Free Traffic Legal Advice

Dear London Borough of Newham,

I challenge liability for PCNs PN36967421 and PN36945112 on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur, and that the penalty demanded exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case. Firstly the sign relied upon by the CEO does not indicate any waiting prohibitions, so it is not at all clear that there are any parking restrictions in force at all. It seems to me that maybe the council should have issued a PCN under the London Local Authorities and Transport for London Act 2003 for code 53 - Failing to comply with a restriction on vehicles entering a pedestrian zone, but it's obviously too late for that now.

In any event the sign at the entrance to the zone says "except for access", and I did not use this road as a through route, on the contrary I needed access to park within the zone. I note there are parking bays within the zone and in order to access those bays, it is necessary to enter the zone. In the event the bays were not of a type that I was permitted to park in, but in the absence of any other parking restrictions I parked as I did because I needed to attend an appointment at the Moorfields eye hospital. Having lawfully entered the zone in order to access parking bays, there was no signage indicating that I could not park as I did.

My wife remained in the car and during this time two CEOs approached and each issued a PCN, this meaning that for this one parking incident I am now faced with £260 worth of penalty charges, discounted to £130 if paid within 14 days. Quite plainly this is a demand that exceeds the amount due in the circumstances of the case, as a result of which the statutory ground of appeal at regulation 5(4)(e) of The Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022 is made out.

It follows that both penalties must be cancelled.

Yours faithfully,