Free Traffic Legal Advice

If I could get a bit of guidance on how to put together the argument.

I am assuming I will start with the facts from when I parked my vehicle, to receiving the PCN, to informally challenging it, receiving the rejection, then formally challenging it, and receiving the rejection, so on so forth.

Please let me know if this is a standard format to follow?

You must get a timely evidence pack from Southwark:

The Chief Adjudicator has directed that authorities must serve their evidence no later
than five days before the first scheduled date of hearing of the appeal.

https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Practice%20Direction%2002-2025%20on%20behalf%20of%20ETA%2019%20August%202025%20-%20Service%20of%20evidence%20by%20Enforcement%20Authorities.pdf

Also, is there any of way of knowing/seeing any evidence the council has or has not submitted?

Stamfordman has replied, but why are you concerned? IMO, the signage does NOT create the conditions whereby this PCN may be issued, and the signage is not at issue. They cannot whistle-up pictures of signs which are not there or backtrack on their ludicrous statement about 'parking rules'.

Your formal reps are already in evidence.

I'm not concerned that they will bring substantial evidence, just curious with regard to the process.

So you don't think I need to submit any additional evidence?

I would word it in more simple language.

-----------

I draw attention to two grounds.

1. Contravention did not occur

The alleged contravention is off-street but there are no terms conditions posted there that establish the area as an off-street car park.

The only sign is an entry sign for an on-street permit parking area, and Southwark in its notice of rejection says parking rules that apply to the road apply to the off-road area and that it was a contravention of the Highway Code.

This cannot possibly be the case for the alleged off-street contravention, which has not been established by any signage and terms.

2. Procedural impropriety.

Southwark's notice of rejection does not have these mandatory items in the Appeals regulation:

It does not describe the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made

It does not include that an appeal can be made within such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.

Hi.

Southwark has sent me their evidence pack.

Must you see all correspondence from it?

Appellant’s Grounds of Appeal

The Appellant has appealed on the grounds that “There has been a procedural
impropriety on behalf of the authority and that the contravention did not occur.”

The appellant further states that the alleged contravention did not occur because the
only sign is an entry sign for an on-street permit parking area, as well as there are no
terms conditions posted to establish the area as an off-street car park. Further
referring to the Notice of Rejection (NoR).

The appellant further states that the NoR does not have mandatory items in the
Appeals regulation as does it not describe the form and the manner in which an
appeal to an adjudicator must be made or does not include that an appeal can be
made within such longer period as the adjudicator may allow and hence, is of the
opinion that there has been a procedural impropriety .

Alleged Contravention

On 27 September 2025 at 12:19, A PCN was issued and affixed to the vehicle as the
Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) observed the vehicle parked in ST SAVIOUR
ESTATE parked causing an obstruction, in the context, upon an entrance into the
estate itself as well as in front of garages, which is not permissible. The photographic
evidence is self-explanatory to prove the contravention.

Where there is a car park area within the estate car park, drivers are required to park
within the designated area. Vehicles are only allowed to park in a marked parking
space in the car park.

Our Reasons for Rejecting the Appellant’s Appeal
Southwark Council rejected the appellant’s appeal because parking in such a manner
is not permitted in an estate and it is imperative that drivers park within marked
designated parking bays. Furthermore, the appellant being resident of the relevant
estate should be aware that parking must be within the white demarcated bays.

In response to the claim made by the appellant in regards to a procedural impropriety,
Southwark Council can confirm that a procedural impropriety is a failure by the
enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed upon it by the Traffic
Management Act 2004, the Civil Enforcement of Parking contraventions (England)
Representations and Appeals Regulations 2007 and the Civil Enforcement of Parking
Contravention (England) General Regulations 2007 in relation to the imposition or
recovery of a penalty charge or other sum. Southwark Council therefore, contend that
there has been no procedural impropriety.

In response to the appellant’s comments that the only sign is an entry sign for an on-
street permit parking area, we can confirm that this is not the case, the vehicle entered
and was parked within the confines of an estate and the photographic evidence clearly
demonstrate that said location whereby the vehicle would have past the signage. For
your ready reference, we have added additional evidence (type J) to substantiate the
signage relates to an estate and bears no relevance to an entry sign for on-street
parking.

Please be advised that the appellant was given the opportunity to pay the reduced
amount of £80.00 via our informal rejection notice as well as the formal rejection notice
(evidence type C). However, the appellant chose to appeal the decision in our Notice
of Rejection, therefore, the full cost of the PCN is enforced.

The enclosed photographic evidence substantiates the PCN affixed to the vehicle at
the time of the contravention (evidence type C).
Therefore, we conclude that as the vehicle was observed as it was, in contravention,
it cannot be said the PCN was issued anything other than lawfully.

It is thus our submission that in respect of this PCN issued for this contravention on
this specific date, the photographic evidence supplied is of itself good and legally
sufficient primary evidence of the contravention.

Conclusion

Southwark Council, therefore, continues to contend that a contravention occurred and
the PCN was validly issued in accordance with the Traffic Management Act 2004.

The penalty charge outstanding is £160.00

A copy of the Adjudicator’s pack has been sent to the Appellant via email this date 3 June 2026

This looks like a load of nonsense.

What is the signage/evidence they include in section J.

Tincombe will hopefully address the procedural issues.

What is the signage/evidence they include in section J.

It's literally just a picture of the garage area where my vehicle was parked showing the on-street permit holders only sign, along with pictures for "evidence" of the marked bays.

Tincombe will hopefully address the procedural issues.

I'm not sure what there is to address TBH because Southwark have just outlined what a "procedural impropriety" is, whether they were correct or not, IDK, but then proceed to say "therefore, Southwark contends that there has been no procedural impropriety" as if somehow stating what a procedural impropriety is an argument that one was not committed.