Free Traffic Legal Advice

Thank you both again from the bottom of my heart for being so incredibly helpful!

Yes I have the evidence pack which is 84 pages long. Please let me know how you'd like to see it.

Am I in a position to request some sort of financial compensation for all the time I've wasted on this when we win?

Another case, from yesterday.

---------


Case reference   2250387311
Appellant   Callum Osborne
Authority   London Borough of Camden
VRM   WN06EDJ
PCN Details
PCN   CU70932503
Contravention date   02 Jun 2025
Contravention time   08:05:00
Contravention location   King Henrys Road
Penalty amount   GBP 160.00
Contravention   Parked wholly/partly in a suspended bay or space
Referral date   -
Decision Date   17 Nov 2025
Adjudicator   Herjinder Mann
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons   
1. This is a personal appeal a penalty charge on the basis there was no contravention.

2. The Appellant states that his car was parked in the resident permit bay outside 131 King Henry’s Road. The pole that governed that bay, he says had no yellow advance warning sign. The yellow sign was outside number 135, around 33m away from the other pole.

3. The Appellant says that he took a photograph on the 2nd June 2025, that shows there was no yellow sign on the pole nearest his vehicle. He submits that this bay has 2 sign posts and only one had the suspension sign.

4. The Enforcement Authority submit that there was a parking suspension on the 2nd June 2025 and the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a suspended bay.

5. The Enforcement Authority say that the suspension signs were within reasonable distance of where the Appellant was parked. They have not provided evidence of the actual distance. I have considered the images provided to me in this appeal. The PCN enforcement images do not show the proximity of the suspension signage to where the Appellant was parked. I accept the Appellant’s evidence that there was a signpost very close to the rear of the Appellant’s vehicle that does not have a visible yellow suspension sign.

6. I find that the Enforcement have not provided evidence to show that the suspension signs were clear and visible from where the Appellant was parked. I am not satisfied that there was a contravention, so I allow this appeal.

27th November 2025
Case Reference: 2250397756
ROBIN CATTO
-v-
London Borough of Brent (the Enforcement Authority)



ROBIN CATTO appealed against liability for the payment of the Penalty Charge in respect of:
Vehicle Registration Number KX04BOC
Penalty Charge Notice BT24620378
Full PCN Amount £ 130.00
Contravention Date 28th February 2025
Contravention Time 07:17
Contravention Location Riffel Road
Contravention Parked in a suspended bay/space or part of bay/space


Adjudicator's Decision

The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has allowed the appeal.

The adjudicator directs London Borough of Brent to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.


Adjudicator's Reasons

An online hearing with Mr Catto took place today.

The issue in this case is the adequacy of the signing of the suspension.

The civil enforcement officer's photographs show the appellant's car parked at the end of a bay with the back of the car adjacent to a yellow line. The photographs show a suspension sign on a post a short distance in front of the appellant's car. The sign states that on Friday 28th February 2025 the parking bays outside 8-12 Riffel Road were suspended for the purposes of a domestic removal.

The appellant states that when he parked his car on the evening of 27th February he looked at the nearest sign to where the car was parked. The appellant has provided a photograph of a sign for the permit bay which is on a post to the right of the bay adjacent to the single yellow line. I am satisfied that this sign relates to the bay in which the appellant's car was parked as it clearly does not relate to the single yellow line. I do not accept the council's argument that the sign that states permit holders only does not relate to a parking bay. Further this was the post nearest to the appellant's car. Although there was a suspension sign on one of the posts for the bay in which Mr Catto parked his car there was no sign on the post nearest to the appellant's car. I find that the suspension was inadequately signed.

I allow this appeal.

At the appeal for the first time the appellant also argued that the Notice of Rejection had been issued
out of time. I make no finding on that point as I allow the appeal on the substantive issue.

Teresa Brennan
Adjudicator
26th November 2025
2250397756
BT24620378

Agreed.

They must be playing a numbers game given that some people will simply pay the 50% off discounted £65 because they lose the will to keep fighting.

I mentioned costs to the adjudicator and she suggested that Brent's decision to enforce might not be considered WHOLLY unreasonable given that there was a post with a yellow sign on it 20 yards down the road.

Do you think it's still worth having a go?