Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: mysterymoustacheman on April 25, 2026, 01:46:58 pm
-
OP, I appear to have my Appeals references mixed up.
I have rewritten below:
I would refer the adjudicator to the council's decision notice which states the following:
'You have the right to appeal...before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service[of the notice]'
and:
At that stage[that is prospective service of a Charge Certificate on expiry of the 28-day period] you have no further opportunity to appeal'
This is grossly misleading.
The requirement of Appeals Regulation 6(6)(iii) is that a decision notice must:
(iii)describe the form and manner in which an appeal to an adjudicator must be made,
This is set out in Regulation 7 which I have set out in full:
Appeal to an adjudicator against a decision to reject a recipient’s representations
7.—(1) A recipient may appeal to an adjudicator against an enforcement authority’s decision not to accept their representations.
(2) An appeal under this regulation must be made within—
(a)the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service of the decision notice under regulation 6(4)(b) which states that the enforcement authority does not accept the recipient’s representations, or
(b)such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.
Regulation 7(2) contains two distinct but complementary elements namely an appellant's statutory right and the right to submit, and for the adjudicator to accept, an appeal made late. I would submit that both elements are of equal importance as regards 'the form and manner in which an appeal to the adjudicator must be made'.
The council's decision notice not only omits Regulation 7(2)(b), it compounds this by stating that 'At that stage [the service of a Charge Certificate after 28 days]you have no further opportunity to appeal.
I ask the adjudicator to find that the decision notice is defective in this regard and that this is a procedural impropriety. I would add that, should the authority respond to this by reference to the tribunal form [referred to as an 'information sheet'] enclosed with the notice, I submit that this is not part of the notice, it is as they say an information sheet prepared by the tribunal to assist appellants and does not relieve the authority of its duty under regulation 11(in fact in some material respects it contains information contrary to regulation 13, but as this is purely an administrative document which attempts to capture the tribunal's practice as well as give an overview of the appeals process, nothing lies against the tribunal because of this).
The authority's failure to give 7(2)(b) is as improper as would be a failure to state 7(2)(a).
-
If a hearing does go ahead the adjudicator won't look at all grounds if they find on one and the lack of the entry sign is likely to be the simple one to assess first and cut and dried and Bob's your uncle.
-
Just to be clear as well, they did not include this information sheet with their decision letter. Not sure how that would affect this or how I would prove it, but I'll also add that as another additional point.
A decision notice(commonly referred to as Notice of Rejection of Representations) must comply with Appeals Regulation 11.
But it doesn't.
The fundamental element of a NOR is to advise the owner of their rights of appeal. Appeals Reg 13 gives these i.e. a statutory right, providing an appeal is submitted within the 28-day period AND the opportunity to submit a late appeal which at their sole discretion the adjudicator may register.
Two complementary elements, IMO both as important as the other.
How dare the council not notify you correctly, even worse to purport to remove the adjudicator's power just because the council might issue a CC 'at this stage you would have lost...b******s!!).
-
This looks hopeless for them. I'll be surprised if they contest it.
-
Thanks, exactly what I wanted to see.
Grounds of appeal
at least Procedural impropriety
I would refer the adjudicator to the council's decision notice which states the following:
'You have the right to appeal...before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service[of the notice]'
and:
At that stage[that is prospective service of a Charge Certificate on expiry of the 28-day period] you have no further opportunity to appeal'
This is grossly misleading.
The first requirement of Appeals Regulation 11 is:
11(a): [the decision notice must] inform R of R’s right to appeal to an adjudicator under regulation 13,
As the adjudicator will know, as regards appealing to the adjudicator, Regulation 13 provides:
An appeal under this regulation must be made within—
2(a)the period of 28 days beginning with date of service of the decision notice under regulation 12(4)(b) informing P of P’s right to appeal under this regulation, or
(b)such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.
The decision notice omits 13(2)(b) in its entirety. However, I submit that as the regulation does not distinguish between the importance of these complementary provisions, then neither may the authority: the right of an owner to request that the adjudicator accept a late submission, and the adjudicator's corresponding power in this regard, is as fundamental as '28 days...'.
