London Borough of Harrow - PCN Code 01 - Faded/Broken single yellow line - Cunningham Park

Hi all,

I would appreciate some advice regarding a PCN issued by the London Borough of Harrow.

PCN: IY01965421I
Contravention code 01 - Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
Location: Cunningham Park (os lampp no 1)
Date: 20/05/2026

The main issue is the condition of the single yellow line. It is extremely faded to the point that behind the vehicle, there is effectively no visible yellow line at all, and the small remaining section in front of the vehicle is also faded/broken and was partially obscured by another parked car.

I was with my young child (redacted from photos) and dropping her off at a local cinema. After parking, we exited toward the adjacent street rather than walking in the direction of the upright sign. Because the yellow line was so badly faded and not clearly visible, it did not alert me to the presence of a timed parking restriction requiring reference to a nearby sign.

I have uploaded:

* CEO photos
* my own photos taken afterwards
* Google Street View screenshots/history
* front/back of the PCN
* a note left by a local resident stating the line “needs repainting”

CEO photos:
https://imgpile.com/p/CPFnW0c

My photos:
https://imgpile.com/p/FCOEVFY

GSV screenshots:
https://imgpile.com/p/H7WKDcP

Latest GSV (2 angles):

Apr 2025:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/xM2VKrseWZa9EZJf9

Sept 2024:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/nBaxAYgYghy7scEw5

There is a nearby yellow time plate stating Mon-Sat 8am-6:30pm with an arrow pointing toward the location.

I have not yet received a notice to keeper, just the ticket attached to the windscreen.

Also, a resident left a handwritten note on the vehicle:

“Dear Owner, I’m a resident on this road. Please appeal + take a photo of the yellow line. It needs repainting! Good Luck!” - I have redacted the resident’s personal details, but this makes me think that this happens often at this location.

The GSV history also appears to show the line has been in poor condition for a considerable period of time.

Before I submit an informal challenge, I would appreciate views on whether the line condition is sufficiently poor to argue the restriction was not adequately conveyed / not substantially compliant.

Many thanks.

I agree the line is probably not compliant and the termination of the double yellows emphasises that where you were looked unrestricted.

I take it the timeplate that was there at the start of the line has gone? 

The lines are very badly worn, almost non-existent, yet the double-yellows are as clear as a bell, so ordinarily, you would have a very strong case that the alleged contravention did not occur. However, if the sign, only feet away from your car is still present, your case is very much weaker, sorry to have to say it. The April 2025 GSV view shows it is present.

I can't see the council giving way on this, so you'd have to take them to London Tribunals with the full PCN penalty in play.

The OP's pictures show the timeplate at that end is not there now.

Council's pics show a timeplates some way down the road.

So good grounds for winning this.

Very good grounds, I'd say.

Thanks both. Yes, the timeplate is certainly missing since the GSV. It also explains why I didn't notice the yellow line as I didn't walk directly on the road but towards the nearest junction.

Does this sound like a good appeal to the Council?

Dear Sir or Madam,

Re: PCN IY01965421
Vehicle Registration: LN13PCZ

I challenge this Penalty Charge Notice on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.

The restriction at the location was not adequately conveyed because the single yellow line was in an extremely poor state of repair and had deteriorated to the point where it was barely visible. In the area where my vehicle was parked, there is effectively no visible yellow line behind the vehicle and only a small remaining section in front. The condition of the road marking is evident from both the Civil Enforcement Officer's photographs and the photographs I took immediately after the PCN was issued.

The purpose of traffic signs and road markings is to adequately convey restrictions to motorists. In this case, the carriageway marking had deteriorated to such an extent that it failed to clearly indicate the presence of a single yellow line restriction.

Having reviewed historical Google Street View imagery, it appears that an upright timeplate previously existed much closer to the location where my vehicle was parked. However, my photographs show that this sign was no longer present on the date of the alleged contravention. The remaining timeplate relied upon by the council is located further along the road.

In circumstances where the single yellow line itself had almost entirely worn away, the absence of the nearest timeplate materially reduced the clarity of the restriction. The combination of a severely faded road marking and the removal of the nearby sign meant that the restriction was not adequately conveyed to motorists.

I have also obtained historical imagery showing that the yellow line had been in a poor and deteriorating condition for a considerable period before the date of the alleged contravention. This suggests that the condition of the marking was not a recent occurrence but had existed for some time.

In addition, an independent resident left a handwritten note on my vehicle stating:

"Dear Owner, I'm a resident on this road. Please appeal + take a photo of the yellow line. It needs repainting! Good Luck!"

While I appreciate that this note is not determinative, it is nevertheless notable that a local resident independently considered the road marking to be in need of repainting and sufficiently defective to warrant an appeal.

For the reasons set out above, I submit that the restriction was not adequately conveyed and therefore the alleged contravention did not occur. I respectfully request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.

Should the council not agree to cancel the PCN, please provide copies of any records relating to the inspection, maintenance, repair or replacement of the single yellow line and associated signage at this location during the 24 months preceding the date of the alleged contravention.

