Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi forum. I am in need of some advice for some PCN's I have received and had my informal appeals rejected. So I am now facing £260 in fines (£80 each) for the same offence. I am still within the discount period for these so am looking to get a view as to whether or not it is worth appealing further and risking a doubling of the fine, or to just cut my losses and take it on the chin.

Story
I parked up on Offley Rd on the morning of Thursday, July 3rd 2025. I have a residents permit on this street and so parked up in a space. I then went away for the weekend and returned to my car on Monday evening, July 7th 2025 to find 3 PCN's on it (for Thursday, Friday, and Monday, restrictions are not in place over the weekend). Turns out I had parked in a Business bay rather than residential, as denoted by the KB on the sign instead of the KR. On Lambeth Councils online parking permit website, it shows my permit as being for CPZ Kennington (K) and elsewhere on the same page, Type: Residential. No where does it make clear that this is indicated on signs using KR or KB. - this is the page https://imgur.com/a/sdSlxwD

I have done the informal appeal route for these 3 PCN's and all have been rejected.

Appeals for Friday, and Monday PCNs
Tried getting it cancelled on the ground that it was a continuing offence. In addition, the Monday PCN lists the car make as a Volkswagen not a Volvo. Other information is correct. Here is the text for the Friday PCN. The text for the Monday is the same with the addition of the point on the car make.
"
I was away from the area during the period when the first PCN (LJ36422600, issued 03/07/2025) was issued and did not become aware of the contravention until my return. This absence meant I had no opportunity to move the vehicle after the first ticket was issued. The additional tickets were therefore effectively issued for the same ongoing situation, which I could not reasonably rectify as I was away from the area.
I hold a valid residents’ parking permit and parked in the area in good faith. While I accept that the location was designated for business permits, this was a genuine error. I did not intentionally flout the regulations. On returning and discovering the notices, I moved the vehicle immediately.
"

Response from Lambeth is attached. The text is the same for both the Friday and Monday PCN's. Mondays response doesn't mention the discrepancy in the car make. Response:

Appeal for Thursday PCN
This is based on it being unclear that the letters made it clear I was not entitled to park there. Text below:
"
The PCN was issued on the basis that I had parked in a business permit holder bay designated for permit codes KB or KSB. However, I believe this PCN should be cancelled on the grounds that the signage and the supporting council information failed to clearly distinguish between these permit categories, resulting in an honest and reasonable misunderstanding.

Lambeth Council’s permit portal confirms that my permit is for the Kennington (K) CPZ and of Resident type. Nowhere on the website is it clearly stated that K, KB, KR, or KSB are distinct and incompatible for parking purposes. If such subdivisions exist, they should be explicitly stated and easily accessible to residents, especially considering that these subcodes do not appear on my permit or on the website (print out attached). 

The signage and website together failed to provide sufficient notice or clarity that a K permit would not be valid in a KB/KSB bay. It is unreasonable to expect residents to infer these distinctions from two-letter codes alone, particularly when the CPZ name and permit type match the location and time of parking.

I therefore respectfully request that you exercise discretion and cancel the PCN, given that:
I held a valid permit for the CPZ in question;
I parked with genuine belief that I was entitled to do so;
The Council’s signage and digital information failed to provide clear guidance that would prevent this misunderstanding.
In the last 12 months, I have not had a parking charge cancelled in goodwill.
"

Response:

Details
Thursday PCN
LJ36422600
Discount expires: 28/08/2025

Friday PCN
LJ36446085
Discount expires: 22/08/2025
PCN:

Monday PCN
LJ36390923
Discount expires: 23/08/2025
PCN:

Street view: https://maps.app.goo.gl/2fVi7GnEo7Na8d4aA

We've seen cases of this useless signage by Lambeth before. In my view it's essential that a permit bay that varies from resident use states what use it is, ie business in this case. Most councils manage this with no problem but not Lambeth.

Then there's pursuing a resident for three PCNs...

I only have this very recent case to hand. Plus one from Camden that is similar regarding signage.