I ask the adjudicator to find that the decision notice is defective in this regard and that this is a procedural impropriety. I would add that, should the authority respond to this by reference to the tribunal form [referred to as an 'information sheet'] enclosed with the notice, I submit that this is not part of the notice, it is as they say an information sheet prepared by the tribunal to assist appellants and does not relieve the authority of its duty under regulation 11(in fact in some material respects it contains information contrary to regulation 13, but as this is purely an administrative document which attempts to capture the tribunal's practice as well as give an overview of the appeals process, nothing lies against the tribunal because of this).
The authority's failure to give 13(2)(b) is as improper as would be a failure to state 13(2)(a).
Thanks a lot for this, I'll try and include it in on top of my other points.
Just to be clear as well, they did not include this information sheet with their decision letter. Not sure how that would affect this or how I would prove it, but I'll also add that as another additional point.
-
Thanks, exactly what I wanted to see.
Grounds of appeal
at least Procedural impropriety
I would refer the adjudicator to the council's decision notice which states the following:
'You have the right to appeal...before the end of the period of 28 days beginning with the date of service[of the notice]'
and:
At that stage[that is prospective service of a Charge Certificate on expiry of the 28-day period] you have no further opportunity to appeal'
This is grossly misleading.
The first requirement of Appeals Regulation 11 is:
11(a): [the decision notice must] inform R of R’s right to appeal to an adjudicator under regulation 13,
As the adjudicator will know, as regards appealing to the adjudicator, Regulation 13 provides:
An appeal under this regulation must be made within—
2(a)the period of 28 days beginning with date of service of the decision notice under regulation 12(4)(b) informing P of P’s right to appeal under this regulation, or
(b)such longer period as the adjudicator may allow.
The decision notice omits 13(2)(b) in its entirety. However, I submit that as the regulation does not distinguish between the importance of these complementary provisions, then neither may the authority: the right of an owner to request that the adjudicator accept a late submission, and the adjudicator's corresponding power in this regard, is as fundamental as '28 days...'.
I ask the adjudicator to find that the decision notice is defective in this regard and that this is a procedural impropriety. I would add that, should the authority respond to this by reference to the tribunal form [referred to as an 'information sheet'] enclosed with the notice, I submit that this is not part of the notice, it is as they say an information sheet prepared by the tribunal to assist appellants and does not relieve the authority of its duty under regulation 11(in fact in some material respects it contains information contrary to regulation 13, but as this is purely an administrative document which attempts to capture the tribunal's practice as well as give an overview of the appeals process, nothing lies against the tribunal because of this).
The authority's failure to give 13(2)(b) is as improper as would be a failure to state 13(2)(a).
-
Just to note that Regulation 18 (1)(b) of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, the council are under a duty to maintain signs for as long as they remain in force.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18
-
Where's the NOR page with the signature? Until we see this, we cannot be certain that you've posted everything.
As it stands, the NOR is defective and establishes grounds of 'procedural impropriety'.
Sure - here it is:
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/PhO7kN9_xl.jpg)
-
Where's the NOR page with the signature? Until we see this, we cannot be certain that you've posted everything.
As it stands, the NOR is defective and establishes grounds of 'procedural impropriety'.
-
Register the appeal now as there can be a long wait currently for hearings and opt for a telephone or online hearing.
-
Have you got your reps. I think there may be grounds to put them on notice of a costs claim at appeal.
Hi, unfortunately I did not keep a copy of my previous representations.
However, I was thinking of putting in a cost claim (assuming I'm successful of course) given that there have 4 cases successfully appealed at the independent London Tribunals (including 2 in the past 2 months) making pretty much exactly the same case as me, as well as because of the fact that I'm presenting much the same evidence as I did in my initial appeals.
-
Have you got your reps. I think there may be grounds to put them on notice of a costs claim at appeal.
-
I haven't read back but did you post any pics taken after the PCN of the road entrance?
But they seem to have nothing on an entry sign at that end and the NOR is defective in my view in not addressing this if you put this point up front in your reps.
