Author Topic: PCN - Mildmay Road, Ilford - Redbridge - Parking without any road markings  (Read 975 times)

0 Members and 255 Guests are viewing this topic.

Hi all,

Looking for some advice regarding a recent PCN received on Mildmay road, Ilford (29/03/26).
Reason: Parked in a permit space or zone without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid permit.

The vehicle was parked on the main street, not within a marked bay or on single/double yellow lines. There were no road markings at all where the vehicle was parked. There were no entry signs to the road denoting that a permit is required to park there, nor any signs in the local vicinity to the car that a permit is required.

Having done a bit of research thanks to this invaluable forum, I came across a post with an almost exact situation:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/parking-restriction-on-unmarked-road/

I am therefore under the impression that due to the lack of entry signage establishing Mildmay Road as a permit parking area, as well as no permit-only signs within the vicinity of the vehicle, the contravention simply did not occur.

Attached -

Image of the PCN:


Google street view:
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps.
Find local businesses, view maps and get driving directions in Google Maps. · maps.app.goo.gl

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook


Can't see the PCN.

The thread you linked shows that the location is within a PPA and also that defences are fact specific i.e. what was your entry route to Mildmay and did you pass a PPA sign, albeit not at the entrance to Mildmay.

I'll check the zone details. The CEO has taken a pic of a repeater sign - is near wgere you parked can you tell?





Can't see the PCN.

The thread you linked shows that the location is within a PPA and also that defences are fact specific i.e. what was your entry route to Mildmay and did you pass a PPA sign, albeit not at the entrance to Mildmay.

Thank you - I don't believe I did, the route from memory was something like Kingston Road > Woodlands Road > Albert Road > Mildmay Road. I don't recall seeing any PPA signs, and I will double check the dashcam footage shortly to double check. Google Maps street view confirms there are no PPA signs on the above route, but appreciate that may be out of date.
« Last Edit: March 30, 2026, 04:38:28 pm by hmzx »

I'll check the zone details. The CEO has taken a pic of a repeater sign - is near wgere you parked can you tell?

That particular repeater sign was quite far behind the vehicle, towards the end of the no-through road. The start of the street has paid-for bays, clearly outlined with road markings. I've attached a screenshot from Google Maps with some wonderful MS Paint highlights to show the location of the vehicle and the repeater sign pictured by the CEO:


GSV is out of date.

You need contemporaneous photos.

We've seen this before:

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/parking-restriction-on-unmarked-road/

It's a small permit parking zone that appears to have no entry sign and if so cannot be enforced by a repeater that repeats nothing.

Can you go back and check for an entry sign?

Redbridge and adjudicators get in a big muddle about PPAs, confusing them with CPZs (see case below).

At least Redbridge's order doc gets a PPA right:






---------

Case reference   2250466688
Appellant   Ade Gbadebo
Authority   London Borough of Redbridge
VRM   P6OYE
   
PCN Details
PCN   AF09013943
Contravention date   20 Apr 2025
Contravention time   11:10:00
Contravention location   MILDMAY ROAD
Penalty amount   GBP 160.00
Contravention   Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   09 Mar 2026
Adjudicator   Anju Kaler
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons   This appeal was listed for a hearing on Microsoft Teams at 3:30 pm. The Appellant did not join the hearing. I am satisfied he was notified of the date, time and procedure. The Enforcement Authority relied on the evidence submitted in advance.
The agreed facts are that the vehicle was at the stated location and a Penalty Charge Notice was issued for parking in a permit bay without a permit. The Appellant accepts he parked here but he says there were no bay markings to designate the permit bays. The Authority says:
“Under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD), a controlled parking zone (CPZ) or permit-holder bay must be properly signed, including upright “Pay & Display” or “Permit Holders Only” signs, which might be supported by bay markings on the carriageway for individual bays, or using entry signs when the entire road is controlled)” .
The Authority also submits that since the restriction applies to the entire road, no bay markings are required.
If the area is within a controlled zone, which has signs at the entry points into the zone, then no bay markings are required. The Authority has not submitted anything to show that such a zone exists here.
In cases where there are no such signs, the Authority must make it clear where the restriction applies, and this is done by marking out bays. One sign in the road setting out restrictions is not sufficient to say that the entire road is included.
I allow the appeal.

GSV is out of date.

You need contemporaneous photos.

I did take photos on the date of the alleged contravention, they match what is shown on GSV as per my post.

We've seen this before:

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/parking-restriction-on-unmarked-road/

It's a small permit parking zone that appears to have no entry sign and if so cannot be enforced by a repeater that repeats nothing.

Can you go back and check for an entry sign?

Redbridge and adjudicators get in a big muddle about PPAs, confusing them with CPZs (see case below).

