I do think the council has a duty to enable people to check CPZ times in addition to seeking out an entry sign. They fail on this.
This case has something perhaps.
--------
Case reference 2260075177
Appellant xxxx
Authority London Borough of Camden
VRM KP69OYR
PCN Details
PCN CU71128312
Contravention date 15 Jun 2025
Contravention time 16:39:00
Contravention location Hawley Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked restricted street during prescribed hours
Referral date -
Decision Date 11 Aug 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).
<ol start="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
<ol start="3">
• In initial representations to the EA the Appellant states
<ol start="4">
• For the appeal the Appellant states, ‘Camden’s Notice of Rejection relies on the statement that I “would have passed” CPZ entry signage and therefore should have known the restriction hours. This is an assumption, not evidence. I was using sat nav, I live around 70 miles away, and it was my first time in this area. I cannot confirm which CPZ entry point was used and I did not see any clear CPZ entry signage that conveyed the restriction hours. If Camden rely on CPZ entry signs, they must prove the specific entry point/route relied upon and that compliant CPZ entry signs were present, correctly positioned, and clearly visible at the material time/date. The materials provided with the rejection (CEO photos and a general CPZ entry-point map) do not prove this, nor do they show that restriction information was clearly conveyed at the location where I parked.’
<ol start="5">
• The Appellant further states, ‘My representations challenged that the restriction was not clearly/adequately conveyed. The Notice of Rejection does not show a proper consideration of the specific issues raised; it substitutes generic CPZ wording and an assumption that I must have passed signs. That is not a reasoned response to the representations made.’
<ol start="6">
• The Appellant further adds, ‘I ask the adjudicator to direct Camden to produce: (a) the relevant Traffic Management Order creating the restriction relied upon; (b) the CPZ sign schedule/location plan and evidence of compliance; (c) route/entry-point specific proof of CPZ entry signage presence/visibility on the date (dated photos, inspection/maintenance logs); and (d) the full CEO notes and complete photo set. If Camden cannot provide clear, route-specific evidence that the restriction was adequately signed and conveyed, the appeal should be allowed and the PCN cancelled.’
Enforcement Authority’s Case
<ol start="7">
• The Enforcement Authority (EA) rely on photographic evidence to show the contravention occurred. 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. The EA confirm, ‘The contravention is covered in The Camden (Parking Places) (CA-F, Camden Town Area) (No. 1) Experimental Traffic Order 2024. The vehicle was parked on a single yellow line. The hours of control are between 8:30am to 11pm Monday to Friday and 9:30am to 11pm Saturday and Sunday. The Council is satisfied the road markings and signage conform to the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.’
<ol start="8">
• The EA rely on the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) records, which show checks were made at the relevant time and there was no relevant permit attributed to the Appellant’s vehicle.
<ol start="9">
• The EA has considered the Appellant's representations and respond, ‘The appellant states that the restriction was not adequately conveyed and has provided evidence of the no loading signage in place. However, the council would advise that the Highway Code states under rule 238 that drivers must not wait or park on yellow lines during the time of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a CPZ). The Council believe that the onus is on the driver to check and ensure that they have parked in accordance with the restrictions that are in place at any given location. The no loading restriction was not in force at the time the vehicle had parked.’
<ol start="10">
• The EA does not wish to exercise their discretion.
<ol start="11">
• The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued.
Findings and Conclusion
<ol start="12">
• I have considered all materials presented by both parties. Although each piece of evidence may not be specifically referred to, it has contributed to, and informed, the decision I have made.
• I make the following findings of fact on a balance of probabilities.
<ol start="14">
• I am satisfied the EA considered the Appellant’s representations and the points the Appellant made in sufficient detail to allow for the basis of the refusal to be understood.
<ol start="15">
• The burden of proof initially rests with the EA to establish a prima facie case, including the existence and terms of the restriction relied on. The EA rely on the relevant location being within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). Schedule 5 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2026 (TSRGD 2016) sets out provisions relating to CPZs. I am satisfied the TMO and supporting materials establish the statutory basis for the CPZ and allow the EA to enforce a contravention if one has occurred.
<ol start="16">
• Where a CPZ is in operation, it is necessary for the EA to properly sign entrance into the zone, so that a motorist is able to understand the restriction in place and avoid being in contravention.
<ol start="17">
• I accept the Appellant is unfamiliar with the area and used a satellite navigation system, and so was unable in the hearing to provide the exact route taken. However, the Appellant confirmed he travelled from Kent. Therefore, with the assistance of GoogleMaps, I was able to ascertain in the hearing, by using the ‘direction’ function ‘Kent to Hawley Road’ that it was likely that the Appellant had entered Hawley Road from Castlehaven Road, most likely from the Kentish Town Road side, and less likely, but possible, from the Chalk Farm Road side. Therefore, in the absence of the Appellant being able to provide the specific route he took I am satisfied, on balance, that one of these routes was taken.
<ol start="18">
• The question I must therefore decide, is whether the CPZ was adequately signed for a driver entering from either Kentish Town Road or Chalk Road. In this respect, I have considered the CPZ map and the corresponding CPZ signage. On balance, I am satisfied that the EA has produced sufficient evidence to show that each entry point into the CPZ has been signed. While I accept that some of the EA evidence shows that there is only one sign present, and one sign is obscured by trees, I am satisfied that these entry points were not likely to have been used by the Appellant.
<ol start="19">
• Therefore, I am satisfied that on either route into the CPZ I have found it likely the Appellant took the CPZ was in place and would have been passed getting to Hawley Road where the Appellant parked.
<ol start="20">
•
It is finely balance but having considered the size of the roads on which the CPZ signs are placed, the level of traffic, and the size of Hawley Road, and taking into account the distance from the CPZ signage to where the Appellant was parked, I am unable to satisfy myself that a reasonably careful motorist would have been able to notice and digest the signage information. Taking into account the specific location, on balance, I consider it would not be realistic for a reasonably careful motorist to remember the times of operation of the zone, at the distance from the CPZ signage that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked.
<ol start="21">• I consider this difficulty was compounded by the loading/unloading restriction signage, that the Appellant took to be the relevant signage for the location. I consider this is a conclusion a reasonably careful motorist would come to.
<ol start="22">
• Therefore, taking these factors into account, I find a contravention did not occur and the PCN has not been validly issued to the Appellant.
Decision
<ol start="23">
• The appeal is allowed.