Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Snowynight on August 05, 2026, 12:50:04 am
-
If you prove to the authority that you are the registered keeper then you may instruct them to use whatever address you choose for service of documents, including friends and relatives who can digitise anything that needs your attention. Then whether in Timbuktu or Telford, you could deal with this.
-
The next stage is the NTO which is sent to the registered keeper as per the logbook address.
If you check the PCN online do you get a status timeline?
-
Ok thanks. But also if I move overseas there might be problems/delays receiving the court letters, etc
-
Personal hearings these days are online or by telephone.
-
Thanks. I'm inclined to take it all the way. But I may not be able to attend a hearing as I don't live in Birmingham and may work overseas next year.. I suppose that would be a problem?
-
The process is that once you have the PCN in your hand, you can submit an informal challenge, then when this is rejected and you are the owner as per the V5C Registration Certificate, you can wait for them to serve a Notice to Owner. At this stage the discount period has expired. You can then submit a formal representation against the NtO. If this is rejected, you can then register an appeal with the adjudicators.
Sometimes, (and commonplace with London councils), they will re-offer the discount to encourage payment. This is because at the final, (adjudication), stage, the penalty remains the same, being the full PCN penalty. There are no additional costs whatsoever. So once a PCN recipient has received a rejection of reps against an NtO, with the full PCN penalty being demanded, it becomes a no-brainer to take the council to adjudication. If you lose you pay the PCN, and if you win you pay nothing. However, the council must pay the adjudication fee and also prepare an evidence pack as well.
-
Thanks guys.
Could you please advise on the process? I shall wait for the Notice to Owner? How long will it take? And if I make a formal representation and it's still rejected, what will happen next? Would it be £70 payable then?
-
Branston is in the same zone as Lionel.
The question is whether the council or the OP is in a pickle.
I'd say this is worth going on with as it's 'only' a £35 punt.
You're on your second day in a zone that you had no reason to clock the entry sign when entering as you first headed for a parking bay.
Diligently, you know you're in a CPZ and check the bays (not definitive but possibly indicative and see also the TSM guidance) but more significantly the website which says ambiguously and with no text on yellow line operation:
Jewellery Quarter zone charges and hours of operation
Charging hours are Monday to Saturday, 8:00am to 6:00pm, except Christmas Day and bank holidays.
-
Branston is in the same zone as Lionel.
-
I do think the council has a duty to enable people to check CPZ times in addition to seeking out an entry sign. They fail on this.
This case has something perhaps.
--------
Case reference 2260075177
Appellant xxxx
Authority London Borough of Camden
VRM KP69OYR
PCN Details
PCN CU71128312
Contravention date 15 Jun 2025
Contravention time 16:39:00
Contravention location Hawley Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked restricted street during prescribed hours
Referral date -
Decision Date 11 Aug 2026
Adjudicator Chez Cotton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons Introduction
1. The Appellant challenges a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued for being parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours (Code 01).
<ol start="2">
• This appeal was scheduled as an online hearing at which the Appellant appeared in person. The Enforcement Authority (EA) was not due to attend but instead provided their evidence electronically.
The Appellant’s case
<ol start="3">
• In initial representations to the EA the Appellant states
<ol start="4">
• For the appeal the Appellant states, ‘Camden’s Notice of Rejection relies on the statement that I “would have passed” CPZ entry signage and therefore should have known the restriction hours. This is an assumption, not evidence. I was using sat nav, I live around 70 miles away, and it was my first time in this area. I cannot confirm which CPZ entry point was used and I did not see any clear CPZ entry signage that conveyed the restriction hours. If Camden rely on CPZ entry signs, they must prove the specific entry point/route relied upon and that compliant CPZ entry signs were present, correctly positioned, and clearly visible at the material time/date. The materials provided with the rejection (CEO photos and a general CPZ entry-point map) do not prove this, nor do they show that restriction information was clearly conveyed at the location where I parked.’
<ol start="5">
• The Appellant further states, ‘My representations challenged that the restriction was not clearly/adequately conveyed. The Notice of Rejection does not show a proper consideration of the specific issues raised; it substitutes generic CPZ wording and an assumption that I must have passed signs. That is not a reasoned response to the representations made.’
