Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: hot_chocolate on February 11, 2025, 09:30:11 am
-
What a collective c**k-up!
1. PCN - 9 Feb.
2. Informal reps - ??
3. Council rejection - 12 March
4. Re-offered discount ends - 27 March
5. NTO issued - 14 April, deemed served 16 April
6. Witness statement filed - 1 August
7 Revocation order issued - 1 August
8 Council 'reissued formal Notice of Rejection of your representation' - 19 August. This being a copy of their 12 March letter issued 5 weeks before the NTO!!
This is the Tribunal's Practice Direction where a WS has been reissued.
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Practice%20Direction%2003-2024%20on%20behalf%20of%20ETA%2028%20November%202024%20%28PWS%29.pdf
But it applies only where a lawful NoR has been served and not here where they refer to their response to informal reps as being a NoR.
This is such a chaotic mess that I'm not certain what options are open to you. Perhaps just an extra-procedural letter to Head of Parking pointing out their incredible failures and suggesting that they might want to draw a line under the whole sorry story?
Wait for others.
-
Ah, I must have just assumed it was the second option that I was meant to tick, since WF would be fully aware that I had already made a formal representation, and it was the rejection that I had not received. The new letter allows me to make another formal representation, and so I will respond like the first time, and take from there if they decide to reject it.
What?
You were advised to cite the grounds of 'Did not receive the Notice to Owner'.
Anyway, this is water under the bridge.
See what others think.
-
What?
You were advised to cite the grounds of 'Did not receive the Notice to Owner'.
Anyway, this is water under the bridge.
See what others think.
-
Thanks for the reply. I've attached the witness statement and the revocation order. I think I followed the instructions, and hope I haven't made a huge blunder :(
Appreciate the help.
We MUST see a copy of your witness statement and the revocation order from TEC.
Either you have boo-booed massively or WF have.
The order will tell us.
If it's WF then you're home and dry.
For reference, you were advised to submit the witness statement on the grounds that you did not receive the NTO.
-
We MUST see a copy of your witness statement and the revocation order from TEC.
Either you have boo-booed massively or WF have.
The order will tell us.
If it's WF then you're home and dry.
For reference, you were advised to submit the witness statement on the grounds that you did not receive the NTO.
-
Hi @stamfordman, @Pastmybest, @H C Andersen, and everyone else,
Hope you well!
My NTO just through the other day, by email - attached.
As always, most grateful for guidance on the two options.
Thanks and best wishes!
-
Shall I reply and say I did not receive my NTO?
'Reply', no, action, yes.
The instructions are clear in that you must complete the enclosed TE9 form and send to the Traffic Enforcement Centre using one of the methods offered. We recommend using email, copied to yourself to prove sending, with the completed TE9 attached.
Just tick 'I did not receive the NTO in question' and sign.
Super, just sent across by email with completed form, and copied myself in.
Will update once the next letter comes through, which I believe will be the NTO.
Thanks again.
-
Shall I reply and say I did not receive my NTO?
'Reply', no, action, yes.
The instructions are clear in that you must complete the enclosed TE9 form and send to the Traffic Enforcement Centre using one of the methods offered. We recommend using email, copied to yourself to prove sending, with the completed TE9 attached.
Just tick 'I did not receive the NTO in question' and sign.
-
Hi @stamfordman and @Pastmybest,
Hope you well!
Just received my OFR (attached).
Shall I reply and say I did not receive my NTO?
Thanks!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thank you @stamfordman and @Pastmybest - will share an update once the OFR arrives.
-
I agree with PMB - don't respond now, let the process play out.
Except it will be a witness statement you need to do for the order for recovery, which is much easier than a statutory declaration.
This will also give us much more time to make reps against a properly reissued NTO.
-
The next document you will receive will be an order for recovery that will allow you to make a statutory declaration to the effect that you did not receive the NTO whatever else complete this, the OFR and CC will then be cancelled and the council will need to send you a new one regardless of the council acting out of process you follow the steps. or it will end badly
-
Sorry had forgotten about this one - I'll have a look later today.
-
Are the name and address correct on the charge certificate.
The usual process is to wait for the order for recovery and then make a witness statement saying you didn't get the NTO, which will result in WF issuing a fresh NTO.