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

Case reference 2250183763
Appellant xxxxx
Authority London Borough of Lambeth
VRM MT66EHW

PCN Details
PCN LJ33410660
Contravention date 19 Dec 2024
Contravention time 10:25:00
Contravention location Porden Road
Penalty amount GBP 80.00
Contravention Parked res/sh use - invalid permit/after paid time

Referral date -

Decision Date 12 Aug 2025
Adjudicator Sean Stanton-Dunne
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons Ms xxxxx appeals because she has a valid resident's parking permit for CPZ B and she says that she believed that she was entitled to park in the bay in Porden Road.
The Council says that the bay was for business permit holders only and that Ms xxxxx's resident's permit was therefore not valid for parking.
I am allowing this appeal because I am not satisfied that the signage was clear to alert Ms xxxx to any business permit holder restriction. The CEO's images of the signage are not clear and nor are the site images from the Council. It is impossible to make out clearly the permit codes on the signage. I can see the words Permit Holders Only but there is no reference to business permits. I think that one of the codes may be BR which a motorist might easily read as Zone B or Brixton Resident.

---------

Case reference 2240447530
Appellant xxxxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Camden
VRM EX58OHB

PCN Details
PCN CU66656865
Contravention date 13 Apr 2024
Contravention time 13:18:00
Contravention location Bayham Street
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked in permit space without a valid permit

Referral date -

Decision Date 07 Nov 2024
Adjudicator George Dodd
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons The Appellant attended the hearing of the appeal in person. The Authority were represented by Mr Hussain.

It is the Authority’s case that the Appellant parked in a market trader bay without a valid permit on 13 April 2024 on Bayham Street. They rely in evidence on the CEO’s notes and their photographs of the vehicle and the time plate. The time plate states: “Permit holders only. MKT”. Mr Hussain argued that the said abbreviation was sufficient to put the Appellant on notice that the bay was for market traders only during prescribed hours.

It is the Appellant’s case that he was using a Blue Badge at the time and therefore, he was entitled to park in resident permit bays. He interpreted the said sign and the abbreviation as indicating that the bay was for resident permit holders, rather than it being a market traders bay. He took the view that the abbreviation simply represented the resident permit zone.

During the hearing I accessed, via a link provided by the Authority, the page on their website for disabled people, which states that Blue Badge holders may not park “in dedicated user bays such as business, diplomat, doctor, car club, electric, hospital, market trader, loading, taxi, motorcycle and bus stops”. There is no reference to the said abbreviation on this page. Mr Hussain said that there was an abbreviation guide elsewhere on their website, but that evidence was not before me. Mr Hussain argued that if the Appellant have been unsure whether he could park in the bay, he should have accessed the website to ascertain the meaning of the abbreviation. The Appellant pointed out that there was nothing on the time plate to indicate the relevant Authority for the purposes of accessing the website. Mr Hussain said that the Appellant could have ascertained the identity of the Authority from other signage.

In the circumstances of this case, I consider that the said abbreviation was not sufficient to put the Appellant on notice that the bay was for market traders only. It was, in my view, reasonable for him to interpret it as being a resident permit holder bay. As he was satisfied that it was a resident permit holder bay there was no reason for him to search the Authority’s website for the meaning of the abbreviation. In any event, signage should be clear and unambiguous such that accessing the Authority’s website should be unnecessary.

As the Appellant was not on notice of the restriction, a contravention cannot be established, and I allow the appeal.

When you parked did you clock it was KB and did you think it was different from KR.

R is fairly similar to B. They have a duty to sign permit bays clearly. How would one know B is business and not a subzone of K? 

I'd go on with this.

They say:

"There is a sign where you parked that explains that the bay you parked in is for people with a business permit."

I see no such explanation on the sign. Do you?

And what is SB? Silly xxxxxxx?

In case you're still on this.

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


Case reference   2250302534
Appellant   xxxxxxxx
Authority   London Borough of Lambeth
VRM   OW21XXL
PCN Details
PCN   LJ33814320
Contravention date   13 Mar 2025
Contravention time   09:44:00
Contravention location   Prima Road
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Parked in permit space without a valid permit
Referral date   -
Decision Date   23 Sep 2025
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 permit space without a valid permit.

2. This appeal was listed for a personal video hearing at which the Appellant was scheduled to attend. I waited for ten minutes after the commencement time, but the Appellant had not attended or otherwise contacted the Tribunal. I therefore proceeded to determine the case based upon the papers, as had been advised would occur in the notice of hearing sent to the Appellant to advise of the hearing date.

