My Informal Challenge (November ‘25 pre-advice):
I believe this PCN has been issued in error. As you will see from your own images, there are no road markings or bays where I was parked, and no yellow lines restricting parking on that side of the road. No signs are in place on that side of the road either, and is in sharp contrast to the other side of the road the road where clear bays are marked. I and many others have parked down this side of the road for many years - myself for over 6 years whilst working in the city - and have never had parking restrictions enforced.
If parking restrictions are to be enforced on both sides of the road there needs to be clear signage and road markings indicating this.
Their Response (November ‘25):
I refer to your informal challenge (stage 1) made in connection with the issue
of the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) No. LV18607642.
The City Council has considered all information available at this stage,
however, your challenge has been rejected. You now have two options: -
1. Pay the PCN within 14 days of the date of this letter at the discounted
rate. After 14 days the PCN can still be paid but it will be at the full
original amount. See Section 1 below.
2. Do not pay and a Notice to Owner (NtO) will be served to the
registered owner/keeper of the vehicle after a minimum of 28 days
which will allow a formal representation (stage 2) to be submitted. See
Section 2 below.
Reason(s) for rejection:
A PCN was issued to the above vehicle because it was 30-Parked for longer
than permitted in LOVE LANE - L3 on the 27/10/2025. The vehicle was
observed between 11:44 and 16:15 and the Notice was issued at 16:15.
We acknowledge your representations in respect of this PCN.
Our CEO (Civil Enforcement Officer) carried out all relevant checks on your
vehicle and found no evidence of a valid permit etc on display. The issuing
officer further inspected the vehicle and there was nothing else displayed that
entitled your vehicle to be parked at the stated time/ location.
At the time of contravention the bays in situ allow parking for up to 4 hours
with no return within one hour. According to the Officers notes, your vehicle
was first observed parked at the location at 11:44, and on returning later on in
the afternoon after which over 4 hours had elapsed, found your vehicle still
parked in the same location Since the vehicle was still parked past the
allowed period parking time, the vehicle has incurred the above PCN.
I note your comments regarding signage at the location.
In some areas where it has been deemed appropriate to put a permit parking
scheme in place, there may not be enough space on the highway to mark out
resident bays. These areas will be classed as ‘Permitted Parking Areas’
(PPA) and instead of bay markings the entrance(s) to the PPA will have a
time plate on both sides of the street stating ‘Permit Holders Only Past This
Point’, there will also be a boundary markings at each entrance.
Residents/ permit holders may park anywhere past this boundary and within
the PPA (provided they do not obstruct pavement or other properties)
provided that a valid permit is clearly displayed. There will be repeater signs
within the PPA reminding motorists they are within a permit area, and any
visitors must also display a valid ‘visitor permit’ (which can be sought from the
resident they are visiting). As with all time plates, if there are no days/hours on
the plates, the PPA applies “at any time”.
I would respectfully remind you that it is the responsibility of the driver to
observe and adhere to all relevant restrictions prior to leaving the vehicle
parked.
Based on the evidence available to me at this time and the details of your
incoming representations I would advise that the circumstances of this case
do not warrant exercise of discretion favourably, consequently the penalty
charge remains payable.My Formal Challenge (July ‘26):
To whom it may concern,
I find it necessary to challenge PCN LV18607642 and outline 3 arguments as to why I believe this warrants cancellation:
1. None of the photographs provided with said PCN include a traffic sign alluding to the contravention. Said photos therefore prove only that the vehicle was stationary in the road.
2. It is my understanding that there exists no such thing as a “Permitted Parking Area” (PPA), as referred to in your response to my informal challenge of 12 November 2025.
3. The signage on several of the roads leading into the “PPA” are inadequate in size and visibility and could not knowingly be sighted en route to parking in said area. I have taken images and video of the entrances and note that some are obscured on entrance, several are small and side-on to the driver, placed poorly to ensure visibility on entry, and the signs at the foot of several roads are at the front on the far side of a one-way entrance, making them easily missed on turning into the area in question. Ironically, these signs would otherwise be not just the biggest, but the most visible of the lot. It is also worth highlighting that many of the signs are poorly illuminated.
I would be happy to provide my video examining the roads and their signage on request (filmed on 21 November 2025).
I trust that you will find my points valid and cancel the demand for payment at your earliest opportunity.
Their Formal Rejection (August ‘26):
https://imgpile.com/p/dITkZdeI hope this all makes sense. Do let me know if you need to see anything else.
Many thanks.