As you've been in touch you may as well see if they'll cancel the charge certificate and let you make reps but it's out of process.
Hi @stamfordman,
Received a letter in the post (attached) saying that they cannot sent a copy of the Notice to Owner, but I have 28 days from the 14/05/25 - seems like they moved the date forward by a month.
I can send a representation by email and have a couple of days to do this.
Would you suggest repeating the same points made in the appeal, perhaps with the addition that WFC provided an older traffic order as evidence (2019) rather than the more recent changes introduced at the same place?
As always, your advice is much appreciated. Thank you!
Hi everyone,
I'm considering replying tonight as follows. Any thoughts, as always, would be appreciated.
The bay in question appears to be a long, extended disabled bay with limited or unclear signage. Moreover, the markings outside number 26 suggest that part of the bay may have been revoked, and the vehicle was parked outside number 28, not within a clearly marked restricted area. I requested the relevant traffic order from Waltham Forest Council as soon as possible, and in response, they provided a Traffic Management Order dated 25 July 2019. However, according to the Live Traffic Orders UK website, the location outside No. 28 Clarendon Road has been designated as a residents' bay from 17 October 2022 to the present. Furthermore, The London Gazette (Notice ID: 4185144; Notice code: 1501, published 14 October 2022) confirms that the disabled bay outside No. 26 was formally removed under Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Acts. This evidence clearly shows that, at the time of the alleged contravention, my vehicle was lawfully parked in a residents' bay—not in a disabled bay as claimed.
-
Are the name and address correct on the charge certificate.
The usual process is to wait for the order for recovery and then make a witness statement saying you didn't get the NTO, which will result in WF issuing a fresh NTO.
As you've been in touch you may as well see if they'll cancel the charge certificate and let you make reps but it's out of process.
Hi @stamfordman,
Received a letter in the post (attached) saying that they cannot sent a copy of the Notice to Owner, but I have 28 days from the 14/05/25 - seems like they moved the date forward by a month.
I can send a representation by email and have a couple of days to do this.
Would you suggest repeating the same points made in the appeal, perhaps with the addition that WFC provided an older traffic order as evidence (2019) rather than the more recent changes introduced at the same place?
As always, your advice is much appreciated. Thank you!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Are the name and address correct on the charge certificate.
The usual process is to wait for the order for recovery and then make a witness statement saying you didn't get the NTO, which will result in WF issuing a fresh NTO.
As you've been in touch you may as well see if they'll cancel the charge certificate and let you make reps but it's out of process.
-
Hi @stamfordman,
Hope you're doing well.
I received a charge certificate in the post yesterday (attached), which said that a Notice to Owner had been sent on 14/04/25.
I didn't receive this in the post, but came to know that it had been sent when I checked the status of the PCN.
I sent Waltham Forest Council an email on 03/05.25 asking them to send me a digital copy of the Notice to Owner as I had not received it in the post.
The automated reply states, "This email will be logged on to the system and the PCN will remain on hold until we reply to you (this excludes appeals received at Warrant of Control stage. You will need to contact the relevant Enforcement Agency directly for assistance)."
I will give them a call on Monday to ask for the Notice to Owner to be resent so that I can respond to it.
What are your thoughts?
Thanks again!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thanks as always for the speedy response and guidance - much appreciated.
-
The traffic order is something we can download anyway from the traffweb site. The map tile just gives the pic below and you can see there is a disable bay outside no 12 as with the main map view.
But I would await the NTO.
As I said it can't be true there is a long extended disabled bay there with limited signage. And that bay outside 26 does look as though it was revoked. And you were outside 28.
(https://i.imgur.com/SAcQ2TR.png)
-
Hi @stamfordman,
Hope you're keeping well.
I got a reply from Waltham Forest today, which I've attached. They don't seem to have really answered the question, at least that's what it seems to me. They have shared a pdf link for a Traffic Management Order dating back to 25th July 2019, which I have also attached.
In my email, I asked the following:
To whom it may concern,
I have received your letter rejecting my informal representation.
Before I decide on how to proceed, could you send the traffic order that makes a disabled bay at the exact location my car was parked as soon as possible.
