Outcome.
--------
Case reference 2260024085
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM GL11PXM
PCN Details
PCN PN23465850
Contravention date 02 Sep 2025
Contravention time 09:36:00
Contravention location Credon Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked restricted street during prescribed hours
Referral date -
Decision Date 09 Jun 2026
Adjudicator Chez Cotton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons
Introduction
1. The Appellant challenges a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued for being parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours (Code 01).
2. This appeal was scheduled as an online hearing at which the Appellant appeared in person. The Enforcement Authority (EA) was not due to attend but instead provided their evidence electronically.
The Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant’s case is that the PCN has been issued without a statutory basis underpinning it, since the Traffic Management Order does not support the restriction set out on the signage by the EA.
4. Further, the EA refer to a ‘suspension’ in the evidence presented, whereas the PCN is issued for a ‘waiting’ restriction.
5. Further, the signage in place in the relevant road is inadequate and does not allow a reasonably careful motorist to see the restriction in place and avoid a contravention.
6. Further, there was no adequate warning of any suspension, and the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in advance of the suspension signage being put in place.
7. In these circumstances the Appellant asks for the PCN to be cancelled.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
8. The Enforcement Authority (EA) rely on photographic evidence to show the contravention occurred. Photographs 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.
9. The EA has considered the Appellant's representations. The EA state ‘A Temporary Traffic Order (TTO) was in force at the location on the date of the contravention. The purpose and effect of the order was to prohibit waiting within the affected length of highway during the relevant period.’
10. The EA state the use of the word ‘suspension’ does not alter the legal nature of the restriction created by the order, or invalidate the contravention alleged.
11. The EA add, ‘The TTO provides that the restriction applies when appropriate prescribed traffic signs are placed. On the date of enforcement, temporary traffic signage was in situ, as evidenced by the CEO photographs. The signage clearly conveyed: • that the previous parking provision was not available, and • the hours during which waiting was prohibited (8am–6pm). The authority contends that the signage was clear, visible, and adequate to inform a reasonably diligent motorist of the restriction in force. Temporary traffic orders commonly operate for defined periods rather than “at any time”, and the inclusion of operational hours on the sign does not invalidate the restriction or render the signage inappropriate.’
12. The EA does not wish to exercise their discretion.
13. The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued, there was no procedural impropriety and the contravention occurred.
Findings and Conclusion
14. I have considered all materials presented by both parties. Although each piece of evidence is not specifically referred to, it has contributed to, and informed, the decision I have made.
15. I found the Appellant credible and measured in his evidence.
16. In the first instance it is for the EA to establish a prima facie case, including the statutory basis on which any penalty can be enforced. The
17. Based on the photographic evidence footage provided, and additional evidential materials from the EA, I am satisfied the Appellant’s vehicle was in the relevant location, at the relevant time. I am further satisfied that if a contravention has occurred, it is enforceable by way of a valid Traffic Management Order, which I have seen.
18. The question I must decide relates to whether the signage in place was substantially compliant, clear and adequate. In this respect the Public Notice attached to the Case Summary in Evidence B states at paragraph 1,
‘The NEWHAM LONDON BOROUGH COUNCIL hereby gives notice that to allow London Borough Newham Green Space and its contractors, to carry out works on or near the road; it made an Order the general effect of which will be to close the roads listed in Schedule 1 below.’
19. I am unable to consider the Temporary Prohibition of Traffic Order itself, since this is provided by way of a photograph of an A4 sheet, with dense type writing, included in Evidence C. If I enlarge it to a size I can read, it becomes illegible. I am therefore unable to satisfy myself that there is a statutory basis for the EA to enforce a PCN, and on balance. I allow the appeal on this basis.
20. However, for completeness, I note the Public Notice sets out that the roads listed will be closed. There is no reference to parking bays being suspended, or of any suspension time.
21. Further, if a suspension of the relevant bay was supported by a temporary TMO, the EA has provided no evidence of advance warning, or any evidence of what vehicles were parked at the relevant location in advance of any warning notices being erected. On balance, I accept the Appellant’s vehicle was parked in advance of any warning notice being placed, and I would allow an appeal on this basis. (Although there is no requirement for this, since I find the EA has not established the statutory basis for enforcing a penalty in any event).
22. For these reasons I find a contravention did not occur and the PCN has not been validly issued.
Decision
23. The appeal is allowed.