I look forward to your confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

Yes, ram it up them ! However, don't expect a favourable reply, because London councils game the system ruthlessly to maximise income.
Just so you know, the sum involved, (incl TfL), for parking and traffic contraventions, is now well over £600 million per annum. A nice little earner.

I would reword upfront as you make it sound you knew about the yellow line and don't concede anything and I've shortened it.

---------

I challenge this Penalty Charge Notice on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur.

I was puzzled to get this PCN as I parked on what looks like unrestricted kerbside.

On reviewing possible grounds for the PCN it seems there is supposed to be a yellow line there but it was not apparent and has clearly deteriorated to the point where it was not compliant with conveying a restriction.

Having reviewed historical Google Street View imagery, it appears that a timeplate previously existed at the start of the line where my vehicle was parked. However, my photographs show that this sign was no longer present on the date of the alleged contravention. The timeplate relied on by the council is located further along the road and I walked in the opposite direction.

As the single yellow line itself is worn away, the absence of this timeplate compounds the lack of compliance.

I have also obtained historical imagery showing that the yellow line had been in a poor and deteriorating condition for a considerable period before the date of the alleged contravention.

In addition, an independent resident left a handwritten note on my vehicle stating:

"Dear Owner, I'm a resident on this road. Please appeal + take a photo of the yellow line. It needs repainting! Good Luck!"

It is notable that a local resident considered the road marking to be defective!

I submit that the restriction was not conveyed and the alleged contravention did not occur. I respectfully request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.

I look forward to your confirmation that the PCN has been cancelled.

Yours faithfully,

Finally got a reply from the council; I feel like they have completely ignored valid points in my appeal.
Do you think I still have a solid chance if I wait for N2K and take this to tribunal?
Anything I should do before to prepare for that?

Here is their reply:

Thank you for writing to us.

We have carefully considered what you say, but we have decided not to cancel your Penalty
Charge Notice (PCN).

You were issued a PCN for parking on a single yellow line at a time when you were not
allowed to park there. Single yellow lines mean no parking, except to load or unload.
However, the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) observed your vehicle and saw no loading or
unloading taking place.

The rule applies during the times shown on the sign. The signs governing single yellow lines
are not always nearby. Inside a Controlled Zone, the information may be on Controlled Zone
signs instead. Controlled Zone signs are like border-crossing signs: you will have passed
one as you entered the zone.

The restriction in place applies regardless of personal circumstances, and motorists are
responsible for ensuring that their vehicle is parked in accordance with the prevailing traffic
regulations and road markings. While you have stated that the road markings are faded, our
records and the Civil Enforcement Officer’s evidence confirm that the restriction was
sufficiently visible and enforceable at the time the PCN was issued.

You have these choices:

• You can pay the discount charge of £80.00 if your payment reaches us within 14 days of
  the date of this letter.
• You can pay £160.00 within 28 days of the date your PCN was issued.
• You can formally challenge your PCN by using a Notice to Owner form. The vehicle's
  owner will automatically receive the form if the PCN has not been paid within 28 days of
  being issued. The form offers you the chance to formally challenge your PCN or pay the
  full £160.00. If you decide to formally challenge your PCN, please do not write to us
  again but wait until the Notice to Owner form arrives.

Just a template rejection.

I would go on with this and wait for the notice to owner.

Who is the registered keeper and is the logbook address correct.

Just a template rejection.

I would go on with this and wait for the notice to owner.

Who is the registered keeper and is the logbook address correct.

Yes it appears so. I am the registered keeper and I finally received the notice to owner earlier this week. I will use the same appeal letter and evidence from the informal appeal I already sent and wait for the notice of rejection.

Quote from: stamfordman on July 21, 2026, 04:23:27 pm

Just a template rejection.

I would go on with this and wait for the notice to owner.

Who is the registered keeper and is the logbook address correct.

Yes it appears so. I am the registered keeper and I finally received the notice to owner earlier this week. I will use the same appeal letter and evidence from the informal appeal I already sent and wait for the notice of rejection.

template rejection = Fob-Off

IMO, you would do yourself no favours simply resubmitting your initial reps.

'However, the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) observed your vehicle and saw no loading or unloading taking place.

The rule applies during the times shown on the sign. The signs governing single yellow lines are not always nearby. Inside a Controlled Zone, the information may be on Controlled Zone signs instead. Controlled Zone signs are like border-crossing signs: you will have passed one as you entered the zone.'

Not just tosh, it's incomprehensible as regards the reason why they rejected your reps.

Are they saying that the line was clear and therefore the 'information' was on the 'Controlled zone..border-crossing signs [which] you will have passed as you entered the zone', or

That the restriction was conveyed on 'signs governing single yellow lines[which are not always nearby]'.

