Here's a tow case that is very similar.
-------------
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.