<ol start="6">
• The Appellant further adds, ‘I ask the adjudicator to direct Camden to produce: (a) the relevant Traffic Management Order creating the restriction relied upon; (b) the CPZ sign schedule/location plan and evidence of compliance; (c) route/entry-point specific proof of CPZ entry signage presence/visibility on the date (dated photos, inspection/maintenance logs); and (d) the full CEO notes and complete photo set. If Camden cannot provide clear, route-specific evidence that the restriction was adequately signed and conveyed, the appeal should be allowed and the PCN cancelled.’
Enforcement Authority’s Case
<ol start="7">
• The Enforcement Authority (EA) rely on photographic evidence to show the contravention occurred. The EA says this shows the restriction is signed and clear, and, further, enforceable under a valid Traffic Management Order (TMO), a copy of which is provided. The EA confirm, ‘The contravention is covered in The Camden (Parking Places) (CA-F, Camden Town Area) (No. 1) Experimental Traffic Order 2024. The vehicle was parked on a single yellow line. The hours of control are between 8:30am to 11pm Monday to Friday and 9:30am to 11pm Saturday and Sunday. The Council is satisfied the road markings and signage conform to the requirements of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016.’
<ol start="8">
• The EA rely on the Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) records, which show checks were made at the relevant time and there was no relevant permit attributed to the Appellant’s vehicle.
<ol start="9">
• The EA has considered the Appellant's representations and respond, ‘The appellant states that the restriction was not adequately conveyed and has provided evidence of the no loading signage in place. However, the council would advise that the Highway Code states under rule 238 that drivers must not wait or park on yellow lines during the time of operation shown on nearby time plates (or zone entry signs if in a CPZ). The Council believe that the onus is on the driver to check and ensure that they have parked in accordance with the restrictions that are in place at any given location. The no loading restriction was not in force at the time the vehicle had parked.’
<ol start="10">
• The EA does not wish to exercise their discretion.
<ol start="11">
• The EA maintain the PCN was correctly issued.
Findings and Conclusion
<ol start="12">
• I have considered all materials presented by both parties. Although each piece of evidence may not be specifically referred to, it has contributed to, and informed, the decision I have made.
• I make the following findings of fact on a balance of probabilities.
<ol start="14">
• I am satisfied the EA considered the Appellant’s representations and the points the Appellant made in sufficient detail to allow for the basis of the refusal to be understood.
<ol start="15">
• The burden of proof initially rests with the EA to establish a prima facie case, including the existence and terms of the restriction relied on. The EA rely on the relevant location being within a Controlled Parking Zone (CPZ). Schedule 5 of the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2026 (TSRGD 2016) sets out provisions relating to CPZs. I am satisfied the TMO and supporting materials establish the statutory basis for the CPZ and allow the EA to enforce a contravention if one has occurred.
<ol start="16">
• Where a CPZ is in operation, it is necessary for the EA to properly sign entrance into the zone, so that a motorist is able to understand the restriction in place and avoid being in contravention.
<ol start="17">
• I accept the Appellant is unfamiliar with the area and used a satellite navigation system, and so was unable in the hearing to provide the exact route taken. However, the Appellant confirmed he travelled from Kent. Therefore, with the assistance of GoogleMaps, I was able to ascertain in the hearing, by using the ‘direction’ function ‘Kent to Hawley Road’ that it was likely that the Appellant had entered Hawley Road from Castlehaven Road, most likely from the Kentish Town Road side, and less likely, but possible, from the Chalk Farm Road side. Therefore, in the absence of the Appellant being able to provide the specific route he took I am satisfied, on balance, that one of these routes was taken.
<ol start="18">
• The question I must therefore decide, is whether the CPZ was adequately signed for a driver entering from either Kentish Town Road or Chalk Road. In this respect, I have considered the CPZ map and the corresponding CPZ signage. On balance, I am satisfied that the EA has produced sufficient evidence to show that each entry point into the CPZ has been signed. While I accept that some of the EA evidence shows that there is only one sign present, and one sign is obscured by trees, I am satisfied that these entry points were not likely to have been used by the Appellant.
<ol start="19">
• Therefore, I am satisfied that on either route into the CPZ I have found it likely the Appellant took the CPZ was in place and would have been passed getting to Hawley Road where the Appellant parked.
