Free Traffic Legal Advice

Quote from: cyou251 on June 08, 2026, 09:57:31 am

The sign is the only thing I checked as well as seeing if there was a match on at the stadium via the website.

This doesn't make sense. You say the only thing you checked was the sign. But then you say as well as the website.

You checked the website at the roadside? And what website?

Ok so in order of actions to be perfectly clear:

1. I looked up at the sign and saw the reference to match day
2. I google searched 'next Emirates Stadium game' and saw it was in August.

I fear we're at cross purposes.

OP, there are 2 signs in this saga i.e. the one within the parking bay and the CPZ sign at the entrance to the zone.

You posted: The sign is the only thing I checked as well as seeing if there was a match on at the stadium via the website.

Whereas 'I find that the signs appear to be in disrepair and the panels zig zag, which make it more difficult to read.' I think applies to the CPZ sign which you didn't read.

Be careful when you draft your appeal and don't mix the two.

Post a draft here first and I'll tweak it.

Islington should be on a loser here. They need to change the signs from match to event but that will cost a fair bit.

Ah yes I didnt see that controlled sign. I only applied/saw what was near the vehicle. I just did a Google Street View and saw that zigzag sign too. I am new to vehicle ownership in the UK, in Australia we just rely on what signs are near the vehicle, hence my confusion. But I see now that it has that extra information which would have been useful.

I am posting my challenge below, taking into account your info, being:

I had parked the vehicle and noted the attached sign near my vehicle.
The signage stated parking was allowed after 1:30pm provided it was not a match day.
I Googled Emirates Stadium matches and saw there were no matches on that day.
I received a fine and was confused until I realised that council may refer to other events such as concerts.
The CPZ signage was also in a zigzag shape and not clearly visible.
Similar cases to mine have been reviewed by an adjudicator and dismissed, the most recent being case 2250584855 seen by adjudicator Carl Teper, who allowed the appeal on the basis that there was no football match but rather a concert.
Similar cases noted by the adjudicator are 2250451308, the second case 2250480306, the third 2250482414, then 2250512537 and finally 2250234820.
I believe that by the council pursuing this case, they will only serve to waste the resources of the system, especially as the appeal is likely to be successful based on precedent.

This isn't quite right. I'll tweak it later.

Should I just edit what I have written? Do you know of any other examples I could use to help?

This is better. I wouldn't discuss the entry signs at this stage.

----------

I was puzzled to receive this PCN as I thought I’d checked the location was unrestricted at the time. I can only think there was a match taking place at the time that I missed, but after investigation it appears there was a pop concert that you deem to be a ‘match’ at the Emirates stadium.
 
I am challenging the PCN on the grounds that a pop concert is not a match and I did all that was reasonable at the location to check if there was a football match on at the Emirates stadium using my smartphone, and found there wasn’t.

I draw your attention to decision 2250584855 by adjudicator Carl Teper, who allowed the appeal on the same basis that there was no football match but rather a concert, noting several other such allowed cases, adopting their reasoning and findings as his own.

I trust you will accept the decisions of multiple adjudicators without troubling them further and look forward to your cancellation of the PCN.