In their reply, the wrote:
As the Traffic Management Order is a large document we are unable to include it in this letter, however, if you use the following link you can access and read it. https://store.traffweb.app/walthamforest/documents/parkmap/sched/2019%20No_71%20WL%20FPP%20Consolidation%20final.pdf
Tried to look at the traffic order website again, and found some reference to disabled bays and the following Traffic Management Order, published 14th October 2022 and to come into effect 17th October 2022 ( https://store.traffweb.app/walthamforest/documents/parkmap/sched/T30b(22)%20-%20Made%20Traffic%20Orders%20(TMO)%20-%20Dis%20Batch%2012b%20(PCL%205b).pdf ) but I can't make sense of it!
Copied below, however, is what I wrote in my representation, which also refers to the same date.
According to the Live Traffic Orders UK website, the location where my vehicle was parked, outside No. 28 Clarendon Road, is designated as a residents' bay, effective from 17/10/2022 to the present day. Additionally, The London Gazette (Notice ID: 4185144; Notice code: 1501, published 14 October 2022) confirms that the disabled bay outside No. 26 was formally removed under Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Acts. This means that at the time of the alleged contravention, I was lawfully parked in a residents' bay, not a disabled bay as claimed.
Thanks as always!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Thanks for the suggestion - emailed.
-
You could email them and say that to consider your next step would they send the traffic order that makes a disabled bay at the exact location your car was parked.
-
Thanks for taking a look at their response. I noticed that they did not respond to the point about there being no disabled bay in that location according to their own data.
I guess I should wait then until they issue their NtO to make a formal representation.
Thanks again - will update once that comes through.
-
They say you were in a row of disabled bays (plural) which aren't marked/signed and which looks like nonsense to me - it would be very unusual to see such a thing in residential street.
We can't see an order other than residents bays.
There's something odd about this but I would be inclined to go on to see if they can produce an order.
-
Hi @stamfordman and everyone else,
An update on the PCN - they rejected it! I've attached their response.
Your guidance on how to respond will be most appreciated.
Thank you very much.
They will probably reject but their reply could be interesting.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
They will probably reject but their reply could be interesting.
-
Perfect. This is very helpful! Thanks for all the help.
-
I can't see any order for a disabled bay there.
I would just challenge saying:
The contravention did not occur as I was not parked in the disabled bay but in the resident's bay beyond it. I can see this in the picture taken by your CEO.
I have also looked at your traffic order map to confirm I was in a resident's bay and it seems I was indeed, and further that there is no disabled bay in that location according to your own data!
As this PCN has been issued in error I look forward to your early confirmation of cancellation.
-
Thanks again for your help! Really appreciate this.
I'd be grateful for some comments and guidance on the representation too.
-
Looks to me like the one outside no 26 was removed but another one put in outside no 28?
I can't see this on their traffic orders.
Indeed we can't see a divider on the CEO's pic but it does look like you may be clear of the bay.
I'll have another look for a disabled bay order here.
-
The CEO's photos seem to show clearly:
The word DISABLED marked on the road adjacent to your bay with the DI being a matter of a few feet ahead of your car;
That a transverse marking was not under your car nor between the front of your car and the word DISABLED.
-
@stamfordman How does the following representation sound?
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally appeal the Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) [PCN Number] issued to my vehicle [Vehicle Registration] on [Date] for allegedly parking in a disabled bay on Clarendon Road, E17. I believe this PCN was issued in error, and I respectfully request its cancellation based on the following grounds:
(1) Incorrect Contravention – Parking in a Residents' Bay
According to the Live Traffic Orders UK website, the location where my vehicle was parked, outside No. 28 Clarendon Road, is designated as a residents' bay, effective from 17/10/2022 to the present day. Additionally, The London Gazette (Notice ID: 4185144; Notice code: 1501, published 14 October 2022) confirms that the disabled bay outside No. 26 was formally removed under Schedule 2 of the Road Traffic Acts. This means that at the time of the alleged contravention, I was lawfully parked in a residents' bay, not a disabled bay as claimed.
(2) Insufficient Evidence from the Enforcement Officer
The images taken by the enforcement officer do not conclusively show that my vehicle was within a disabled bay. Crucially:
- The officer did not provide images showing the start and end markings of the bay to confirm its designation.
- There is no image of any signage proving that this was a disabled bay or that restrictions applied at the time.
Given that the photographic evidence is incomplete and does not support the alleged contravention, this PCN is not enforceable.