<ol start="20">
• It is finely balance but having considered the size of the roads on which the CPZ signs are placed, the level of traffic, and the size of Hawley Road, and taking into account the distance from the CPZ signage to where the Appellant was parked, I am unable to satisfy myself that a reasonably careful motorist would have been able to notice and digest the signage information. Taking into account the specific location, on balance, I consider it would not be realistic for a reasonably careful motorist to remember the times of operation of the zone, at the distance from the CPZ signage that the Appellant’s vehicle was parked.
<ol start="21">
• I consider this difficulty was compounded by the loading/unloading restriction signage, that the Appellant took to be the relevant signage for the location. I consider this is a conclusion a reasonably careful motorist would come to.
<ol start="22">
• Therefore, taking these factors into account, I find a contravention did not occur and the PCN has not been validly issued to the Appellant.
Decision
<ol start="23">
• The appeal is allowed.
-
I drove into the zone the evening before and parked in a bay in Branston street to stay overnight at xxxxxx.
Yes, the driver moved within the zone. There was no sign on Lionel Street, so the driver had to check the council website, which is misleading.
IMO, incorrect I'm afraid or, if true, your grounds of representation.
Either Branston was within the same CPZ as Lionel or not.
If yes, then the same restrictions would apply and as the driver already knew the Branston restriction then they knew Lionel and no further discovery was needed;
or,
If not, then wherever the driver entered the 'Lionel' CPZ would, according to the council, have been signed. Was it? If yes, then the driver wasn't paying attention, if not then you win if you can prove this.
-
Hi, I’ve received a rejection from the council below. They didn’t mention their website at all :(
What should I do now?
“
Thank you for your enquiry concerning the Penalty Charge Notice detailed above.
I have given careful consideration to the circumstances you have described but
regret that there are not sufficient grounds for the notice to be withdrawn.
The Penalty Charge Notice was issued to your vehicle because it was observed parked on a single yellow line when restrictions were in force. These restrictions are indicated at the entrance to the Controlled Parking Zone, which operates Monday to Sunday between the hours of 8:00am to 6:00pm.
I have noted all your comments concerning a lack of sufficient signage in this area.
However, I can confirm that there are signs situated at all entry points into the Controlled parking Zone. It is unclear from your letter which route you would have taken into Lionel Street and therefore I would be unable to detail exactly which sign you would have passed. Nevertheless when entering the City Centre from any direction the motorist will pass a Controlled Parking Zone time plate. Therefore, In view of this there is no requirement for plates to be erected on each location within the zone as the times on the entry zones apply.
I would advise you that Controlled Parking Zone signs are used throughout the country and are common to most city centres. These signs are shown in the Highway Code (of which all motorists should be familiar) along with clear information advising that the zone entry signs indicate the times when the waiting restrictions within the zone are in force.
Motorists may also find out more information concerning Controlled Parking Zones on the Department for Transportation web site at www.dft.gov.uk/pgr/roads.
I have noted your comments that you read the information on the Pay and Display
machine. However, as previously explained, the Notice was issued to your vehicle because it was observed parked on a single yellow line. The information indicated on the Pay and Display machine applies to Pay and Display bays only.
I have noted your comments concerning you not understanding the sign at the location. However, whilst I appreciate the circumstances you have described, I would advise you as part of learning to drive and passing your vehicle test, drivers are required to learn the Highway Code. The Highway Code includes information on road
signs, road markings, vehicle markings and road safety. These markings and signs
are approved by the Department of Transport and used throughout the Country.
I have noted all your comments and whilst I appreciate the circumstances that resulted you parking at this location. I must advise you that it is the responsibility of the motorist to ensure that all parking restrictions are observed and signage is checked prior to parking the vehicle, ensuring that the vehicle is parked in a place not
causing a contravention. In this instance it would have been advisable to have arranged parking where a contravention would not have occurred.
I regret, therefore, that I am unable to withdraw the notice and must request payment
be forwarded in settlement of the matter.
In accordance with Birmingham City Council’s Discretion Policy, each case is judged
on its own merits, taking into account any compelling circumstances. The decision to
enforce this case has therefore been made in accordance with this policy which can
be viewed on www.birmingham.gov.uk/pcn.