At least Redbridge's order doc gets a PPA right:

---------

Case reference 2250466688
Appellant Ade Gbadebo
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM P6OYE
 
PCN Details
PCN AF09013943
Contravention date 20 Apr 2025
Contravention time 11:10:00
Contravention location MILDMAY ROAD
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
 
Referral date -
 
Decision Date 09 Mar 2026
Adjudicator Anju Kaler
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons This appeal was listed for a hearing on Microsoft Teams at 3:30 pm. The Appellant did not join the hearing. I am satisfied he was notified of the date, time and procedure. The Enforcement Authority relied on the evidence submitted in advance.
The agreed facts are that the vehicle was at the stated location and a Penalty Charge Notice was issued for parking in a permit bay without a permit. The Appellant accepts he parked here but he says there were no bay markings to designate the permit bays. The Authority says:
“Under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD), a controlled parking zone (CPZ) or permit-holder bay must be properly signed, including upright “Pay & Display” or “Permit Holders Only” signs, which might be supported by bay markings on the carriageway for individual bays, or using entry signs when the entire road is controlled)” .
The Authority also submits that since the restriction applies to the entire road, no bay markings are required.
If the area is within a controlled zone, which has signs at the entry points into the zone, then no bay markings are required. The Authority has not submitted anything to show that such a zone exists here.
In cases where there are no such signs, the Authority must make it clear where the restriction applies, and this is done by marking out bays. One sign in the road setting out restrictions is not sufficient to say that the entire road is included.
I allow the appeal.

Thank you, yes that was the thread that I came across when I was doing my initial research, before my own post.

Interesting find on the Redbridge order document, that specifies signage is required at the entrance to the PPA - may I ask where this document and map is located? Also could you let me know where you are able to find similar appeals?

I also came across appeal ref 2250151042 from this forum (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/wanstead-redbridge-pcn-issued-for-car-parked-on-a-section-of-the-road-with-no-ob/), again Redbridge for the same issue which was allowed (parking on unmarked section of the road where the entry sign was not visible/present), but it would be good to try and find more.

You are correct, it is a PPA but there is no entry sign, which is of course required:



I also found this relevant section within the Gov's Traffic Signs Manual:



I am guessing the angle of appeal is therefore:
- Definition of a PPA: Requires an entrance sign to the PPA, which is not present at Mildmay Road.
- Traffic Signs Manual 13.10.2: Not all roads will be suitable for this type of signing. A cul‑de‑sac or a small network of roads with little or no through traffic would be the most appropriate. Otherwise the lack of road markings might tempt drivers unfamiliar with the area to park
- Appeal 2250151042 allowed: "The CEO’s photographs show the vehicle parked and unattended on an unmarked section of carriageway on Wellington Road. The CEO has also provided a photograph of the signage relied upon. However, the proximity of the signage to the vehicle cannot be determined from the CEO's photographic evidence and the sign is not readily obvious in any of the photographs of the vehicle itself."

If Redbridge refer to the zone as a CPZ as per your appeal example, would that also provide another reason of refute? As a CPZ without entry markings requires bay markings in its place: "If the area is within a controlled zone, which has signs at the entry points into the zone, then no bay markings are required. The Authority has not submitted anything to show that such a zone exists here."

Many thanks


I didn't see you'd found the other case here but it looks the same but the poster disappeared - you could try messaging them.

In the live case you note there are PPA entry signs.

The traffic order map and links to orders here:

Traffweb Web mapping Site for viewing transport and highways information.
Traffweb · redbridge.traffweb.app


Google Maps is mostly too old to see what signage is or isn't place for the various PPAs there.

 


Case yesterday. Not the same road but looks similar.

---------


Case reference 2250574385
Appellant Christina Williams
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM LS12LRZ
PCN Details
PCN AF10667448
Contravention date 14 Jul 2025
Contravention time 14:14:00
Contravention location Mansfield Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 02 Apr 2026
Adjudicator Martin Hoare
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons
Ms Williams attended this Teams appeal hearing. The Authority did not attend.

Ms Williams submitted there was no signage indicating the permit requirement.

The Authority wrote ‘The vehicle was parked within a designated residents’ parking zone on Mansfield Road. This zone is clearly signed in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD). Entry signs at the start of the zone indicate that parking is restricted to permit holders during controlled hours. Within the zone, time plates are affixed to lamp posts adjacent to marked bays, and the restriction applies to the entire zone, not solely to individual bays.’


Ms Williams explained that the matter was confusing on Mansfield Road where she parked as there were permit parking signs and bay in some places, though not where she parked.

The civil enforcement officer’s photographs establish that the car was parked at an unsigned side of the carriageway.

The Authority plan does not plot the parameters of the zone, the location of the entry point signs nor the location of the car.

The Authority includes a photograph of a permit parking sign within the zone. The positioning of the sign can lead to the reasonable conclusion that locations in the zone which do not have such signs are not permit only parking locations.

The Authority evidence on this occasion does not establish that the signage was adequate overall.

The appeal is allowed.
« Last Edit: April 03, 2026, 07:47:38 pm by stamfordman »

Case yesterday. Not the same road but looks similar.

---------


Case reference 2250574385
Appellant Christina Williams
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM LS12LRZ
PCN Details
PCN AF10667448
Contravention date 14 Jul 2025
Contravention time 14:14:00
Contravention location Mansfield Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 02 Apr 2026
Adjudicator Martin Hoare
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons
Ms Williams attended this Teams appeal hearing. The Authority did not attend.

