Free Traffic Legal Advice

Surely the key question is whether the organisation requesting the suspension told the council to cancel it.

I think the key question is if Merton knew no works were going to be done and left the signs up. 

One other point my dad has asked me to ask about, I'm not sure if it's pertinent at all - but the utility works that the parking suspension was meant to be for, never actually took place. I.e. no vehicles from Thames Water ever actually turned up in the street at any point during the suspension period. Does that give any additional grounds for appeal on the first PCN?

or to quite my dad's message to me directly:

Quote
Can we take the Council to task for their utter incompetence and failure to have due regard to the interests of the council tax payers who finance their activities. I refer specifically to their failure to exercise even the most basic form of supervision/management/ oversight over the conduct of utilities which obtain parking suspensions in Merton and the consequent neglect of their (i.e. Merton Council's) statutory duties. These appalling failures are most clearly signified by the fact that NO WORKS were carried out during the Murray Road 19 to 23 May suspension and by the fact that in a phone call I had with the Council early on 23 May (when , as I requested, I was assured that the call was recorded) I gave them a 2 hour ultimatum, for EITHER (i) the suspension notices to be removed within two hours of my call OR (ii) Thames Water to be carrying out actual works in the street within 2 hours of the call. The Council took the point and the notices were removed within the stipulated two hour period. How on earth can a reputable local authority conclude that it is just and equitable to impose parking fines on council tax payers in these circumstances?

You could just have a go at them saying no works took place from the start and we may be able to find a case to support this but you can see from their reply that they want your father's money regardless of the circumstances because they can.

The second is certainly a continuous contravention.

I would include question that the sign went up before parking as it does seem unlikely your father could have missed it. If it goes to adjudication putting doubt in an adjudicator's mind can be useful.

You need to also put the question about the council's knowledge of the works as your father was able to get the sign removed which rather suggests they knew. 

Hi all, just wondering if anyone has any feedback on the above, if it seems appropriate for a challenge to the Notices to Owner - or if there's anything I should add/amend/remove.

Thank you!

My preferred approach is to set the scene first and clearly.

I hold a resident's permit for zone ** and on ** (no idea, you've not said) I parked my car as can be seen in the authority's photos. At this time I did not see any signs advising of a forthcoming suspension. My car remained parked until *** (I was on holiday from ** to **) when I returned to my car and found 2 PCNs issued on ** and ** respectively both citing the same contravention, namely *****.

I inspected the suspension signs which stated that my bay was suspended from ** to *** for '***** (works) to be carried out by ***'. I discovered subsequently from *** that ****(no works), neither were the bays used for any other associated purpose as can be seen in the CEO's photos of my car.

Is this the story when the gaps are filled?

IMO, then you make your arguments e.g. for both PCNs the penalty exceeded ...circumstances of the case, these being that as no works took place the suspension as such was void and as the signs were not erected when I parked the council failed to give adequate notice of the suspension; for PCN 2, this is void by virtue of any contravention being continuous etc..

Then...
If the authority reject my representations on the grounds that the signs were in situ before I parked and gave adequate notice then they are required to provide proof in support, a simple claim to this effect being both insufficient and suspicious. If the authority...the bay was used for the stated purpose then again they are required to produce evidence in support e.g. CEO notes/photos etc. Finally, as regards PCN **, why, when the car had remained stationary, the demand for a second penalty predicated on a single act of parking is lawful.

Just some thoughts.

How about this? I have incorporated suggestions based on above feedback from stamfordman and H C Andersen, namely:

- inclusion of the fact that the positioning of the suspension signage is not in line with the guidance from the Traffic Signs Manual
- included a couple of paragraphs at the start setting the scene in terms of dates etc

Does that seem good to submit? Thank you!