The repeater sign has to repeat something!
Thanks for your response. I've posted 1 pic in this forum thread showing that there was no entry sign on the other end (i.e. right next to where I parked), and in my appeals I also noted this and added images of this.
-
I haven't read back but did you post any pics taken after the PCN of the road entrance?
But they seem to have nothing on an entry sign at that end and the NOR is defective in my view in not addressing this if you put this point up front in your reps.
The repeater sign has to repeat something!
Thanks for your response. I've posted 1 pic in this forum thread showing that there was no entry sign on the other end (i.e. right next to where I parked), and in my appeals I also noted this and added images of this.
-
I haven't read back but did you post any pics taken after the PCN of the road entrance?
But they seem to have nothing on an entry sign at that end and the NOR is defective in my view in not addressing this if you put this point up front in your reps.
The repeater sign has to repeat something!
-
Post the NORs pl.
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/3eWSbZp_xl.webp)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/3bFTWXT_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/DhTb9JN_xl.jpg)
-
Post the NORs pl.
https://imgpile.com/p/IISDp6D (https://imgpile.com/p/IISDp6D)
hhttps://imgpile.com/p/iYvvHwD (https://imgpile.com/p/iYvvHwD)
https://imgpile.com/p/fGifhIo (https://imgpile.com/p/fGifhIo)
-
Post the NORs pl.
-
Error
-
Hi all,
Just bringing up this case. Just to give you a timeline:
- I appealed the informal PCN, which they then rejected (as expected) using the reasons outlined earlier
- I appealed the notice to owner, which they also then rejected (as expected) similarly using the reasons outlined earlier
For the second rejection, they gave the following reasons:- They said "there are also signs when approaching the road which advises 'Permit Holders only past this point'", and used a GSV image of the other entrance of the road
- They also acknowledged that the additional time plates on the other side of the road (where I parked) are damaged, but said that it remains identifiable.
I plan to appeal this to the independent adjudicator, where I generally plan to cover the following:
- I entered Wycombe Road from the other end, where there is no entry sign. I plan to use a GSV image to prove this, on top of my own images. It is on the enforcing authority to adequately convey any parking restrictions to motorists, and given that I entered parked right next to this entrance, any parking restrictions were not adequately conveyed.
- Furthermore, the entry sign they refer to on the other side of Wycombe Road (from Woodford Avenue) is completely defaced/blacked out (I've taken my own images), so in my opinion there is no argument here that parking restrictions on this road are adequately conveyed.
- There are two black posts right next to where I parked, where one would typically expect any parking restrictions signs to be placed. However, these were both empty (I have GSV images and my own images to prove). I would again argue that any parking restrictions were not adequately conveyed.
- The defaced repeater sign that the CEO took a picture of is some way down the round and not at all near where I parked, and is it not uncommon that there are different restrictions on different sides of the same road. In the initial PCN, they've given no indication as to where this repeater sign is in relation to my parked car.
- Furthermore, across the whole road there are defaced repeater signs, many of them completely blacked out (I've taken images of these). Again, I would argue that the signage across the whole street is therefore not adequate and not clearly visible.
I would be grateful for any further advice on my planned appeal, if my wording is correct, how I could potentially improve it. And thanks for all the advice I received so far!
-
Thanks all for your advice, it's definitely made it a lot clearer to me how to navigate this appeal. I'll submit it this week and let you know how it goes with my arguments/evidence pack (though I suspect the informal appeal with the council will almost certainly be rejected).
-
Yes, IMO don't give the authority any opportunity to dodge the facts.
The authority will see the CEO's photos of the sign prescribed for a parking place with two wheels on the footway* but should compare this/these with my photos taken on ****, the day of the contravention, and ****. Not only do these show that the mandatory Permit Parking Area gateway signs were not present on the day, they're not there now either. And for good measure, GSV shows that they weren't present in Sept. 2024. The ONLY legal basis for enforcing a PPA is tnat prescribed signs are used i.e. advising motorists that any unmarked length of highway is a parking place reserved to the holders of permit(s) specified on the PPA sign.