You may still take advantage of the reduced charge of £35.00 if payment for the
Penalty Charge Notice is received by the 03/09/2026, BUT the discounted rate is not
available after this date and the full charge of £70.00 will be due if payment is not
received in time.
If you would like to make payment by credit or debit card, please telephone 0121 667
4964, (call charges from mobiles will vary), this service is available 24 hours a day, 7
days a week, or pay on-line www.birmingham.gov.uk/PCN. Please have the Penalty Charge Notice number and your credit card details available.
Alternatively, cheques or Postal Orders should be made payable to ‘Birmingham City
Council (Highways)’ and forwarded to Birmingham City Council, PO Box 77
Birmingham B4 7WA, quoting the Penalty Charge Notice number.
Cash payments can be made at any PayPoint outlet if this letter has a barcode printed
on it. Please take care that the barcode does not become damaged as it may become
unreadable. There is no charge for this service.
If you choose not to send payment in response to this letter, but wish to challenge the
matter further and you are the registered keeper of the vehicle, please wait until the
formal Notice to Owner is sent to you. This letter offers the opportunity to make a formal
representation against the Penalty Charge Notice. Legislation requires the Council to
send a formal Notice to Owner to the registered keeper of the vehicle if payment is not
made in relation to the Penalty Charge Notice. If you are not the keeper, formal
representations may still be made on your behalf by contacting the registered keeper
of the vehicle.
Please Note: It is not possible to enter into any further correspondence until a
formal representation is received in response to the Notice to Owner. Any
additional correspondence received from you prior to the Notice to Owner being
issued will therefore not receive a reply but will be considered should any formal
representation be received in response to the Notice to Owner.
The Traffic Management Act 2004 sets out the following statutory grounds on which
representations may be made:
1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. The alleged contravention did not occur.
I was never the owner of the vehicle in question/ or
I had ceased to be its owner before the date on which the alleged contravention
occurred/ or
I became its owner after the date on which the alleged contravention occurred.
The vehicle had been permitted to remain at rest in the place in question by a
person who was in control of the vehicle without the consent of the owner.
We are a vehicle-hire firm and the vehicle was on hire under a hiring agreement
and the hirer had signed a statement acknowledging liability for any PCN issued
during the hiring period.
The penalty charge exceeded the amount applicable in the circumstances of the
case.
There has been a procedural impropriety by the enforcement authority
The Order which is alleged to have been contravened in relation to the vehicle
concerned is invalid.
This Notice should not have been served because the penalty charge had
already been paid:
(i) in full; or
(ii) at the discounted rate within the time specified in paragraph (3) of Schedule
3 to the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Approved
Devices, Charging Guidelines and General Provisions) (England)
Regulations 2022.
If there are any other reasons why you consider the Council should cancel the
penalty charge notice and refund any sum already paid.
If you make a representation and it is accepted, the Penalty Charge Notice will be
withdrawn. If not, the full amount of £70.00 will become due, unless you wish to make
an appeal. Full details will be given to you of the appeals procedure, which allows a
case to be heard by an independent adjudicator at the Traffic Penalty Tribunal. The
Traffic Penalty Tribunal is an independent tribunal service where impartial lawyers
consider appeals by motorists.
If this response has been sent via email please note it is from an account that is not
monitored.
Yours sincerely
”
-
Thanks very much @stamfordman!
I'll also include links to the council website and the guidance and attach photos and screenshots if possible.
-
My thoughts on this:
I am challenging the PCN because you have not provided information that allows a diligent motorist to check the single yellow line restriction times. As such the contravention did not occur owing to failure to provide clear information compliant with guidance.
I drove into the zone the evening before and parked in a bay in Branston street to stay overnight at xxxxxx.
I then moved the car to Lionel Street the next day as I wanted to be closer to the city centre.
I checked the restrictions for the parking bay and the zone times on your website and both say the restriction applies 8am-6pm Monday-Saturday and not Sunday. Your website is explicit that these are the operational hours of the Jewellery Quarter controlled parking zone.
There was no reason to suppose the yellow line was not similarly restricted and the only way I could have found out was finding an entry sign I could have passed in the dark the evening before.