To:
London Borough of Merton
Parking Services
Civic Centre
London Road
Morden, SM4 5DX

Date: 12 September 2025

Subject: Appeal Against Penalty Charge Notices MT01121049 and MT01121435

Dear Sir/Madam,

I am writing to formally appeal two Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued to my vehicle, registration NYN 724, on Murray Road, SW19. The details of the PCNs are as follows:

•   PCN MT01121049: Issued on 19/05/2025 at 09:11 for contravention code 21 (Parked Wholly or Partly in a Suspended Bay or Space).
•   PCN MT01121435: Issued on 20/05/2025 at 09:32 for the same contravention.

I hold a resident’s permit for zone VOt and on 13/05/2025 I parked my car as can be seen in the authority's photos. At this time I did not see any signs advising of a forthcoming suspension. My car remained parked until 20/05/2025 (I was on holiday from 16/05/2025 until 19/05/2025) when I returned to my car and found the above 2 PCNs.

I inspected the suspension signs which stated that my bay was suspended from 19/05/2025 to 23/05/2025 for utility works to be carried out by Thames Water. I discovered subsequently that no works took place at any time during these dates, neither were the bays used for any other associated purpose as can be seen in the CEO's photos of my car.

I respectfully request that both PCNs be cancelled on the following grounds:

1.   Invalidity of the Parking Suspension
The parking suspension on Murray Road, SW19, from 19/05/2025 to 23/05/2025, was purportedly implemented to facilitate utility works by Thames Water. However, no such works took place during the entire suspension period. No Thames Water vehicles, engineers, or equipment were observed on Murray Road at any point during the five days. Furthermore, on 23/05/2025, I placed a call to the council to report the absence of any works. During this call, a demand was made for either the commencement of works or the removal of the suspension signage. Within two hours, council representatives removed the signage, which strongly suggests that no works were planned or executed, further indicating that the suspension was invalid. I kindly request that you provide evidence of any works carried out to substantiate the necessity of the suspension.

2.   Uncertainty Regarding When the Suspension Signage was Placed
The council claims that suspension signage was erected on 12/05/2025, prior to the vehicle being parked in the bay. However, no independent evidence has been provided to confirm this. Given the prominent nature of the suspension signage (e.g., bright yellow signs overhanging the parking bay), it seems unlikely that I would have overlooked such signage when parking. While I do not dispute the council’s assertion outright, the absence of verifiable evidence raises reasonable doubt about whether the signage was in place at the time the vehicle was parked.

3.   Positioning of Suspension Signage Not Conforming to Traffic Signs Manual Guidance
The Traffic Signs Manual advises that, when an entire bay is suspended – as is the case here, as it was a single-space bay I parked in – the suspension signage should cover up the parking sign. However this was not the case, as can be seen in the CEO’s photos. The suspension signage is attached to the pole, with the parking sign remaining visible further up the pole. This is in contravention of the guidance provided by the Traffic Signs Manual.

4.   Continuous Contravention for PCN MT01121435
Even if the suspension is deemed valid, the second PCN (MT01121435) should be cancelled on the grounds of continuous contravention. The vehicle remained stationary in the same location and was not moved between the issuance of the first PCN on 19/05/2025 and the second on 20/05/2025. As the vehicle’s position and circumstances remained unchanged, this constitutes a single continuous contravention. Issuing multiple PCNs for the same infraction is unfair and contrary to established parking enforcement principles.

I acknowledge that the vehicle was parked in the bay during the stated suspension period. However, I was away on holiday from 16/05/2025 to 19/05/2025 and was unaware of the suspension until returning on 20/05/2025, when the PCNs were discovered. While this does not negate the initial contravention, it underscores the absence of intent and the mitigating circumstances surrounding the incident.

In light of the above, I respectfully request that both PCNs be cancelled. Should you require further information or clarification, please contact me by response letter/email. I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this appeal and look forward to your response.

Yours sincerely,
[name]

On continuous contravention change should to must.

For reps to the second one I would out this ground upfront.

In the reps for the second PCN start with the point it must be cancelled as it is a continuous contravention.