Absent these signs, the council has no case and the PCN must be cancelled. If it is not, then I should make similar formal representations and if necessary appeal to the adjudicator at which hearing I should apply for costs. I should also complain to the council about its flagrant disregard for its legal duties.
Probably a bit OTT, but I get incensed when councils act in this way i.e. knowingly(it's part of a CEO's duties to report defective signage) fail in their duties.
-
Yes just to confirm, on the entrance that I entered through there was no PPA entry sign at all.
Image attached below.
And the image is from where please?
Contemporaneous(ish) images are the gold standard whereas dated GSV etc. gives them wiggle room - it wouldn't change the facts on the day, but we know what councils are like!
The image taken is the junction connecting Wycombe Road to Beehive Lane, the entrance through which I entered (and I parked just on the right as you enter). These are images I've taken today, but I also took images on the day that the PCN was given too (attached in the first set of images in the original post). If i were to use these as part of any appeal/challenge, should I ensure that these have metadata (i.e. date and time) in the frame of the image too?
The GSV Street View image can be found here: https://maps.app.goo.gl/yuotjKxnb51dJcNR9, though as you allude to, they're quite dated (from Sep 2024).
-
Yes just to confirm, on the entrance that I entered through there was no PPA entry sign at all.
Image attached below.
And the image is from where please?
Contemporaneous(ish) images are the gold standard whereas dated GSV etc. gives them wiggle room - it wouldn't change the facts on the day, but we know what councils are like!
-
I assumed the blanked sign was at the end the OP entered but if not the challenge is simple to change.
OP - do you have latest pics on the entry you came in on?
------------
I was puzzled to receive the PCN as there was no parking signs apparent when I drove into xxx road from xxx road and parked a few metres up on the right.
I have researched this and discovered it is supposed to be a permit parking area, but I've been back and there is no zone entry sign and so the parking restriction cannot be enforced.
I look forward to early cancellation of the PCN and presume you will take steps to install a sign now I have drawn your attention to it.
Thanks for the responses and advice all, it's much appreciated.
Yes just to confirm, on the entrance that I entered through there was no PPA entry sign at all.
Image attached below.
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/cnvFhEU_xl.jpg)
-
I assumed the blanked sign was at the end the OP entered but if not the challenge is simple to change.
OP - do you have latest pics on the entry you came in on?
------------
I was puzzled to receive the PCN as there was no parking signs apparent when I drove into xxx road from xxx road and parked a few metres up on the right.
I have researched this and discovered it is supposed to be a permit parking area, but I've been back and there is no zone entry sign and so the parking restriction cannot be enforced.
I look forward to early cancellation of the PCN and presume you will take steps to install a sign now I have drawn your attention to it.
-
OP, can we be clear: in your direction of travel there wasn't a sign, defaced or otherwise, yes?
-
I agree - the PPA entry sign must be clear. It isn't and a simple challenge on this basis enclosing your pic is all that's needed.
-----------
I was puzzled to receive the PCN as there was no parking signs apparent when I drove into xxx road from xxx road and parked a few metres up on the right.
I have researched this and discovered it is supposed to be a permit parking area, but I've been back and the entry sign has been blanked and so the zone parking restriction cannot be enforced.
I look forward to early cancellation of the PCN and presume you will take steps to reinstate the sign now I have drawn your attention to it.
-
The sign at the other entrance is not directly relevant to your case IMO - you didn't pass it, so it has no effect- but it's supportive in that it demonstrates that even the signs in situ are (regularly?) defaced.
IMO, the signage fails the adequacy test because at least one PPA entry sign in your direction of travel is mandatory because it's the only one which conveys that road markings are absent: repeaters don't, they're of the form mandated for marked bays!
-
OP, would you condense this pl, I'm well into my 70s and need all the help I can get.
On *** I entered and parked in Wycombe Road turning *** from Beehive Road;
I was issued with a PCN citing *******;
The council's evidence of signage is a single photo of a PPA repeater sign;
There is no PPA entrance sign in evidence;
In reality there is no sign at the junction with Beehive.
Yes?
