enforcement Authority need to suspend the use of a parking space for one reason or another. This is a question to which the motorist must always be alert.
I have considered Google Streetview which appears to show that there are 2 time plates for this parking space. In such circumstances I would expect the Enforcement Authority to erect a suspension sign beneath each time plate. The evidence I have seen does not appear to show any suspension sign below the time plate which was closest to the vehicle. I am not satisfied the Enforcement Authority have established that their suspension signage was substantially compliant, clear and adequate. Accordingly I allow the appeal.

Thanks so much again!

5/6/25 to 29/7/25 is within 56 days so I don't think I can exploit that route.

So I have appealed to the tribunal with the attached picture as follows:

Ground(s) for appeal:
EA Procedural Impropriety

Reason for appeal:
The prohibited zone is outside houses numbers 8-12. Although the pictures supplied by Brent do not show the signpost I checked, which is outside number 8 nearest to where my car was parked, my picture clearly shows that this signpost has no yellow sign attached advising of any parking restriction. Since I always check the signpost nearest to where I park, and this signpost had no yellow sign attached advising of any parking restriction, I saw no reason that I shouldn’t park there on the evening of 27/2/25. Therefore this PCN should be cancelled because the signage is evidently insufficient. It is unreasonable to expect residents to look further than the nearest sign. In Brent's notice of rejection, dated 29/7/25, they state that "We have noted your comments that you followed to (sic) sign to the rear of your vehicle. However, this does not provide a defence or exemption as the signage is not within the confines of the bay in question." In my opinion this is wholly unreasonable (and bordering on frivolous/vexatious) because if that sign doesn't apply to the bay in question then (a) why is it there? (b) which bay does it apply to? (c) it is very misleading. It is fairly obvious that the council attached the sign to that lamppost because it is right next to the bay it applies to and the council decided it was unnecessary to add another post.

Let's see...