In light of the above, I kindly request the cancellation of this PCN. I have attached supporting evidence, including screenshots from the Live Traffic Orders UK website and relevant excerpts from The London Gazette. I trust that this matter will be reviewed fairly and await your confirmation of cancellation.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
-
I have got two more pictures showing the side where my car was parked. (Apologies, the pictures were taken in the dark - same time car was parked on a Saturday night!). The bay originally ended by the D. This has been removed, and has been pushed further back.
Are there are grounds for putting in a representation for this?
Thanks again!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Yes take pics of the parking signs and bay markings on either side of where you parked.
The disabled bay outside no 26 was removed in 2022 as per:
designated disabled persons parking places to be removed, outside or in the immediate vicinity of:
Adelaide Road E10 – outside No. 22 (1 bay); Badlis Road E17 – outside Nos. 2 – 6 (1 bay); Belgrave Road E17 – outside No. 152 (1 bay); Clarendon Road E17 – outside No. 26 (1 bay);
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4185144
Their traffic order map shows resident bays where you were and a disabled bay outside no 12. I'm not sure what the description 'dis bays' means on what drop down but I can also get it to just show CPZ res bays. Some glitch I think as the bay legend is just res bays.
(https://i.imgur.com/enPQdxZ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/HVndXuC.png)
Hi there,
Sorry it took me so long to get some pictures. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to return to the area, but had someone take some pictures for me. Kindly find some pictures attached.
I'm sure I wasn't in the disabled bay!
I think I have only tomorrow to put in a representation - any guidance would be most appreciated!
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Yes take pics of the parking signs and bay markings on either side of where you parked.
The disabled bay outside no 26 was removed in 2022 as per:
designated disabled persons parking places to be removed, outside or in the immediate vicinity of:
Adelaide Road E10 – outside No. 22 (1 bay); Badlis Road E17 – outside Nos. 2 – 6 (1 bay); Belgrave Road E17 – outside No. 152 (1 bay); Clarendon Road E17 – outside No. 26 (1 bay);
https://www.thegazette.co.uk/notice/4185144
Their traffic order map shows resident bays where you were and a disabled bay outside no 12. I'm not sure what the description 'dis bays' means on what drop down but I can also get it to just show CPZ res bays. Some glitch I think as the bay legend is just res bays.
(https://i.imgur.com/enPQdxZ.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/HVndXuC.png)
-
I'm baffled by this one - do you know what number you were parked by?
I think you were in a normal residents bay and a single disabled bay there was taken out - the CEO has not including a pic of the sign - I assume it's your shot but where is it? It looks like it's taken where there is a gap between houses.
Thanks for this. Yes, I just took a picture of the disabled sign on the same road, but a but further down. I believe the car was parked outside number 28, but I will confirm with pictures of the exact spot on Sunday - out of the area for a few days.
Thanks again for your help looking into this.
-
I'm baffled by this one - do you know what number you were parked by?
I think you were in a normal residents bay and a single disabled bay there was taken out - the CEO has not including a pic of the sign - I assume it's your shot but where is it? It looks like it's taken where there is a gap between houses.
-
In 2022 it was one disabled bay space - I'll check the orders to see if they extended it.
(https://i.ibb.co/Cs7SSC6m/Screenshot-2025-02-12-at-10-40-10.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/HLXdX6Lr/Screenshot-2025-02-12-at-10-39-38.png)
Thank you so much!
-
In 2022 it was one disabled bay space - I'll check the orders to see if they extended it.
(https://i.ibb.co/Cs7SSC6m/Screenshot-2025-02-12-at-10-40-10.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/HLXdX6Lr/Screenshot-2025-02-12-at-10-39-38.png)
-
Hi everyone,
Bumping this up in the hope that someone has some guidance to offer on this! Thanks.
-
Hi everyone,
I parked my car late on a Saturday night in a disabled parking bay on Clarendon Road without realising. As there are no parking restrictions on Clarendon Road on Sundays, I didn't double check where I parked either.
I've attached images of the PCN, the online representation screenshots, some images of the parked car, and the parking restrictions sign.
This was a genuine mistake, I'd be most grateful for any guidance on how to challenge the PCN.
Thank you!
[attachment deleted by admin]