Ms Williams submitted there was no signage indicating the permit requirement.

The Authority wrote ‘The vehicle was parked within a designated residents’ parking zone on Mansfield Road. This zone is clearly signed in accordance with the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions (TSRGD). Entry signs at the start of the zone indicate that parking is restricted to permit holders during controlled hours. Within the zone, time plates are affixed to lamp posts adjacent to marked bays, and the restriction applies to the entire zone, not solely to individual bays.’


Ms Williams explained that the matter was confusing on Mansfield Road where she parked as there were permit parking signs and bay in some places, though not where she parked.

The civil enforcement officer’s photographs establish that the car was parked at an unsigned side of the carriageway.

The Authority plan does not plot the parameters of the zone, the location of the entry point signs nor the location of the car.

The Authority includes a photograph of a permit parking sign within the zone. The positioning of the sign can lead to the reasonable conclusion that locations in the zone which do not have such signs are not permit only parking locations.

The Authority evidence on this occasion does not establish that the signage was adequate overall.

The appeal is allowed.

Thank you - are you able to let me know where you can find these cases and outcomes? I can do some further reading on similar appeals.

I've also taken a stab at the initial appeal to the council. Please let me know if this is appropriate or if anything further is required:

I was puzzled to receive the PCN as it appeared the driver had parked in an unrestricted street. Where the vehicle was parked, there were no permit parking signs, no road markings indicating a permit parking zone, nor were there any permit zone entry signs at the start of the street. Therefore, the contravention simply did not occur.

Upon finding the ticket, I took photos of the vehicle as parked and walked along the street re-checking for signs to indicate that there was any sort of restriction in place. As I had noticed, there were some sections of the road marked with parking restriction signs, but these were a distance away from the section of road the vehicle was parked on. There were also paid parking bays, clearly marked out on the road, but not where the vehicle was parked, which was completely unmarked, of signage and road markings.

At this point I went home and was confident that there had been a mistake because even after looking around, there was nothing to suggest restrictions in place where I had parked. The pictures provided by the enforcement officer also do not show any permit parking signs within the vicinity of the vehicle. There is one singular close-up picture of a permit parking sign with no reference as to where that sign actually is, or even if it from the same street. There are also no pictures from the enforcement officer evidencing any entry signage to Mildmay road.

Having done some further research, it appears that parts of the street are permit parking only zones. I have identified that the permit parking area in question does not conform to the Department for Transport's Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3, which provides guidance on the appropriate use of permit parking areas designated by entry signs alone (without bay markings). Paragraph 13.10.2 of the guidance states that this type of signing is suitable for "a cul-de-sac or a small network of roads with little or no through traffic" and warns that "otherwise the lack of road markings might tempt drivers unfamiliar with the area to park.". Mildmay road is a cul-de-sac which fits the exact example displayed in the Traffic Order Manual, and given the lack of entry signs at Mildmay Road, the zone does not follow governmental guidance.

Additionally, within Redbridge council's order documentation, a "Permit Parking Area" is defined as "a named area listed in Schedule 3 ... for the leaving of vehicles in which a Valid Permit is required to be displayed ... and which is signed as such at the entrance to the Permit Parking Area ...". Redbridge's own definition of a permit parking area requires the area to have entrance signs, and given that Mildmay Road does not, it cannot be considered a Permit Parking Area.

Alongside this, there have been several cases to adjudicator where this exact situation has occurred, and appeals have been allowed for the lack of signage:
- Appeal 2240350574: Allowed due to the lack of road markings.
- Appeal 2250466688: Allowed due to lack of entry signage to the area.
- Appeal 2250574385: Allowed due to lack of repeater signage in vicinity of where the car was parked.

The adjudicator has agreed multiple times in the past that it is extremely difficult for drivers to identify that there is a restriction at all when there is no entry signage, let alone when there is additionally a lack of repeater signage, as well as a lack of road markings. The area is inconsistent with official guidance, which anticipates its use only where drivers can reasonably be expected to understand the extent of the restricted area.

As explained, there are clearly several issues with this charge and I request that this is promptly cancelled to avoid causing any further unfair and unwarranted disruption for something that was simply the result of the lack of signage.

I attach the following photographic and pictorial evidence:
1. Photograph showing vehicle parked outside the single yellow line area, double yellow line area, bay parking area
2. Photograph showing lack of repeater signage in the vicinity of where the vehicle was parked
3. Photograph of the lack of entry signage at Mildmay road
4. Department for Transport Traffic Signs Manual Chapter 3 extract (Section 13.10 – Permit Parking Areas)


It's rather long and detailed for an initial challenge. I would simplify it - the key point is the absence of PPA entry signs, which must be there, but I am unsure if the signs are elsewhere and the zone is larger.

Are you going back there soon?

Unfortunately not going back any time soon, we're not local to London, let alone the area. I've trimmed the appeal very slightly as per your recommendation and have submitted it, will keep you all updated on the outcome.

Many thanks for your help!