The Appellant’s case

3. The Appellant’s case is that they obtained a resident parking permit. The confirmation email and map provided indicated that there was an entitlement to park in the entire length of Prima Road under the resident parking zone. There was no indication that part of the road was restricted to business permits indicated by ‘KB or KR’. Therefore, there was no way the Appellant could have known that the relevant space was not available for a resident with a permit. A copy of the map has been provided with the representations to the EA.

4. The Appellant raises issues of the level of charge. The full amount should have been £130 for 28 days. However, within this period the amount online was showing as £195.

5. In these circumstances the Appellant asks for the PCN to be cancelled.

Enforcement Authority’s Case

6. The Enforcement Authority (EA) rely on photographic evidence to show the contravention occurred. A plan and photograph of the signage has 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.

7. The EA has considered the Appellant's representations and does not wish to exercise their discretion.

8. The EA state, ‘Having viewed the photographic evidence, the appellant’s vehicle can be seen parked on Prima Road in the permit holder bay designated for Business Permit KB/KSB, during its operational hours. The sign where the appellant parked explains that the bay is for people with a business permit, there were no activity recorded by the CEO to suggest any loading/unloading was taking place. The vehicle was observed for 5 minutes before the PCN was issued. As there was no observation of loading/unloading recorded by the CEO and no supporting evidence from the appellant, we have found no grounds to cancel the PCN.’

9. The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued.

Findings and Conclusion

10. I have considered the evidence of both parties carefully.

11. The Appellant has provided no evidence of the discrepancy between the sum of £130 due and £195 demanded online, during the 28-day period in which only the full sum was payable. Therefore, I can make no finding in relation to this and take no further account of this point.

12. The photographs provided by the EA of show the Appellant’s parked vehicle, with the sign in the bay, and a closeup of the sign. The sign has a large blue P, and ‘Permit holders only – KB KSB – Mon-Fri 8.30-6.30pm.’ The EA sets out that this signage ‘explains that the bay is for people with a business permit’. However, I find this is only the case if the ‘KB/KSB’ code is understood to mean ‘business permit’. Without this information then ‘Permit holder’, in my view, could reasonably be understood by the Appellant to mean ‘resident permit holder’, given that they hold a resident’s permit and are parked in the street where they reside.

13. Therefore, I turn to the KB/KSB code and consider this aspect. The Appellant states the map provided with the permit was unclear and indicated that the resident permit covered the entire road. It is produced in the EA’s evidence as page 3/3 of the ‘on-line challenges and representations service’ in the NOR section. On a balance of probabilities, I accept the map is that sent to the Appellant with the resident. It shows an area in Lambeth identified as ‘Kennington – Zone K’, which is marked out in blue. I find the Appellant interpreting this as the area covered by their resident parking zone to be reasonable. I note Prima Road is included in full. There is no reference on the map to business only bays, or the code KB/KSB.

14. The EA provide under ‘Additional Information’ the EA has provided a screenshot/diagram of ‘Prima Road’ with a turquoise colour key code ‘Business Bay’ and an arrow to a strip of turquoise on Prima Road, with publication details indicating where it is said to be extracted from. There is no reference to KB/KSB, or any explanation as to the context, or how it relates to the Appellant’s points. On a balance of probabilities, I therefore cannot be satisfied that the Appellant was provided with this information.

15. Taking all of the evidence into account, I accept the Appellant was provided with information by the EA that indicated the permit they had covered the relevant location. I further find the sign in place was not adequate to explain that it was a business bay, in the circumstances of this case.

16. For these reasons I find that no contravention occurred and the PCN has not been validly issued.

Decision

17. The appeal is allowed.

Hi everyone,

Just an update. Lambeth council have rejected the final appeal stating "There is a sign where you parked that explains that the bay you parked in is for people with a business permit" ... "You were parked in a bay for people with business permit. Residents permits are not valid here." etc.

So I will be appealing to London Tribunals.

Appreciate the form says that the have all the details of the case from the authority, is there anything more can be added? I do feel that Lambeth council have not engaged with the substance of the appeal during this process and have issued generic "the sign is clear" responses so could meet the criteria for acting "frivolously, vexatiously or wholly unreasonably". Is it worth perusing that to get some form of expenses for time spent on this? Appreciate any advice from anyone about that point.

Thanks!