Free Traffic Legal Advice

I agree - 100% - the council pics show no bay parking sign, you say there is no parking sign and the contravention is a code 12.

We rarely see Mr Anderson in full on attack mode so you can be sure but I think I would tone it down a bit...

Happy to be the tribunal representative if we get that far. Newham cheat all the time.

You can go on GSV (google street view) and then make your own screenshots but I would make an alternative suggestion, as below, or you can retain me as your free representative by emailing mrmustard@zoho.com - I have previous success with Newham and blacked out signs at the tribunal.

Dear Sirs

I was parked within a bay. There was no sign adjacent to the bay setting out the rules or doubtless the CEO would have photographed it. Each and every bay which the council paints can have its own unique set of rules (different days, times, classes of vehicle etc) and for that reason each and every bay must have a sign in order to adequately inform motorists of the rules. If there was no sign, which there wasn't, and a quick persual of google street view going back some years suggests that it has been missing for some time, then no contravention can possibly have occurred and the bay is in effect a free bay.

To issue a PCN in such a situation was an abuse of power, wholly unreasonable and/or veaxatious.

Please cancel the PCN without putting me to the trouble of asking an independent adjudicator at London Tribunals to do so.

Yours etc

Received this reply as expected.


https://postimg.cc/gallery/FsVxgh5

Idiot.

A parking place must be signed. Adjudicators have held that when a bay is signed to the effect that the restrictions are amended on 'event days' or other similar 'permitted parking expression' the exact detail of these restrictions may instead be conveyed by publicising on CPZ gateway signs. Practicality v procedural imperatives.

But if a parking place does not have a sign which informs a motorist that the location is subject to 'event day' restrictions in the first place, then it's not.

The adjudicator appears to have decided that parking places within CPZs don't need traffic signs at all, everything can be hung on a CPZ sign.

Mr M, I can understand that you were wrong-footed by such stupidity, and perhaps not prepared. I would suggest looking at the council's TMO (they might have provided it in full with their evidence) and look at how this deals with 'Traffic Signs'. In 99.9999% the order itself will require the council to place traffic signs within or in the vicinity of the parking place, therefore (as in Campbell v Camden) what the regs says is really secondary: if the council have imposed this requirement upon themselves then they must comply.

https://londontribunals.org.uk/ords/pwslive/f?p=14952:70::INITIALISE::70:P70_CAS_REFNO,P70_PCN_REFNO,P70_RETURN_PAGE,P70_AST_CODE:823489,937114,60,APPEAL&cs=381DkoCCbUtLz6XchA3P9I9VcJlOZLmyhfGFlSi_GWMtW3Y27QsQWUCvO7UfvkJlW6GvlRvOS62etWvzmU3SC2w

..and the TSRGD themselves.

Do you have a copy of their Order?

Good luck.

That's a bonkers decision and it sounds like the adjudicator is confusing a CPZ with a PPA.

There are numerous decisions allowed where a parking sign is missing in a designated parking place and where we have full confidence of winning, eg this live case in Newham:

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/newham-abercrombie-road-parking-ticket

And Mr M you won case 2250106627, and in the thread on this I posted the below:
 
Case reference   2240575122
Appellant   Razwan Razaq
Authority   London Borough of Newham
VRM   WM66MRY
   
PCN Details
PCN   PN21061442
Contravention date   20 Nov 2024
Contravention time   09:56:00
Contravention location   First Avenue
Penalty amount   GBP 130.00
Contravention   Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
   
Referral date   -
   
Decision Date   29 Mar 2025
Adjudicator   Jack Walsh
Appeal decision   Appeal allowed
Direction   cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and refund forthwith the penalty charge and the release fees paid.
Reasons   The PCN in this case was not issued for parking on a restricted street during the prescribed hours. Rather, it was issued for parking in a residents' or shared use bay without a valid permit. That is because the vehicle was not parked on part of the road marked with a single or double yellow line but was, instead, parked in a parking bay.
Mr. Razaq makes the point that there were no signs in the vicinity of the parking bay indicating what, if any, restrictions applied in that bay. The enforcement authority (EA) has provided no evidence of any signage indicating that the bay in question was indeed a residents'/shared use parking place.
Instead, the EA has provided a single photograph of what is known as a controlled parking zone (CPZ) entrance sign, which is to be found at item 1 of the Part 3 sign table in Schedule 5 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. The sign appears to be on a street called Balaam Street, which is a street not shown in the map provided by the EA. This photograph does not assist the EA's case one bit, however. A CPZ entrance sign informs motorists of the prescribed hours of the restricted streets, marked with single yellow lines, within the CPZ to which it applies. It is not the appropriate sign to inform motorists of parking restrictions in parking bays. Indeed, the sign shown in the photograph says nothing about any requirement to possess or display a parking permit when parking in bays.
If the EA wished to create a permit parking area (and not a CPZ) the appropriate sign is that at item 5 of the Part 3 sign table. But that is not the sign that was used. The EA's case summary and notice of rejection indicate a confusion on its part between a CPZ and a permit parking area. They are in fact quite distinct and require different signage. It is surprising that the EA seems to be confused about such a fundamental distinction in terms of parking restrictions.
Mr. Razaq is correct to say there is no evidence of any signage informing motorists of the restrictions, if any, applicable to the parking bay in which his vehicle was parked. He made that point very clearly in his representations against the PCN and the fee for the removal and recovery of his vehicle. Those representations should have been accepted. The contravention is not proved and the appeal is allowed.