This case from the other day but these cases are often adjudicator dependent.
----------
Case reference 2250455149
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM P7ODG
PCN Details
PCN PN22558923
Contravention date 18 May 2025
Contravention time 17:24:00
Contravention location Mark Street
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked restricted street during prescribed hours
Referral date -
Decision Date 04 Nov 2025
Adjudicator Chez Cotton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons Introduction
1. The Appellant challenges a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued for being parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours.
2. This appeal was listed for a personal video hearing at which the Appellant was scheduled to attend. I waited for ten minutes after the commencement time, but the Appellant had not attended or otherwise contacted the Tribunal. I therefore proceeded to determine the case based upon the papers, as had been advised would occur in the notice of hearing sent to the Appellant to advise of the hearing date.
The Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant’s case is that there were no visible signs at the relevant location, there was no time plate governing the yellow line and no evidence of a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ) sign declaring that ‘Event Day’ restrictions were in force on the 18 May 2025.
4. The Appellant states that the EA’s own evidence shows the relevant vehicle on a single yellow line but does not provide any evidence of restricted parking on Sundays, or that it was an ‘Event Day’ signage at that location.
5. The Appellant states of the EA that, ‘While they assert there were entry signs into the CPZ, they have not provided any photographic evidence of these signs, nor that I passed one. Drivers are not legally required to guess or research whether an event is taking place. Clear signage must be present at the point of restriction or zone entry, as required by the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 (TSRGD). The sign near the vehicle only applies to the bay, not the yellow line. The nearby sign states: “Mon–Sat 8:00 am–6:30 pm / Event Days: 8:00 am–9:00 pm.” It applies to a marked parking bay, not the single yellow line I was parked on.’
6. In these circumstances the Appellant asks for the PCN to be cancelled.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
7. The Enforcement Authority (EA) rely on photographic evidence to show the contravention occurred. Photographs of relevant 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.
8. The EA has considered the Appellant's representations. The EA state, ‘We have noted the Appellant’s comments. We would like to state that evidence under H confirms that the signs the Appellant would have driven past as they were on the way to Mark Street. The signs are not located on Mark Street; they are located on route to Mark Street on West Ham Lane. Evidence H shows the signage on display which the appellant would have driven past as they drove on West Ham Lane.’
9. The EA state, ‘Evidence H shows that there are s on West Ham Lane, which the appellant would have used to enter Mark Street.’
10. The EA further state, ‘In regard to the contravention, the appellant parked within this RPZ as per the signage. The signage clearly states that, on event days are between 8am and 9pm. The 18th of May 2025 was an event day as a West Ham Football Club football match was taking place. The evidence under evidence J that proves this.’
11. The EA does not wish to exercise their discretion.
12. The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued.
Findings and Conclusion
13. I have considered the evidence of both parties carefully.
14. The Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) has provided six photographs of the relevant car parked on a single yellow line. There is no information in the photograph that allows me to identify the location, by way of street name sign, or other point of cross reference. Based on this information, on a balance of probabilities, I am unable to satisfy myself where the relevant vehicle is parked.
15. The EA Evidence H consists of 75 pages, the second being a list of ‘Event Day locations’, the third an outline on a map with red dots (but no labelling or other identification), the fourth what looks like a screenshot from a google map, marked ‘Mark Street’, the remaining pages are single close up shots of street names, and then multiple single photographs of a sign ‘Controlled Zone S’ signage with the restriction times, and ‘Next event day 4th and 18th May’. On balance, considering the evidence presented in Evidence H, I am unable to satisfy myself that any particular sign, was in any particular location, or that it is satisfactory evidence to support that the Appellant’s vehicle was in contravention.
16. The EA’s Evidence E consists of 328 pages, the first eight appear to be the Appellant’s representations and the EA rejections of the same. There are them multiple blank pages until page 314, which appears to be a repeat of the Appellant’s representations and the EA rejection letter. The sign in the photograph has been provided by the Appellant. However, there is no indication of where this sign is in relation to the relevant location, and so I give it no weight.
17. Taking all the evidence into account, for the reasons outlined, on a balance of probabilities, I am unable to satisfy myself that there was adequate signage in place that would allow a reasonably careful motorist to understand a restriction was in place.
18. It follows that on balance; I am unable to satisfy myself that a contravention occurred.
19. For these reasons, on balance, I am not satisfied the PCN has been validly issued.
Decision
20. The appeal is allowed.
