3. Haringey Council / Code 16 / Parked without permit
« previous next »
Pages: [1]

Author Topic: Haringey Council / Code 16 / Parked without permit  (Read 178 times)

0 Members and 99 Guests are viewing this topic.

Haringey Council / Code 16 / Parked without permit
« on: »
Hello all,

I'm at a decision point: pay £80 now (discount period ends 20 March) or proceed to formal representation and adjudication. I believe I have a reasonable case but want experienced eyes before committing. Full details and photographs below.

---

**PCN details**
- Authority: Haringey Council
- PCN number: ZN20147713
- Contravention date: 06 February 2026 (Friday), 10:46
- Location: Craven Park Road, STH TOT (ST) CPZ
- Vehicle: LA61DHX
- Contravention: Parked in a permit holders only bay without a valid permit
- Penalty: £160 full / £80 discount (expires 20 March 2026)

---

**Background**

The bay is signed "Permit holders only, Mon–Fri, 10am–Noon" (time plate at nos. 42 & 44 per the Council's letter). The CEO observed the vehicle for 8 minutes and 8 seconds (stated period: 10:37–10:46) before issuing the PCN. I did not hold a resident's permit for this zone.

---

**Informal challenge — grounds raised**

1. The CEO's photographs of the restriction sign were blurred and entirely illegible — insufficient to prove a compliant sign was visible at the material time (Reg. 18, LA Traffic Orders Procedure Regs 1996).
2. Internal inconsistency: stated observation period is 10:37–10:46, yet all photographs are timestamped 10:46–10:47 only.
3. Of approximately 20 CEO photographs, not one clearly shows the restriction sign.

---

**Council's rejection (25 February 2026)**

- Signage said to be compliant with TSRGD 2016.
- On the timing point, the Council responded: "The time-stamped on the photos taken does not invalid this PCN, because the vehicle was parked illegally" — which does not address the inconsistency raised.
- CEO observed vehicle for 8 mins 8 secs, no driver seen, no loading/unloading.

---

**The key issue — photographs**


Every one of the CEO's authenticated photographs carries a standard red timestamp overlay: "2026/02/06 10:46 / Craven Park Road, STH TOT (ST) CPZ". The sign photograph included in the rejection letter has no timestamp overlay, no date, and no location reference — and the only CEO photograph that attempts to show the sign is blurred and entirely illegible.

The Council has introduced an undated, unauthenticated sign photograph at the rejection stage that was not part of the original CEO evidence pack, without disclosing its source or provenance.

**Weather corroboration:**
Weather records for Tottenham on 6 February 2026 confirm overcast, grey and rainy conditions throughout the morning — consistent with all CEO photographs, which show dull, wet conditions. The sign photograph in the rejection letter depicts bright sunshine with sharp, clearly visible shadows: conditions that were not present on the date of the contravention. This suggests the photograph was taken on a different day entirely and confirms it is not original CEO evidence.

---

**My question**

I'm weighing two options:

**Option A — Pay £80 now.** Safe, certain, closes the matter.

**Option B — Proceed to formal representation and if rejected, appeal to London Tribunals.** If successful, the PCN is cancelled entirely.

Do you think the signage evidence point is strong enough to take to an adjudicator? And has anyone seen cases where a council has introduced Street View-type imagery at the rejection stage and how adjudicators have treated that?

Thank you.

Link for the photo and rejection letter.
https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1UGYB1npp_cLv3wZke0sbzf1vn6XJT5he?usp=sharing

Ling for google street view.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/HbubUUJwDmVhEqEa7
Logged

Share on Bluesky Share on Facebook

Re: Haringey Council / Code 16 / Parked without permit
« Reply #1 on: »
Pictures aren't needed to enforce parking contraventions but you can win appeals if you put doubt in the adjudicator's mind that the signage was sufficiently clear on the day.

What did you see or not see?  Why did you park there?
Logged
Re: Haringey Council / Code 16 / Parked without permit
« Reply #2 on: »
Can you please post a GSV view of the exact place you parked your car.

As SFSM says, they don't need to provide any photos at all. If it came to adjudication, it is who the adjudicator believes using the civil test of "on the balance of probabilities".
Logged
Re: Haringey Council / Code 16 / Parked without permit
« Reply #3 on: »
Thanks for the responses.

To answer the questions directly:

I parked there at around 8:30-9:00am, before the restriction came into force at 10:00am. I did not manage to move the vehicle or display a permit before the restriction period began, and I was not aware the restriction had started by the time the PCN was issued at 10:46.

That said, my challenge is not based solely on the circumstances of parking. It is based on whether the Council has discharged its burden of proof with the evidence it has actually produced, and whether that evidence meets a reasonable standard of care.

The CEO took approximately 20 photographs. Of those, the only image purporting to show the restriction sign is blurred and entirely illegible. Not a single photograph clearly documents the restriction that is the entire basis of the PCN. When a CEO chooses to take 20 photographs, it is reasonable to expect that at least one of them clearly captures the sign that justifies the contravention. That is not a high bar, and it was not met here.

The Council then introduced a separate, clear photograph of the sign in its rejection letter, but this photograph carries none of the standard red timestamp overlay that authenticates every single CEO photograph (date, time, location). Every CEO photo is stamped "2026/02/06 10:46, Craven Park Road, STH TOT (ST) CPZ". The sign photo has nothing.

Weather records for Tottenham on 6 February 2026 confirm overcast and rainy conditions all morning, consistent with the grey, wet conditions visible in all CEO photos. The sign photograph in the rejection letter depicts bright sunshine with sharp shadows, conditions that were not present on the date of the contravention. The Council has not disclosed the source or date of this photograph.

To summarise: this is not primarily a case about whether the sign exists. It is about whether a Council that chose to produce 20 photographs, failed to include a single legible image of the very sign it relies upon, and then silently introduced an unauthenticated replacement photograph of unknown date and origin, has produced evidence that meets the standard expected of an enforcing authority. I would argue it has not.

Does that combination create enough doubt for an adjudicator, given the civil standard?


Thank you.


The link for GSV (I was parked just about where the car in the picture is parked, jsut faced the other way).
https://maps.app.goo.gl/TSLXxiqMU4zfTE4g6
Logged
Pages: [1]
« previous next »
  3. Haringey Council / Code 16 / Parked without permit