Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: almep13 on April 20, 2026, 01:44:30 pm
-
Good morning Tincombe,
The BB holder was on its own and wanted to get through the gate to the residential parking. As the gate was indicated as "malfunctioning" considering the red/white stripes ribbon, the BB holder stopped the car where the alleged contravention took place to assess the gate. The BB holder didn't see the warden/ CEO as the car would have been behind the back of the BB holder assessing the gate.
The BB holder genuinely believed that someone in its position may park there for up to three hours (max limit for parking on DBL) as no restrictions are indicated and other BB holders tend to park time to time in that spot.
The BB holder was probably away from the car for 5-10 min. But the time indicator was shown as 10:30am and the PCN was issued at 10:31am. It seems that while the BB holder was assessing the gate and unaware what was going on behind its back, the CEO issued the PCN. It seems like the CEO has taken max two minutes to take pictures and issue the PCN.
Here are links to the front and back side of the PCN attached to the screen of the car.
https://imgpile.com/p/Rd06rqd#tEUYT9A - front side
https://imgpile.com/p/Rd06rqd#uweJUeY - back side
Thank you and kind regards,
Almep13
-
'..the car was stopped to check the electronic entrance gate..'?
Where's the PCN pl?
You have said that the driver and passenger(who holds a BB) were in the vehicle which you then parked, both of you exited, apparently for a purpose associated with an electronic gate, and that ???
You managed to open the gate, went inside and left the vehicle or what? Away from the vehicle for ** minutes?
Saw or didn't see the CEO?
I suggest you start at the beginning and not the condition of DKB?
-
Good evening Incandescent, Hippocrates, Tincombe, Stamfordman and others.
I hope you are all well and thank you so much for your views, I really appreciate.
My representation was mainly on the three points below, which can also be found on the attached links:
i) No contravention occurred;
ii) (Lack of) Restrictions on Canham Road based on list of restrictions across Ealing Borough as per its website.
iii) Unfair treatment of Blue Badge holders.
https://imgpile.com/p/bSdRplK#TwB9UKx - first part of the representation
https://imgpile.com/p/bSdRplK#4tCoZrx - 2nd part
For completeness I'm also attaching on the same post their initial decline and then the second decline following my email to Ealing Parking Services that there are no visible restrictions on Canham Road.
https://imgpile.com/p/rJWJ1SC#OuIvUI0 - first decline letter
https://imgpile.com/p/yfns4Xo#8c0MJLL - 2nd decline letter, part 1
https://imgpile.com/p/yfns4Xo#Bit7Z0c - 2nd decline letter, part 2
Thank you and have a good night.
Kind regards,
Almep13
-
I really don't think there is anything substantially compliant here. It isn't necessary to go into detail. I would be inclined to make these reps.
------
I am repeating my challenge that the contravention did not occur.
You persist in saying the double yellow lines at this location have yellow stripes and no loading signs, but neither are in clear evidence in your pictures and nor were they visible to me when I parked in good faith as I was displaying my blue badge and clock.
As you are no doubt aware any signage must be compliant and clear, and whatever you rely on here is not.
I trust you will at least check this location for compliance rather than reject again and look forward to your cancellation this time.
-
OP, unfortunately 'substantially compliant' is subjective and there will be views. But for you only one view counts, and you cannot ask that person here.
For your benefit, I will try and break down the issue.
IMO, the matter wholly turns on whether the council has placed 'on or near the road .. such traffic signs in such positions as the order making authority may consider requisite for securing that adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road;' because if an adjudicator disagrees then the burden on the council of proving the contravention has not been met and your appeal would be allowed.
In this case the 'traffic signs' are DYL and double kerb blips. In both cases, substantial compliance with the Traffic Signs etc. Regs. is the standard. It is also recommended that DKB be placed between 2 and 4m apart, preferably 3m, so that in every circumstance a driver must park alongside one or 2 sets of DKB because there won't be an upright sign to consult.
Here, the authority is focusing on a single set of DKB, and if you know where to look, because it's front and centre in a photo, then arguably it's visible.
But IMO what is unarguable from their perspective is that the DKB are not as visible as the DYL and if one was looking for another marking with equal prominence, then you would be likely to not see the DKB. And given that these markings come in pairs i.e. DYL and DKB then, IMO, in order to ensure that adequate information as to the [combined] effect of the Order is made available' the council should ensure that equal prominence is given to both parts AND that the DKB are spaced as recommended in the Traffic Signs Manual, Chapter 3. I cannot see another DKB in view.
IMO, make reps but flesh out and not just state 'substantial compliance'.
-
What was the original informal challenge? Apart from that, the signage is pants and clearly not maintained or even substantially compliant.
-
Your point (ii) is not correct. Procedural impropriety is defined in the Regulation 2(2) and 2(3) :-
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348232752/regulation/2
(2) A “procedural impropriety” means a failure by an enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by—
(a)the TMA 2004,
(b)the 2022 General Regulations, or
(c)these Regulations,
in relation to the imposition or recovery of a penalty charge or other sum.
