@tincombe may be able to shed light on the regs for off-street parking. The adjudicator seems to have arrived at the conclusion that there was no relevant signage for the contravention but not that the PPA sign is an on-street sign (or at least is used on-street).
------------
Case reference 2250680032
Appellant xxxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Southwark
VRM GJ07XKO
PCN Details
PCN JK17234954
Contravention date 27 Sep 2025
Contravention time 12:19:00
Contravention location ST SAVIOUR ESTATE
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked causing an obstruction
Referral date -
Decision Date 16 Jun 2026
Adjudicator Chez Cotton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
Introduction
1. The Appellant challenges a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued for being parked causing an obstruction (Code 92).
2. This appeal was scheduled as an online hearing at which the Appellant and the Enforcement Authority (EA) were due to attend in person. The Appellant attended on time, as scheduled. However, the EA did not attend at 12.15, as scheduled. The Adjudicator and Appellant waited for ten minutes. However, in the absence of the EA representative, and without any contact being made with the Tribunal, the hearing commenced with the Adjudicator and Appellant in attendance.
The Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant’s case is set out as, ‘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 carpark. 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.
4. The Appellant confirmed in the hearing that he has a resident parking permit and showed this in evidence.
5. The Appellant confirmed he was not causing an obstruction. He parked with care next to the van in the photograph. The van had more than enough room to exit. There was enough room for every garage owner to leave and enter the garage and their spaces. The Appellant confirmed he is a resident on the estate and would never park in a way that caused an obstruction for other vehicles.
6. In these circumstances the Appellant asks for the PCN to be cancelled.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
7. The Enforcement Authority (EA) rely on photographic evidence to show the contravention occurred. A plan and photographs of the signage has been provided. The EA says this shows the restriction is signed and clear, and, further, enforceable under a valid Traffic Management Order (TMO), a copy of which is provided.
8. The EA has considered the Appellant's representations. The EA state, ‘...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.’
9. The EA add, ‘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.’
10. The EA further state, ‘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.’
11. The EA state there has been no procedural impropriety, and they have observed all relevant requirements imposed.
12. The EA does not wish to exercise their discretion.
13. The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued.
Findings and Conclusion
14. I have considered all materials presented by both parties. Although each piece of evidence is not specifically referred to, it has contributed to, and informed, the decision I have made.
15. I found the Appellant to be credible and measured in this evidence.
16. Based on the photographic evidence footage provided, and additional evidential materials from the EA, I am satisfied the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in the relevant location, at the relevant time. This is not in dispute.
17. I am further satisfied that if a contravention has occurred, it is enforceable by way of a valid Traffic Management Order, which I have seen.
18. The Appellant referred to an off-street carpark requiring particular signage and terms and conditions of parking, although was unable to direct me to any regulation or legislation on which he relied. In fact, off street carpark signs do not have to comply with any specific rule or regulation, or to convey ‘terms and conditions.’ It is necessary only for the signage to convey the correct information and not mislead, so the question is whether the signage at the relevant location is substantially compliant, clear and adequate.
19. In this respect I have consider the signage in place at the relevant location. In the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) photographs I am able to see a partial sign to the right (looking at the screen) of the entrance to the garage ‘Permit holders parking only past this point.’ A photograph of the full sign is provided by the EA at Evidence J, and what is omitted in the CEO photograph is ‘P E-SS’.
20. The Appellant accepted in the hearing, that the full sign in the additional EA evidence is the signage at the relevant location. The Appellant confirmed he has an E.SS permit, which I accepted to be true.
21. Although the EA state the contravention is evident in the photographs, on balance, I do not accept this to be the case. On balance, I accept there is sufficient room for the van next to the Appellant’s vehicle to move, and for vehicles to enter and exit from the garages. I accepted the Appellant’s evidence as credible in this respect, and his knowledge of the garages and the space required to manoeuvre.
22. Further, the EA has set out that a motorist on the estate must park in marked bays only. The EA has provided a number of photographs of places on the estate with marked bays. However, the CEO photographs shows a carpark without marked bays. There is no reference on the signage to parking in marked bays only. The signage states ‘permit holder parking only’ beyond this point. The Appellant is a permit holder, and so, based on the signage, entitle to park beyond that point, as he did. The Adjudicator is unsure if the EA is intending that it is only those permit holders who have garages that the sign is intended for. However, this is not what the sign says.
23. The EA go on to state that there is signage the Appellant would have had to pass, and that the car park within the confines of an estate. However, I am unable to satisfy myself of the relevance of this to the CEO photograph and the location at which the Appellant was parked. There has been no evidence presented as to any other sign the Appellant would have parked, or how any other signage would undermine the clarity of the signage at the point of entry to the space in which the Appellant parked.
24. Therefore, I find, on balance, that the Appellant was entitled as a permit holder to pass the relevant point, and park. I further find, based on the CEO photographic evidence, and the credibility of the Appellant’s evidence in the hearing, that no obstruction was caused, or would be caused by parking as the Appellant did.
25. Because of my decision, it is not necessary for me to consider whether there has been any procedural impropriety.
26. For the reasons outlined I find a contravention did not occur and the PCN has not been validly issued.
Decision
27. The appeal is allowed.
