Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: zaijjj on March 23, 2026, 03:27:35 pm
-
Who is the registered keeper and are their DVLA details current? I ask because the next notice with an opportunity to make reps would go to the registered keeper.
OK, they've rejected your initial reps based upon the sound and basic point regarding the delineation of parking places. IMO, next step is to carry on with a more detailed argument.
As I see the situation on GSV, the vehicle passed a 'permit holders only' traffic sign AND THEN passed a Pay and Display Zone gateway entrance sign. This is a permitted variant of Controlled Zone BUT ONLY when this applies:
Where on‑street parking is of the same type throughout the zone, whether or not permit parking is also provided, and where the operational time of the parking places is the same as the times shown on the entry sign, the legend on the sign may be one of the following:
a) ....“Meter ZONE” (where parking meters are used)
(b) “Pay and Display ZONE” (on‑street ticket machines)
IMO, the driver was acting responsibly by looking for the next traffic sign ahead of them because they'd passed an enormous sign telling them that they were entering a Pay and Display zone.
But the council's case is that she should have looked behind her and exited the P&D zone to look for signs outside the zone! IMO, if the council want to continue a permit bay into a P&D zone then, even assuming this is permitted, their LATOR duty to convey restrictions adequately requires them to place this sign at the point where the permit bay ends and the P&D restriction starts, para. 13.21 of the Traffic Signs Manual* refers:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf
*- although the TSM is not law as such, most adjudicators would examine a council's reasons for not following this guidance especially, as here, it is confused by placing a P&D zone sign.
Wait for others.
-
Hi everyone,
I submitted the informal representations using the draft I'd sent, along with the pictures I uploaded - including some close ups - but they were rejected :(
I have screenshot the email and uploaded this onto the drive as well so you can take a look.
Would you all recommend I pay it? Or do you think it's worth challenging this again? Please let me know your thoughts and opinions on it!
-
Good spot. Take photos of this as well, and in context pl, not just close-up.
-
Thank you, I will go and take some pictures today.
Also I don’t know if this is relevant, but as you can see with this GSV link, my mum was parked near this “pay and display” zone sign. Can I use this in her appeal as well? It’s very misleading as it appears before the separation line.
GSV (https://maps.app.goo.gl/FNj4UxMU7mXzDUYe9)
-
From the driver’s position on the footway, the bay division was not visible, and there were no clear visual cues to indicate a change in restriction at that exact point.
So prove it by getting photos. If you need to, replicate the grey car's position by parking your own there and then taking photos.
Evidence, not just assertion IMO.
-
Thank you both for your prompt replies!
I wasn’t able to take a picture as my mum was on her own & called me whilst I was at work to tell me about the PCN. Luckily she was able to take a picture of the grey car before they pulled off!
Do you recommend that I go back to take a picture of the lines from the footpath? Or is there any point now the car has gone?
A friend has helped me draft an appeal, could you please tell me if there’s anything I should add/remove? Again I’m so very appreciative of and advice!
“Dear Sir/Madam,
I write to make formal representations against the above Penalty Charge Notice.
On the date in question, the driver parked in what was reasonably believed to be a valid pay-and-display bay and immediately purchased a ticket, evidence of which is enclosed. This clearly demonstrates a genuine intention to comply with the applicable parking restrictions.
After returning to the vehicle, it became apparent that part of the bay may have been designated for resident permit holders only. However, this was not clear at the time of parking due to inadequate and obscured bay demarcation.
As shown in the enclosed photographs:
- The dividing line between the pay-and-display bay and the resident permit bay was obscured by a neighbouring vehicle which had parked over the boundary markings.
- From the driver’s position on the footway, the bay division was not visible, and there were no clear visual cues to indicate a change in restriction at that exact point.
- The nearest visible signage corresponded to pay-and-display parking, which the driver relied upon in good faith.
Furthermore, the layout of signage at this location does not appear to clearly indicate the precise point at which the restriction changes. Best practice, as set out in Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual, advises that where adjacent bays operate under different restrictions, signage should clearly mark the transition point. This does not appear to have been done here, which contributes to ambiguity for motorists.
Given:
- The valid parking payment made,
- The obscured and unclear bay markings,
- And the lack of clear indication of the restriction change point,
Given that a valid payment was made and the bay markings were unclear, I believe it would be fair and reasonable to cancel this PCN.”
-
Your mother* isn't at adjudication, she's yet to make risk-free informal reps which guarantee that the discount would be re-offered.
What I see as being the situation... Don't use it verbatim!
She parked; she saw the traffic sign ahead(as can be seen in the CEO's photos); she went to it and followed its directions, see payment receipt.She did not return to the car(parking rights being virtual).
She missed the end of bay marking because another car was parked on it as can be seen in the CEO's photo NB. not the one taken from the carriageway as my mother who is ** years old is not in the habit of wandering into the middle of the road to look at markings, but instead finds it safer to stay on the footway from which vantage point the markings were invisible because the grey car was wholly above them(if it had parked any closer to the kerb it would have been on the footway). Had the council followed best practice, including that set out in Chapter 3 of the Traffic Signs Manual, and placed a post with 2 signs on a single column indicating the point at which the restrictions changed then this issue would not have arisen.
I got her to try and take a good picture of the car obscuring the line but her camera skills aren't the greatest! Then I suggest you do it! You need the lines from the vantage point of the footway, in particular the 12-18 inches measured from the kerb.
-
The problem we have is that whilst the London Tribunals statutory register is on-line, it is not open for general searches, the items one can search on are limited. Have a look here: -
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/about/registers-appeals
The basic fact is that in a case like yours, the chances of success cannot really be judged; certainly it's not what I call a "slam-dunk" win. If you want to consider the matter, have a read of what the Earl of Montrose wrote: -
He either fears his fate too much,
Or his deserts are small,
That fears to put it to the touch
To win or lose it all.
-
Thank you for pointing this out. I have amended the pictures and they should be full images now.
Have you also seen cases like this that weren't successful at tribunal as well? Risking having to pay the full £160 is such a daunting feeling.
-
Your photos come up too small, and are unzoomable. Can you please adjust them so we can look at a larger image.
Looking on GSV, we see this all the time. The recommended signing of bays like this is to put the two signs for the two bays side-by-side on a single pole placed at the dividing (dashed) line separating the two bays. Each sign should then have an arrow to indicate applicability. Appeals at London Tribunal have won in the past on this, but you have to risk the full PCN penalty to find out.
-
Hi all :)
My mum had paid to park in what she thought was a pay and display zone, but saw this PCN on her car window when she exited the shops.
She then noticed that the double white line that separates the pay & display parking zone and the resident permit holders only parking zone was being obscured by the grey car you will see in the pictures in front of her. I got her to try and take a good picture of the car obscuring the line but her camera skills aren't the greatest!
Is there any way to appeal this? We have the receipt for her parking and it was a genuine mistake! I would appreciate any help you could give me.. £80 is an extortionate amount of money for this mistake!
Please let me know if you need any more information, or if any links aren't working. Thank you in advance!
Google Drive link with all pictures: https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/1HCPuGb-CCRnxNvb-EgGPChc8C4XUVAL7?usp=sharing
Link for map view - https://maps.app.goo.gl/qJtXitQW6HuGpuZZ8 her car was parked where the black 7 seater is.