Free Traffic Legal Advice

Hi there,

Would be grateful for some help with this PCN.

The driver received a ticket for parking in a suspended bay, but the suspension sign next to the bay was completely blank — no dates, no times, no location details.

The CEO has taken a close‑up photo of a different suspension sign further down the road on the opposite side, which has all the details on it. This makes it look as though he ignored a clear sign. However, if you look carefully at the CEO’s wider photos, you can see the blank sign in the background on the same side of the road where the car was parked (I’ve circled in red) and uploaded a photo of the blank sign up close.

My understanding is that a driver is not expected to go searching for other signs across the road if the sign directly next to the bay is blank and contains no operative information.

I’d really appreciate guidance on the correct rulings so we can put together a solid appeal.

Thanks in advance.

https://ibb.co/VfkmRvq
https://ibb.co/1fYBv76B
https://ibb.co/SDcwFQcp
https://ibb.co/R47jhP7p
https://ibb.co/NdP2BhSn
https://ibb.co/F4h2QM8y
https://ibb.co/PsGXtr13
https://ibb.co/YzyWXCJ
https://ibb.co/B5pctrWj
https://ibb.co/3yf5zBKQ
https://ibb.co/Gq6WZ1L

Google map location:

https://maps.app.goo.gl/mMFzHnUHTG6mnNhg9

Hi,

Rejection letter received today. See images below and the initial (lengthy) challenge sent.






I am challenging this PCN because the suspension was not properly signed.

The only suspension sign visible on the side of the road where the vehicle was parked had its entire information panel blanked out. It displayed no dates, times, location details, or extent of the suspension. A sign without operative information cannot convey a restriction.

I am attaching a photograph of the blank sign that was directly next to the vehicle and was the only visible sign when parking.

The detailed suspension sign photographed by the CEO was located on the opposite side of the road. A suspension sign only applies to the side of the street on which it is placed; it cannot apply across the road. The sign governing the side where the vehicle was parked was the blank, vandalised sign, which displayed no operative information. A motorist is entitled to rely on the signage on their side of the road and is not required to cross the street to check unrelated signs.

In the CEO’s wider‑angle photograph showing the rear of the vehicle, the blank sign is visible in the background directly in front of the vehicle on the same side of the road. This confirms that the sign governing this side had been vandalised. I am surprised that the correct procedure was not followed. Where a suspension sign has been vandalised, the CEO should report the damaged sign and refrain from issuing PCNs on that side until clear signage is restored. Instead, the CEO photographed the sign on the opposite side of the road, which cannot apply to the opposite side where the vehicle was parked.

As the restriction was not clearly or adequately communicated at the location of the vehicle, the alleged contravention did not occur. I request that the PCN be cancelled.


Any idea what happens next? Do we stand our ground as aforementioned or is it a possibility we may be rejected again and have to pay up?

Thanks for the help.

Please excuse the lengthy post as I’ve had to reattach all previous images.

Notice to Owner has now been received. Never done this before so consulted AI and it came up with a lengthy response- but wanted to check here first if this is okay. We want to avoid having to go to a tribunal so have tried to create a strong argument but am guessing they will most likely reject whatever we write…


I am making a formal representation against this Notice to Owner on the ground that the alleged contravention did not occur.

The restriction was not properly conveyed because the suspension sign on the side of the road where the vehicle was parked was vandalised, blank and unreadable. This is clearly visible in the CEO’s own photographs.

The only legible suspension sign was located on the opposite side of the road, which does not apply to the bay in which the vehicle was parked. A motorist is not required to check signage across the road, nor can a restriction be enforced using a sign that governs a different bay.

1. The council failed in its statutory duty to adequately sign the restriction

Under Regulation 18 of the Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, the authority must ensure that:

“adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road.”

A blank, vandalised suspension sign cannot satisfy this legal requirement.

The council’s own photographs confirm:

• the sign next to the vehicle was blank
• the sign with the suspension details was on the opposite side of the road
• no readable sign existed governing the bay where the vehicle was parked


Therefore, the restriction was not adequately conveyed, and the PCN is unenforceable.

2. Established adjudicator case law confirms motorists are NOT required to check signs across the road

London Tribunals has repeatedly ruled that:

A motorist is only required to check signage on their side of the road

A sign on the opposite side does not apply to the bay they are parked in

A damaged, missing or unreadable sign makes the restriction unenforceable

Relevant cases include:

• Campbell v Camden (Case 2070377291)

The adjudicator held that a motorist is not required to cross the road to inspect signage and that restrictions must be clear from the side where the vehicle is parked.

• Al’s Bar & Restaurant v Wandsworth (Case 2020106430)

The adjudicator ruled that where signage is unclear or not properly maintained, the restriction cannot be enforced.

• London Borough of Hounslow v Mr M (Case 2180194309)

The adjudicator cancelled the PCN because the sign nearest the vehicle was damaged, even though a correct sign existed elsewhere.

These cases directly mirror the circumstances here.

3. The council’s reliance on a sign on the opposite side is legally irrelevant

The council’s rejection letter relied on a sign across the road, even highlighting it with a red rectangle.

This actually supports my case:

• It confirms the council has no readable sign on my side
• It confirms the sign they rely on governs a different bay
• It confirms the CEO did not photograph any valid sign adjacent to the vehicle


A restriction cannot be enforced using signage that does not apply to the bay in question.

4. The contravention did not occur

Because:

• the sign governing the bay was blank/vandalised
• the council failed to maintain adequate signage
• the only readable sign was on the opposite side, which does not apply
• adjudicator case law confirms motorists are not required to check across the road
• the restriction was not properly conveyed


The alleged contravention did not occur, and the PCN must be cancelled.

For the reasons above, I request that the Notice to Owner be cancelled.


Thanks again for everyone’s help.






https://ibb.co/mVF4mtDB
https://ibb.co/gZhVmNdM
https://ibb.co/N6prkFdH
https://ibb.co/FbRtZsjm
https://ibb.co/9mw6mTFp
https://ibb.co/4njV86Qh
https://ibb.co/tSCX9nZ
https://ibb.co/CpJdR6VX
https://ibb.co/FLtq4K6R
https://ibb.co/hRRxnhrg
https://ibb.co/qF4mDqtm