Hi, yes I think you've pretty much summed it up quite clearly! It was for parking without a resident permit. I turned left into the Wycombe Road from Beehive Lane where there was no entrance sign indicating it was resident parking only (where the other entrance sign is completely blacked out).
Could this be appeal-worthy?
-
OP, would you condense this pl, I'm well into my 70s and need all the help I can get.
On *** I entered and parked in Wycombe Road turning *** from Beehive Road;
I was issued with a PCN citing *******;
The council's evidence of signage is a single photo of a PPA repeater sign;
There is no PPA entrance sign in evidence;
In reality there is no sign at the junction with Beehive.
Yes?
-
You have a case, but whether it is "pretty decent", I am reluctant to give an opinion, because it hinges on "adequacy". Regulation 18 (1)(a) of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996 says that councils must put up signs that give adequate information on the restriction. The problem with "adequate" is it is subjective. Your "inadequate" is the council's "adequate" and an adjudicator has to decide which one he agrees with.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18
Nothwithstanding the above however, you have the absolute right in law to take them to London Tribunals, but must risk the full PCN penalty if you do. There are no additional costs at LT, by the way. If you lose you pay the £160, and if you win, you pay nothing. The council must prepare an evidence pack, and also pay the adjudication fee as well, so they don't get all of the extra £80.
Your dilemma is described here by the Earl of Montrose
"He either fears his fate too much
Or his deserts are small
Who fears to put it to the touch
To win, or lose it all"
-
Two cases. Second one seems to be most relevant.
-----------------
Case reference 2240407660
Appellant Irfan Khan
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM GF72OWK
PCN Details
PCN AF07672880
Contravention date 17 Jul 2024
Contravention time 11:54:00
Contravention location Wycombe Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 08 Oct 2024
Adjudicator Cordelia Fantinic
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons 1. The Appellant attended by telephone. The Authority did not attend and had not been expected.
2. The Appellant described how he has been parking in Wycombe Road on a Sunday since at least 2020. The Appellant told me that he was not aware that there were any restrictions on Sundays until he received the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) that is the subject of his appeal.
3. The Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) photographs show the Appellant's vehicle parked in Wycombe Road on Sunday 17 July 2024. There are no road markings visible in the location in which the Appellant's vehicle was parked - neither a yellow line nor a bay marking. The CEO has taken a photograph of a sign, which states "Permit holders RA only" and has the symbol for a parking place where vehicles may be parked partially on the verge or footway. It is not possible to discern the location of this sign in relation to the Appellant's vehicle and the Authority has not provided any further evidence to indicate its location. The Appellant told me that the sign is on the other side of the road and some distance up.
4. I am not satisfied on the basis of the evidence before me that the Authority has proved that a contravention occurred. I accept the Appellant's submission that the sign was on the other side of the road and some distance. It is common that there are different restrictions on different sides of the same road, and where a motorist does not see any carriageway markings, as was the case here, it is important that the signage should be adequate and clearly visible. I do not find that was the case here. The Authority states that the Appellant was parked in a permit parking zone. I am not able to make a finding that this information was adequately conveyed to the Appellant on the evidence before me.
5. For the reasons set out above, this appeal is allowed.
------------
Case reference 2240524890
Appellant Volodymyr Kravchuk
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM EY06GCO
PCN Details
PCN AF0802511A
Contravention date 29 Sep 2024
Contravention time 15:42:00
Contravention location Wycombe Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 20 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons The Appellant did not attend this scheduled personal hearing, neither did any representative of the Enforcement Authority.
As previously explained, in such circumstances the Adjudicator will determine the appeal on the basis of the evidence previously produced by the parties.
A contravention can occur if a vehicle is parked in an on-street permit holder only parking place during controlled hours, without a valid permit.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was parked in this bay, or that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued to it, as shown in the photographs/digital images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The Appellant’s case is that there was no clear evidence signage regarding the restriction.
The Enforcement Authority have produced library images showing ‘beyond this point’ signs but the Appellant has produced moving images appearing to show that, entering from Beehive Lane, there is no sign on the empty post.
