@H C Anderson
@stamfordman @cp8759 @Incandescent@404BrainNotFoundUrgent advice needed
Please could I have some urgent advice.
Sorry for the late post. Had difficulty uploading the council rejection letters so that it is clear and legible
The new ( 2nd rejection letter to my informal challenges) states that I have until
20 January 2026 to pay the
reduced amount of £80.
Seeking advice on prospects at tribunal vs paying discount (£80) – PCN CR49091397
Sorry for the late posting, I’d appreciate some guidance on whether it’s worth continuing to tribunal or paying the discounted amount today. The discount (£80) is significant and expires end of today (20/01/26)or else I will have to pay £160 if I lose or pay if I wait for the NTO and appeal and lose.
Timeline:
• 1st informal challenge → rejected ( Link to challenge and rejection letter)
•
https://ibb.co/wrMPf7DN•
https://ibb.co/jZjxRM5j• Updated informal challenge → rejected( Link to challenge and rejection letter)
•
https://ibb.co/TxTtwj8M•
https://ibb.co/KcYKWf6M• Discount re-offered until today 20th January 2026.
In the council’s rejection letter dated 5 January 2026, they now state that I was parked outside Nos. 31–33 Church Street and rely on a photograph to support this. However, they argue that the precise location (door number / lamp post / exact position) is irrelevant as long as the street name is correct.
My concern is that this would only be correct if the entire stretch were a single bay. In this case, there are two distinct loading bays, separated by double yellow lines, serving:
• Nos. 27–33, and
• Nos. 35–41
The bays are not contiguous and are subject to separate restrictions. The PCN originally alleged parking outside No. 35, which relates to a different bay.
Questions:
1. Is the authority correct in saying that the precise location (door number / bay location) is irrelevant in these circumstances, where there are two separate bays on the same street?
2. The council admits that the CEO photograph of the restriction signage / timeplate is blurred, but dismisses this by saying photographic evidence is not a statutory requirement.
o Is that correct in practice?
o As an ordinary motorist, if the signage image is blurred and the PCN wording does not specify the class of vehicle the bay is restricted to, how is one supposed to understand the alleged contravention from the face of the PCN?
3. Are there any other procedural or evidential issues anyone can spot from the rejection letter or facts?
Ultimately, I need help deciding:
• Whether to pay the £80 today, or
• Continue to the Notice to Owner and tribunal
What are my realistic chances of success at tribunal based on this?
Also, if I wait for the NTO, is the discount typically re-offered, or should I assume it will be gone?
Any expert insight would be much appreciated.
