Free Traffic Legal Advice

You've appealed to London Tribunals?

All you had to do was register the appeal - there was no need to send anything at this stage.

One vital thing though is to put for a telephone or Microsoft Teams hearing.

It appears I've been given a date for May 2026 over video call.

Appears or have been given?

We have a long wait to receive their evidence to the Tribunal i.e. 7 days prior to 'a date in May'.

Case reference 2250451308
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM LM15MZL

PCN Details
PCN IZ35588904
Contravention date 06 Jun 2025
Contravention time 18:41:00
Contravention location Roman Way
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit

Referral date -

Decision Date 08 Jan 2026
Adjudicator Chez Cotton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Introduction
1. The Appellant challenges a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued for being parked in a resident/shared use bay without a valid permit (Code 12).
2. This a postal appeal.
The Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant’s case is that the signage in place is inadequate. The Appellant noted the general restrictions operating Monday to Friday and parked accordingly. The Appellant discounted the additional restrictions on a ‘Match Day’ as it was 6 June, and so outside of the football season.
4. In these circumstances the Appellant asks for the PCN to be cancelled.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
5. The Enforcement Authority (EA) rely on photographic evidence to show the contravention occurred. A plan of a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) area with the addition of ‘next match Fri 6, Sat 7 Jun’ added at the bottom has also 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.
6. The EA has considered the Appellant's representations. The EA state, ‘While the appellant states that the contravention occurred outside of football season, all drivers should be aware that much day restrictions can be implemented when there is a large crowd of people expected to attend the stadium. The controls that are put in place, are for events and not just matches. In this case clear signage had been placed to indicate to drivers that much day controls were in place.’
7. The EA does not wish to exercise their discretion.
8. The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued.
Findings and Conclusion
9. I have considered the evidence of both parties carefully.
10. Based on the photographic evidence footage provided, and additional evidential materials from the EA, I am satisfied the Appellant’s vehicle was in the relevant location, at the relevant time. 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.
11. The question I must decide relates to whether the signage in place was substantially compliant, clear and adequate. In this respect I note the signage at the relevant location refers to ‘Match day only – additional controls’. On balance, I consider a reasonably conscientious motorist would understand this to mean a football match, given the proximity to Arsenal Emirates. While I consider it might be argued that ‘event day’, incorporates a match, I am not persuaded that the reverse is true. On balance, I reject the EA’s argument that ‘match day’ reasonably incorporates ‘events and matches.’
12. I move to the EA’s point that it is the CPZ signage that is the primary source of information for a motorist, and that this is updated to show the next event day. In relation to the photograph of the signage provided, I note that underneath the CPZ circular icon, there are four additional information plates, each containing different restriction times and days. On balance, I find the addition of a small sign setting out the next match date, underneath three already dense information plates, to be inadequate to warn a reasonably conscientious motorist.
13. Further, the EA has provided no information as to the location of the CPZ in relation to where the Appellant’s vehicle is parked, or any evidence that the Appellant might have seen a CPZ sign in any event.
14. For the reasons outlined, on balance, I do not find the relevant signage to be substantially compliant, clear and adequate.
15. For these reasons I find a contravention did not occur and the PCN has not been validly issued.
Decision
16. The appeal is allowed.

You can write to them at any stage but I wouldn't bother.

Nearer the date you can bolster your appeal with cases.

-----------

Case reference 2250480306
Appellant xxxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM BU65UVD
PCN Details
PCN IZ35689901
Contravention date 07 Jun 2025
Contravention time 16:11:00
Contravention location Berriman Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 29 Jan 2026
Adjudicator Andrew Harman
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.

Reasons
The appellant attended the hearing of this appeal today on the Microsoft Teams video conferencing platform. The council did not attend the hearing, it not being expected to do so.

This vehicle on the council's case was parked in a resident's/shared use bay, to which an extended match day restriction applied, without valid cover.

It was undisputed that a concert, not a match, was taking place that day.

It seemed to me, on the basis of the written submissions made by the appellant on the point on appeal, that zone entry signage warning motorists that an extended match day restriction was in force, when the relevant day was not in fact a match day, failed to give a clear indication of that extended restriction.

The council's signage may well have been compliant, (disputed by the appellant), but it was not I found, for the reason given, sufficient to communicate this extended restriction to the appellant, and I was not accordingly satisfied that this contravention had been proved.

---------


Case reference 2250482414
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Islington
VRM EX11WAU
PCN Details
PCN IZ35676251
Contravention date 07 Jun 2025
Contravention time 13:43:00
Contravention location Roman Way
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 29 Jan 2026
Adjudicator George Dodd
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.

Reasons
The Appellant was due to attend the hearing of the appeal via Teams, but she did not do so. The Authority were not due to attend or to be represented. The Tribunal notified the Appellant of the hearing in a letter dated 3 September 2025. Accordingly, I am satisfied that she was on notice of the hearing. I decided, in the interests of justice and to avoid further delay, to decide the appeal on a postal basis.


It is the Authority’s case that the Appellant’s vehicle parked in a resident permit holder only bay during prescribed hours without a valid permit on Roman Way on 17 June 2025 at 13:43. They rely in evidence on the CEO’s notes and their photographs of the vehicle and time plate. They have also produced a map showing the relevant Controlled Parking Zone and a photograph dated 3 June 2025 of an entrance sign to Roman Way.


The entrance sign states, “Match days only Additional controls Mon – Frid 6.30 -8.30 p.m. Saturday 1.30-4.30 p.m.”. At the bottom of the sign it states: “Next match Fri 6, Sat 7 Jun”. The time plate where the Appellant’s vehicle was parked provided the same information save that it omitted: “Next match Fri 6, Sat 7 Jun”.


The Authority have conceded that there was no match on the relevant date at the Emirates Stadium, but instead, a Robbie Williams concert. They say in their Case Summary: “The EA can advise that the match day restrictions apply to any large event held at the Emirates Stadium. This includes (but is not limited to) men’s and women’s matches, concerts, friendly matches and pre-season fixtures.”.


They maintain that, although the CPZ signs refer to “Match”, that is sufficient to describe non-match events and to put motorists on notice of such events. They say that the signs are updated a few days before each football match or event, but they do not confirm the date on which the signs were updated in this instance.


It is the Appellant’s case that, being aware, there were additional restrictions on match days, prior to parking, she checked online to ascertain whether there was an Arsenal home match on the relevant date and as there was not, she parked her vehicle. She maintains that the signage is misleading in that it refers to matches and does not refer to any other type of event.


A dictionary definition of a match is “a contest in which people or teams compete against each other in a particular sport”. A dictionary definition of a concert is “a musical performance given in public, typically by several performers or of several compositions”. They are two completely different types of events and therefore, to say that a match includes concerts is both incorrect and misleading. The signage should have referred to “Match/Event” or simply “Event”, which would have covered everything. I take the view that the signage in this case was unclear, ambiguous and misleading and therefore insufficient to put a motorist on notice of the restriction. Furthermore, as the Appellant had satisfied herself that there was no match on the relevant date, she would not have been prompted by the repeater sign to check a CPZ entrance sign. In all the above circumstances, I am not satisfied a contravention can be established and I allow the appeal.