It does remain the responsibility of the motorist to check carefully on each occasion before leaving their vehicle, so as to ensure that they do so only as permitted and that this will remain the position for as long as the vehicle will be there. This includes making sure that they comply with all restrictions and prohibitions indicated by the signs. However, it is also the responsibility of the Enforcement Authority to ensure that restrictions and prohibitions are clearly signed so as adequately to inform the motorist of the requirements.
The Adjudicator is only able to decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence actually produced by the parties and applying relevant law.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
Thanks a lot for posting these, I really do appreciate it. Definitely look super useful!
Based on the second one, and considering the additional image that I've posted (and additional images/videos I have of the entry sign/repeaters being blacked out), do you reckon I have a pretty decent case against this PCN?
-
It's a permit parking area in the hatched area and there is a entry sign on Maps at one end. There must be one at the other end if you came that way. The small signs at the kerbside are only repeaters for the PPA.
[img width=756.6666870117188 height=657]https://i.ibb.co/tT9q0D7D/Screenshot-2026-04-26-at-11-12-24.png[/img]
[img width=756.6666870117188 height=657]https://i.ibb.co/gFP92Sd0/Screenshot-2026-04-26-at-11-13-10.png[/img]
Thanks for the response - I've linked an image below that I took earlier this week showing the entrance of this road from the other end. As I suspected was still the case (and has been for over a year), the entry sign is blacked out (on top of multiple repeaters on the street). Based on some of the historical cases you brought up, could I have decent case for this PCN getting cancelled? To quote some of the reasoning given by the adjudicator, could I argue that restrictions and prohibitions are not clearly signed so as adequately to inform the motorist of the requirements?
Also just to be clear - while there is an entry sign on one end of the road, there is definitely no entry sign on the other end of the road. I posted an image of that entrance in my original post, and it should also be possible to verify this on Google Maps as well.
Would be very grateful to hear your thoughts (and from anyone else who might be reading this!)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/8bJuXjS_xl.jpg)
-
There are these signs on GSV dated Sept 2024, just before the turn into Wycombe Road. The sign means "No Waiting" (aka "No Parking" )in the zone between the times shown.
Apologies, been a busy few days.
Thanks for the response - acknowledge that that sign is there. I don't really know the legislation around the area that that would sign be enforced upon, so would appreciate your thoughts on the below question:
- Wouldn't that sign apply only to that specific road? Or if it were to be enforced on the road that I parked on, wouldn't the contravention I'm committing then be something different (e.g. parked in a restricted street, or something else noted here - https://www.redbridge.gov.uk/media/ktfetw3c/parking-enforcement-policy.pdf)?
-
I entered from the Beehive Lane entrance, and there were no signs on entry, therfore thought is was safe to park.
-
Two cases. Second one seems to be most relevant.
-----------------
Case reference 2240407660
Appellant Irfan Khan
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM GF72OWK
PCN Details
PCN AF07672880
Contravention date 17 Jul 2024
Contravention time 11:54:00
Contravention location Wycombe Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 08 Oct 2024
Adjudicator Cordelia Fantinic
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons 1. The Appellant attended by telephone. The Authority did not attend and had not been expected.
2. The Appellant described how he has been parking in Wycombe Road on a Sunday since at least 2020. The Appellant told me that he was not aware that there were any restrictions on Sundays until he received the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) that is the subject of his appeal.
3. The Civil Enforcement Officer's (CEO's) photographs show the Appellant's vehicle parked in Wycombe Road on Sunday 17 July 2024. There are no road markings visible in the location in which the Appellant's vehicle was parked - neither a yellow line nor a bay marking. The CEO has taken a photograph of a sign, which states "Permit holders RA only" and has the symbol for a parking place where vehicles may be parked partially on the verge or footway. It is not possible to discern the location of this sign in relation to the Appellant's vehicle and the Authority has not provided any further evidence to indicate its location. The Appellant told me that the sign is on the other side of the road and some distance up.
