This case was lost but not the same road.
--------
Case reference 2260038396
Appellant xxxx
Authority London Borough of Hammersmith and Fulham
VRM KY19PEL
PCN Details
PCN HZ79374116
Contravention date 24 Oct 2025
Contravention time 20:10:00
Contravention location Rowan Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked restricted street during prescribed hours
Referral date -
Decision Date 23 May 2026
Adjudicator Lola Moses
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons
Introduction
1. This appeal concerns a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued for parking in a restricted street during prescribed hours. The appeal was determined following a postal appeal.
Appellant’s Case
2. The Appellant submits that the contravention did not occur because the Controlled Parking Zone (“CPZ”) signage was inadequate. The Appellant states that they entered Rowan Road from Hammersmith Road and that there was no visible CPZ entry sign at the point of entry indicating that restrictions applied from 8:30am to 11pm. The Appellant relies on photographs said to show the absence of signage and contends that the Enforcement Authority has failed to establish that adequate signage was present at all entry points.
3. The Appellant further submits that the controlled hours had only recently been extended to 11pm and that for many years parking had been unrestricted after 6:30pm, giving rise to a legitimate expectation. The Appellant also states that once aware of the extended hours, they regularly paid for parking via RingGo.
Enforcement Authority’s Case
4. The Enforcement Authority relies on the relevant Traffic Management Order (TMO), namely The Hammersmith and Fulham (Free Parking Places, Loading Places and Waiting, Loading and Stopping Restrictions) (Amendment No. 34) Order 2025. The Enforcement Authority states that the vehicle was parked on a single yellow line within Controlled Parking Zone A at 20:10, during operational hours of 8:30am to 11pm.
5. The Enforcement Authority relies on the CEO photographs, CEO notes, the CPZ map, and photographs of CPZ entry signage. The Enforcement Authority states that the revised restriction hours came into force on 15 September 2025 and submits that the signage adequately conveyed the restriction.
Findings and Conclusion
6. I am satisfied from the CEO photographs that the vehicle was parked on a single yellow line and that the PCN was correctly issued. The issue in dispute is whether the restriction was adequately signed.
7. The burden rests on the Enforcement Authority to establish, on the balance of probabilities, that the restriction was adequately conveyed to a reasonably diligent motorist. In accordance with Herron v Sunderland City Council [2011] EWCA Civ 902, signage need only be substantially compliant, clear and adequate.
8. I am satisfied that the Enforcement Authority has discharged that burden in this case. The evidence includes photographs of CPZ entry signs for Zone A displaying the operational hours of 8:30am to 11pm together with a CPZ map identifying the zone boundaries and entry points. The signage shown is compliant and clearly conveys the restriction. I also note that the Appellant’s own photographs largely focus on Rowan Road itself rather than conclusively demonstrating the absence of signage at the relevant entry point from Hammersmith Road.
9. I accept that the restriction hours had recently changed and that the Appellant may previously have been accustomed to unrestricted parking after 6:30pm. I also accept that the Appellant subsequently complied with the restrictions by paying through RingGo. However, those matters do not establish that the signage was inadequate at the material time and amount, at their highest, to mitigation only. An adjudicator has no power to allow an appeal on mitigation grounds alone.
10. I am therefore satisfied that the restriction was adequately signed and that the contravention occurred.
Decision
11. The appeal is refused.