(3) For the purposes of paragraph (2) such a failure includes, in particular, the taking of any step, whether or not involving the service of any document, otherwise than—
(a)in accordance with the conditions subject to which, or
(b)at the time or during the period when,
it is authorised or required by the 2022 General Regulations or these Regulations to be taken.
-
Good evening,
I hope you are all well and enjoying the weather.
I have just received this morning the Notice to Owner (NtO) as per links below.
I believe the two grounds of appeal would be: i) no contravention occurred (no restrictions in place and BB permit displayed); and ii) procedural impropriety (Council shouldn't have issued a PCN and continue to pursue payment as point (i) did not occur.
Is there any other points / impropriety that you can spot from the NtO attached?
https://imgpile.com/p/0Uihp76#ucZwAtN (page 1)
https://imgpile.com/p/0Uihp76#plDCcn1 (page 2)
https://imgpile.com/p/0Uihp76#sxYEatU (page 3)
https://imgpile.com/p/0Uihp76#XRUVt8y (page 4)
https://imgpile.com/p/0Uihp76#sCLiBlQ (page 5)
https://imgpile.com/p/0Uihp76#GhEOVxi (page 6)
Thank you in advance for your views.
Kind regards,
Almep13
-
Good evening,
I hope the hot weather is somehow bearable.
I wrote an email to Ealing Parking Services questioning their decision and claim of double stripes on the kerb.
They responded iterating the same claim. I attach the pictures of the latest response.
I'm letting it pass by until they issue Notice to the Keeper.
Thank you for your views and take care of yourselves.
https://imgpile.com/p/yfns4Xo#8c0MJLL
https://imgpile.com/p/yfns4Xo#Bit7Z0c
Kind regards,
Alemp13
-
Good evening Stamfordman,
thank you for the advice.
Yes, logbook is updated with name and address, thanks.
Kind regards,
Almep13
-
Next stage is the notice to owner. I would wait for that and we'll help you make the representation.
Is the logbook up to date with correct name and address.
-
Good evening,
I hope you are well.
I challenged the PCN and they emailed yesterday with the decision to reject the appeal.
I attach their response for your attention.
They refer to yellow stripes and white "No loading" signs, but I can't see any of them from the pictures they have taken.
Are there any other grounds I can use? What's your view of the chances of a successful appeal at London Tribunals?
https://imgpile.com/p/rJWJ1SC#OuIvUI0
Thank you in advance for your opinions.
Thanks and regards,
Almep13
-
Good evening Stamfordman and Incandescent,
That is my view too - no sign and no double blips to indicate contravention 02 for loading/ uploading in restricted area.
Thank you for your views, I appreciate it.
Kind regards,
Almep13
-
Going back in time I can't see any freshly painted blips and it isn't obvious there has ever been no loading here.
Traffic Signs manual says:
As the double kerb mark has only one meaning, authorities may decide that adequate guidance is given without “No loading at any time” upright signs or with fewer such signs. However, this could lead to enforcement difficulties, particularly as marks of this type usually need frequent maintenance.
Even if a sign was there this looks hopeless for Ealing.
-
Kerb blips are there on GSV, but VERY worn.
https://maps.app.goo.gl/2HVRgdXiQqxQWgfVA
Is a sign needed for double-blips ?
-
There are no obvious kerb blips prohibiting loading in their pics and for some reason there are pics of the BB badge and clock which are not relevant for an 02 contravention.
No pic of a no loading sign too.
I'd say no contravention.
No blips clear at all on Maps view:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/3zkZM9T62oUU4T9y5
(https://i.ibb.co/Txr9Hb4w/Screenshot-2026-04-20-at-14-20-10.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/3m6JnBH1/Screenshot-2026-04-20-at-14-20-02.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/fGtXyjv8/Screenshot-2026-04-20-at-14-19-56.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/4ZtmdB6M/Screenshot-2026-04-20-at-14-19-48.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/dsLz2Gr5/Screenshot-2026-04-20-at-14-20-33.png)
-
Dear Forum members,
I hope you are well.
The driver, a Blue Badge holder, parked on double yellow line in Canham Rd, W3 (Ealing borough) believing not to be any restrictions for loading/ unloading as there are no signposts or any kerb signs indicating such restrictions.
Looking at the time indicated in the BB and pictures taken by the traffic warden, it seems that the warden had issued the PCN within very brief moment the car being parked (10:30am to 10:31am).
I include the following:
PCN ref - AO09495858;
VRN - LV68UTB;
and the link below so that pictures taken by the warden can inform your views of potential appeal grounds.
https://ealing.tarantoportal.com/PCN
My personal view is that Councils and their subcontractors issue such PCNs hoping and knowing that not many would appeal and even if those who appeal, some will be discouraged to continue appealing to the Tribunal by the threat of having to pay the full amount if their appeal is not upheld.
Thank you for your invaluable views.
Kind regards,
Almep13