Free Traffic Legal Advice

Here's a case won that was actually a match - but a women's fixture.

Your reps need to address Islington's insistence in its initial rejection that a match is sometimes not a match but something entirely different in you case.

---------------

Case reference   2250196765
Appellant   xxxxxx
Authority   London Borough of Islington
VRM   CA14CFU
   
PCN Details
PCN   IZ3342389A
Contravention date   08 Dec 2024
Contravention time   13:01:00
Contravention location   Plimsoll Road
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   18 Aug 2025
Adjudicator   Herjinder Mann
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons   1. This is a postal appeal against a penalty charge notice.
2. The Appellant states that he parked in a bay in Plimsoll Road on the 7th December to stay with family until the 10th December 2024, He explains that he got visitor vouchers for Zone H. He checked the Islington Council website for match day restrictions. This website provided a link for Arsenal’s website, which showed that they were playing away at Fulham.
3. The Enforcement Authority state the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in a resident permit holders parking bay without a valid permit on the 8th December 2024 at 13:01. They say that this date was an Arsenal Women’s match day. They have provided an image on Gillespie Road, which shows the match day information.
4. The Appellant has provided a number of visitor permits. They appear to be for the 7th December, 9th December and 10th December 2024.
5. The 8th December was a Sunday. The Islington council website shows that to find out about additional parking restrictions for Arsenal on home match days, that users should access the Arsenal website. The Appellant has provided a screenshot that this showed that Arsenal was playing away. The Enforcement Authority have not provided any evidence that this date was showing as a match day on their own or Arsenal’s website.
6. I find that the Appellant did carry out an adequate check to see if this was a match day. The Enforcement Authority have provided an image of a sign on Gillespie Road showing the match day but there is no evidence that the Appellant entered Plimsoll Road from Gillespie Road. I am not satisfied that the Enforcement Authority have provided adequate evidence of the signage relating to this restriction. On that basis, I allow this appeal.

You must respond to the NtO, or it's game over. Just post your original reps.

This was my original response;

To Whom It May Concern,

I am writing to formally challenge Penalty Charge Notice [IZ35607033], issued for parking on Highbury Station Road at approximately 16:00 on Saturday 7th June 2025.

According to signage on the road, additional parking restrictions apply on “Match Days Only.” At the time of parking, I was aware of these restrictions and checked online to confirm whether a football match or sporting fixture was scheduled at Emirates Stadium that day. Upon finding that there were no matches taking place, I reasonably concluded that the restrictions did not apply and that I was permitted to park.
However, I later learned the PCN was issued on the basis that a Robbie Williams concert was taking place at the stadium, and that this was being treated as a “match day.” This seems both misleading and unreasonable.

The Oxford English Dictionary defines a match as:

“(especially British English) a sports event where people or teams compete against each other.”

A Robbie Williams concert is clearly not a match under any conventional understanding of the term. I do not believe it is reasonable for a motorist to be expected to interpret “match” as including concerts or other non-sporting events. The use of the term “match” inherently limits the restriction to sporting fixtures, and a reasonable person would rely on that plain meaning when deciding whether they are in compliance.
To add further confusion, I later had to drive to Haringey that same day, where signage explicitly stated “Event Day Restrictions,” making clear that concerts and other events were covered. The contrast between boroughs in terms of clarity is striking. It is clear Haringey has adopted transparent language to prevent confusion, while Islington’s ambiguous use of “match” creates unnecessary uncertainty.

To support my position, I will be including two photographs demonstrating how Hackney Council amended its signs between April 2018 and March 2019, changing the term from “Match Days Only” to “Event Days Only.” This shows that other London boroughs have acknowledged the ambiguity of “match” and acted to make their signage clearer and fairer to motorists.

I would also like to note that I have always paid PCNs in the past where I have been at fault. I do not make a habit of appealing without cause. However, in this instance, I feel genuinely misled by the signage, and I fully intend to follow this process through to tribunal if necessary. I believe I have acted reasonably and in good faith, and I am confident that any adjudicator will agree that it is not acceptable to move the goalposts and retrospectively apply restrictions based on an interpretation of “match” that no ordinary person would hold.

Lastly, I have seen forum posts stating that signage at the entry to streets affected by match day restrictions should include advance notice of upcoming events. I can confirm that no such signage was present when I parked, and Google Street View confirms that this road does not carry an advance warning board at its entrance. I can only assume that if any such signage were present, the parking warden would have included it as part of their evidence bundle.

In summary, this PCN should be cancelled on the grounds that the restriction was not clearly communicated, and the definition of “match” cannot reasonably be stretched to include concerts without explicit clarification.

I'll draft reps for you. There's no rush - bump if I've not done it in a few days.

I'll draft reps for you. There's no rush - bump if I've not done it in a few days.

Hey - still up for doing this. I guess I'm still within the time frame to respond? Almost completely forgot about it!

Good Afternoon all - this will likely be my final update.

In short, the latest update in the post today is that they've maintained their stance that the PCN was issued correctly; adding that the signage is in compliance with the Department of Transport's Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.

They've given me the option to again either pay the fine or appeal to the Environment and Traffic Adjudicator.

Importantly, they've once again offered me the opportunity to pay at the discounted rate of £55.

To be honest, it's been quite stressful each time I get an update about this in the post. It's now gotten to the point where I'd happily pay the £55 simply not to think about this matter anymore.

Quite simply, even if my grounds for appeal are sound (which there is no guarentee of), my desire to see this through to the end has diminished singificantly.

Thanks to everyone who commented on this thread, particularly stamfordman. I really appreciate all your help. Sorry this one ended up being a bit of an anticlimax.

Post the full rejection letter. I think they are on sticky ground here but understand your caution. But unless we test these cases ar the tribunal it's hard to hold authorities to account. Here Islington obviously doesn't want to spend on changing signs. There's a good chance they wouldn't contest this in my view.

Are we still using Imgur to upload images or moved on to another platform because of OSA?

Post the full rejection letter. I think they are on sticky ground here but understand your caution. But unless we test these cases ar the tribunal it's hard to hold authorities to account. Here Islington obviously doesn't want to spend on changing signs. There's a good chance they wouldn't contest this in my view.

Here you are;

IMO, there's a defect in the NOR in that it does not inform you correctly of your rights of appeal. These are:
1. That an appeal may be made within the period of 28 days beginning on the date of service. In this case, 'may be made' takes on a legal meaning which is that reps so made and if in correct form MUST be registered by the tribunal AND such registration prevents the council from increasing the penalty and serving a Charge Certificate; and

2. That an appeal may be submitted to the adjudicator after the 28-day period has elapsed who may at their sole discretion register such an appeal with the effect that if the council have not served a CC they may not then do so and if they have then this must be cancelled.

2 is missing.

IMO, 2 is as important as 1 because there can be a whole host of valid reasons why an appeal is not submitted within 28 days e.g. NOR not delivered, recipient not able to deal with matter for reasons beyond their control such as illness, hospital confinement and possibly extended holidays abroad. Add to this the fact that as a matter of regular practice the Tribunal will accept appeals submitted after the end of the 28-day period. Whatever the reason which might apply, it does not lie with the authority to omit bringing this to the attention of the recipient as the law requires.
[/i]

These bits were provided, I just didn't include them as I assumed it's pretty similar to all the other ones they send out.