4. I am not satisfied on the basis of the evidence before me that the Authority has proved that a contravention occurred. I accept the Appellant's submission that the sign was on the other side of the road and some distance. It is common that there are different restrictions on different sides of the same road, and where a motorist does not see any carriageway markings, as was the case here, it is important that the signage should be adequate and clearly visible. I do not find that was the case here. The Authority states that the Appellant was parked in a permit parking zone. I am not able to make a finding that this information was adequately conveyed to the Appellant on the evidence before me.
5. For the reasons set out above, this appeal is allowed.
------------
Case reference 2240524890
Appellant Volodymyr Kravchuk
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM EY06GCO
PCN Details
PCN AF0802511A
Contravention date 29 Sep 2024
Contravention time 15:42:00
Contravention location Wycombe Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 20 Jan 2025
Adjudicator Henry Michael Greenslade
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons The Appellant did not attend this scheduled personal hearing, neither did any representative of the Enforcement Authority.
As previously explained, in such circumstances the Adjudicator will determine the appeal on the basis of the evidence previously produced by the parties.
A contravention can occur if a vehicle is parked in an on-street permit holder only parking place during controlled hours, without a valid permit.
There appears to be no dispute that the vehicle was parked in this bay, or that the Penalty Charge Notice was issued to it, as shown in the photographs/digital images produced by the Enforcement Authority.
The Appellant’s case is that there was no clear evidence signage regarding the restriction.
The Enforcement Authority have produced library images showing ‘beyond this point’ signs but the Appellant has produced moving images appearing to show that, entering from Beehive Lane, there is no sign on the empty post.
It does remain the responsibility of the motorist to check carefully on each occasion before leaving their vehicle, so as to ensure that they do so only as permitted and that this will remain the position for as long as the vehicle will be there. This includes making sure that they comply with all restrictions and prohibitions indicated by the signs. However, it is also the responsibility of the Enforcement Authority to ensure that restrictions and prohibitions are clearly signed so as adequately to inform the motorist of the requirements.
The Adjudicator is only able to decide an appeal by making findings of fact on the basis of the evidence actually produced by the parties and applying relevant law.
Considering carefully all the evidence before me I cannot find as a fact that, on this particular occasion, a contravention did occur.
Accordingly, this appeal must be allowed.
-
It's a permit parking area in the hatched area and there is a entry sign on Maps at one end. There must be one at the other end if you came that way. The small signs at the kerbside are only repeaters for the PPA.
(https://i.ibb.co/tT9q0D7D/Screenshot-2026-04-26-at-11-12-24.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/gFP92Sd0/Screenshot-2026-04-26-at-11-13-10.png)
-
There are these signs on GSV dated Sept 2024, just before the turn into Wycombe Road. The sign means "No Waiting" (aka "No Parking" )in the zone between the times shown.
-
Hi, I was hoping to get some advice on a parking ticket that I recently got.
I was given a PCN by the council for parking on a 'resident permit only' street. The contravention code was 16: "Parked in a permit space or zone without a valid virtual permit or clearly displaying a valid permit".. However, in my opinion, the signage for this parking restriction is pretty poor. The first attached image, taken by the enforcement officer, shows that the sign is quite clearly defaced. Is there an argument that this sign is therefore unclear and not compliant with TSRGD 2016 (or any other similar argument)?
I've also attached an image of the entrance to the street - upon entering, there's no indication that this is a resident permit only street. I'm parked just behind the highway maintenance vehicle, so I wouldn't have passed any signs on lampposts (several of these are also similarly defaced) indicating that the street is resident permit parking only. The first sign indicating the requirement a permit is further down the street from where I'm parked, which I did not walk past as I went towards the entrance of the street after parking. Could I also have an argument on this basis as well? I've linked a Google Maps location of the street entrance below.
PCN Number: AF14045494
VRM: EO71 VOV
Images (link if below don't work: https://imgpile.com/p/H3TrcIz)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/WePGolp_xl.jpg)
(https://cdn.imgpile.com/f/tHjLZMY_xl.jpg)
Location:
https://maps.app.goo.gl/M8z4fCT3QFrpzsrz7
Thank you for your advice in advance!