You have a duty to avoid confusion among restrictions according to guidance in the Traffic Signs Manual, especially in a large controlled parking zone such as this. Here, the Sunday control, only for the yellow lines, is not stated on your controlled zone website page, and the manual is clear that confusion is likely where parking bays in these zones operate at different times to the CPZ entry as they are often the same.
I look forward to cancellation of the PCN.
-
How should I write the representation? Thanks
-
Thanks. Yes, the driver moved within the zone. There was no sign on Lionel Street, so the driver had to check the council website, which is misleading.
And yes, I am the keeper.
-
I think their website map is seriously misleading but I don't think we've got as far as the tribunal on this before.
The size of the zone is a factor.
Ans was the car moved within the zone?
-
Don't get your hopes up too high, the manual is guidance in this respect!
The driver is either correct in that the waiting restriction mirrors the parking bay times or they're not.
It's either correctly signed(remotely from the location) or it's not.
The driver can assert that they're correct and test the council, for free inside the 14-day period, and see what follows.
Are you the registered keeper with current DVLA details?
-
Please see main images from the CEO below:
(https://i.ibb.co/LDpqjCM9/IMG-9156.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/C3QFDHYT/IMG-9157.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/jZxhmmRX/IMG-9158.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/KxZ0HW1G/IMG-9159.jpg)
-
Thanks.
The car was parked in a bay on a different street (Branston street) overnight as the accommodation was there. On Sunday it was moved to Lionel Street on a single yellow line as the driver was visiting the city centre area.
Can access and share the council pictures later if needed.
The manual looks encouraging!
-
I'll help you draft it.
You say you were in a bay but the contravention is for a yellow line? Did you move the car and why?
You've blanked the detals so we can't check the council pics.
The traffic signs manual warns about confusion:
14.1.14. As the times shown on the entry signs generally coincide with those applying to
parking places as well as to the yellow line waiting restrictions, drivers might take signs at
on‑street parking places as a reminder of the times when waiting is prohibited. This would be
confusing where parking places operate at different times (e.g. 24‑hour permit parking in a zone
that does not operate for 24 hours). In such cases, conventional signing might be preferable to
the introduction of a zone.
-
Thank you!
Hm, it is confusing/deceptive! The driver entered the zone the night before (when it was dark and the restrictions were not active) but can't remember the exact road. Car was parked in a bay on Branston Street.
On Sunday the driver looked for signs on Lionel Street but there seems none (only those "pay at machine" signs). The prominent "No Charge on Sunday" text on the parking metre creates a visual trap, so the driver deduced that there is no Sunday parking constraint!
Would like to try a representation. How should we write it? Thanks
-
Birmingham is deceptive with its CPZs and really should be forced to change its website.
I can't recall if we've been successful in challenging a yellow line PCN on this but if you want to punt £35 you can have a go.
This CPZ is Mon-Sun 8am-6pm so also check your route for the entry sign or signs - they must be clear.
It says 'Everyday' which may be wrong wording.
(https://i.ibb.co/3mkfWLFV/Screenshot-2026-08-05-at-10-47-05.png)
-
What you've given us are the charging hours for parking bays in the Jewellery Quarter. The single yellow lines may be restricted the whole week. You need to find the entrance sign to the zone where you entered the zone.
-
Got a PCN on windscreen around 13:40 for parking on the single yellow line outside the Ibis Hotel at 65 Lionel Street on Sunday, from Birmingham City Council - code 01 parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours:
(https://i.ibb.co/LdDm4VXz/IMG-9144.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/VXf0BFN/IMG-9141.jpg)
Based on the map from the council website https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/20109/parking/413/street_parking, Lionel street is in the Jewellery quarter zone. And from https://www.birmingham.gov.uk/info/20109/parking/413/street_parking/4, the hours of operation are Monday to Saturday - 8:00am to 6:00pm.
(https://i.ibb.co/HQHhFRx/IMG-9151.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/PscYbQmJ/IMG-9152.png)
There is no clear sign on the street or at the road entrance. The driver checked the parking metre nearby which also shows the same hours and no charge on Sundays (see the photo). There are parking bays but were all full at the time. Based on the above info, I think it’s outside the hours of operation and should be free to park on the single yellow line on Sunday? What do you think?
How should I appeal? Thanks in advance.