IMO, the issue here, apart from the nonsense reply, is that if you were in a CPZ(which their reply implies) then if the yellow line(which you did not see) carried a restriction different from the border-crossing then they were OBLIGED to place such a sign at the point where the varied restriction commenced.

In years past it appears they had, but not now.

IMO, the issue here, apart from the nonsense reply, is that if you were in a CPZ(which their reply implies) then if the yellow line(which you did not see) carried a restriction different from the border-crossing then they were OBLIGED to place such a sign at the point where the varied restriction commenced.

In years past it appears they had, but not now.

Thank you for this nugget I have included it in my appeal.

Here is the final appeal, please review before I send it off:

Dear Harrow Council,

I am writing to make formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) on the statutory ground that the alleged contravention did not occur. This representation is made in response to the Notice to Owner and in light of your letter dated [insert date of rejection letter], which I find to be contradictory and legally flawed.

1. The Council's Rejection Letter is Internally Contradictory

Your letter of rejection states:

"The rule applies during the times shown on the sign. The signs governing single yellow lines are not always nearby. Inside a Controlled Zone, the information may be on Controlled Zone signs instead. Controlled Zone signs are like border-crossing signs: you will have passed one as you entered the zone."

This passage is fundamentally incoherent. It simultaneously claims that the restriction is conveyed by:
a) "signs governing single yellow lines" (which are "not always nearby"), and
b) "Controlled Zone signs" (which serve as "border-crossing signs").

These are two mutually exclusive methods of conveying a restriction. The council cannot rely on both. The legal framework is clear: either the single yellow line operates during the standard Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) hours and is conveyed by zone entry signs, or it operates during different hours and must be accompanied by its own timeplate.

2. Legal Framework: The Requirement for a Timeplate

The law is well-established. Under the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD) and confirmed by government guidance:

a) A single yellow line must be accompanied by a timeplate indicating the hours during which the restriction applies.

b) An exception exists only where the single yellow line operates during the same hours as the CPZ in which it is located. In that case, a timeplate is not required, and the restriction is conveyed by the CPZ entry signs.

c) Critically, if a particular section of yellow line has different hours of restriction from the CPZ hours, then a sign will be placed to show the alternative times of restriction.

This principle was expressly endorsed in the parking adjudication case of Ross v Enfield (Case No. 1950094429). The adjudicator held that where the time restriction denoted by the yellow line "clearly varies from the Controlled Zone time," a nearby timeplate is required.

3. Application to This Case

Your letter implies that the location is within a CPZ and that I should have relied on CPZ entry signs. However:

a) The nearby timeplate was missing. My evidence shows that a timeplate previously existed close to where I parked (confirmed by historical Google Street View imagery) but was absent on the date of the alleged contravention. If the single yellow line at this location operated during different hours from the CPZ (which the historical presence of a timeplate strongly suggests), then a timeplate was legally required. Its absence means the restriction was not properly conveyed.

b) The CPZ entry sign was not a viable alternative. Your letter states, "you will have passed one as you entered the zone." However, I did not pass a valid CPZ entry sign on my route to this location. Furthermore, even if a CPZ entry sign existed elsewhere, it cannot substitute for a required timeplate where the restriction varies from the zone's standard hours.

c) The road markings were defective. As detailed in my initial representations, the single yellow line was so severely deteriorated that it no longer conveyed any restriction. There was no visible line beneath or behind my vehicle. Small fragments ahead were obscured by a parked van. In wet conditions, these fragments were even less apparent. An independent local resident left a handwritten note on my vehicle stating: "Dear Owner, I'm a resident on this road. Please appeal + take a photo of the yellow line. It needs repainting! Good Luck!" This is compelling third-party evidence that the marking was defective.

Your letter claims "our records and the Civil Enforcement Officer's evidence confirm that the restriction was sufficiently visible". I put the council to strict proof of this assertion. A CEO's subjective opinion cannot override the photographic and eyewitness evidence demonstrating the line was worn away.

4. The CEO's Observation on Loading

Your letter states the CEO "saw no loading or unloading taking place". This is irrelevant to my primary defence. My case is not that I was loading or unloading, but that the restriction itself was not adequately conveyed due to defective road markings and the absence of a legally required timeplate. The CEO's observation does not cure these defects.

5. Request for Evidence

I formally request that the council provide the following:

a) A copy of the Traffic Regulation Order (TRO) for Cunningham Park, specifying the exact hours of the single yellow line restriction at the location in question.

b) Confirmation of whether the restriction hours for this specific single yellow line are the same as or different from the CPZ hours.

c) The CEO's contemporaneous notes and any photographs taken at the time of the alleged contravention.

d) Evidence that a valid CPZ entry sign was situated on the route I would have taken to access this location.

Conclusion

For the reasons set out above, the alleged contravention did not occur. The restriction was not properly conveyed due to:

a) The absence of a legally required timeplate;

b) The severely deteriorated road marking; and

c) The council's failure to establish that the restriction hours matched the CPZ hours (and were therefore exempt from the timeplate requirement).

I respectfully request that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,