Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Jamran on February 26, 2025, 08:43:22 pm
-
Just got a response and it’s been rejected.
Further to your correspondence, the adjudicator, Anthony Chan, has directed that there are no
grounds for there to be a review of this case.
The Appellant said that the adjudicator found that the guidance issued pursuant to section 87 of the
Traffic Management Act 2004 was statutory guidance for local authorities outside London on civil
enforcement of bus lane and moving traffic contraventions". This is true but the guidance if of course
also guidance for parking throughout England.
However, I do not agree with the Appellant's submissions regarding the guidance. The legislation
places an obligation on an authority to have regard to the guidance. It does not mean that an authority
is bound by the guidance.
As the adjudicator has found, and it is not challenged by the Appellant, the Appellant did not display a
parking clock when he was required to do so. This is not de minimums. The clock used in conjunction
with the badge establishes the right to park and it is the tool with which a CEO whether there was an
overstay.
I do not accept therefore that the refusal to cancel a PCN issued as a result of the missing clock is
itself evidence of a failure to have regard to the guidance.
As to the Authority's policy to cancel PCNs, adjudicator's do not have the power to police theauthority' s exercise of discretion.
Your application for review is therefore rejected.
The Enforcement Authority has been notified of this decision, and is entitled to continue with its
enforcement procedures. You are liable for the penalty, which you should pay without delay if you
have not already done so.
Do not wait for the Enforcement Authority to contact you. If you do not pay the penalty promptly, the
Enforcement Authority may issue a Charge Certificate increasing the penalty by 50%.
@H C Andersen did you get a chance to read the decision?
-
End of the road so you must pay to avoid escalation.
Yep already paid. Thank you. What’s your thoughts on this adjudicator’s reasoning?
-
End of the road so you must pay to avoid escalation.
-
Just got a response and it’s been rejected.
Further to your correspondence, the adjudicator, Anthony Chan, has directed that there are no
grounds for there to be a review of this case.
The Appellant said that the adjudicator found that the guidance issued pursuant to section 87 of the
Traffic Management Act 2004 was statutory guidance for local authorities outside London on civil
enforcement of bus lane and moving traffic contraventions". This is true but the guidance if of course
also guidance for parking throughout England.
However, I do not agree with the Appellant's submissions regarding the guidance. The legislation
places an obligation on an authority to have regard to the guidance. It does not mean that an authority
is bound by the guidance.
As the adjudicator has found, and it is not challenged by the Appellant, the Appellant did not display a
parking clock when he was required to do so. This is not de minimums. The clock used in conjunction
with the badge establishes the right to park and it is the tool with which a CEO whether there was an
overstay.
I do not accept therefore that the refusal to cancel a PCN issued as a result of the missing clock is
itself evidence of a failure to have regard to the guidance.
As to the Authority's policy to cancel PCNs, adjudicator's do not have the power to police theauthority' s exercise of discretion.
Your application for review is therefore rejected.
The Enforcement Authority has been notified of this decision, and is entitled to continue with its
enforcement procedures. You are liable for the penalty, which you should pay without delay if you
have not already done so.
Do not wait for the Enforcement Authority to contact you. If you do not pay the penalty promptly, the
Enforcement Authority may issue a Charge Certificate increasing the penalty by 50%.
-
IMO, yes. Asking for a review doesn't stop the authority's enforcement powers i.e. they could still issue a CC while LT are cogitating on a review request, so IMO paying simply protects your position, it doesn't imply that you feel that a review is not possible.
As regards the exact process of decision making, how would we know?
I'm certain you can amend to reflect the sequence.
Many thanks. I’ll submit the email now with what you’ve written up. Thanks again
-
IMO, yes. Asking for a review doesn't stop the authority's enforcement powers i.e. they could still issue a CC while LT are cogitating on a review request, so IMO paying simply protects your position, it doesn't imply that you feel that a review is not possible.
As regards the exact process of decision making, how would we know?
I'm certain you can amend to reflect the sequence.
-
For peer review by others.
OP, note the time limit on applying for a review.
See para. 12 of Schedule 1:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348231564
12(1)(vi)the interests of justice require such a review.
Re: Case No. ********, ******* v **********
I refer to the above and hereby submit a request for review under the provisions of para. 12(1)(vi) of Schedule 1 to the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022:
(vi)the interests of justice require such a review.
My reasons are as follows:
On ***, Adjudicator Wallington rejected my appeal after a hearing which I attended. His reasons were set out in writing and were thorough, addressing each of my grounds of appeal in detail and making corresponding findings of fact and, in one case, dismissing my grounds for lack of relevance.
My request for a review is in respect of this determination which is objectively and manifestly incorrect.
Specifically his written decision stated:
19. Finally, in respect of the issues raised regarding the EA's policy on cancelling PCNs, I accept the Appellant's evidence that the Secretary of State issued guidance in October 2022 under s.87 of the TMA. However, that guidance is headed "Statutory guidance for local authorities outside London on
civil enforcement of bus lane and moving traffic contraventions". Whether the EA considered 2022 guidance issued for local authorities outside London and relating to moving traffic and bus lane contraventions can have no relevance, and cannot amount to a procedural irregularity, in the current
appeal which relates to a parking contravention occurring within London.
I was flummoxed by this statement and did not have rebutting proof to hand. However, as the reviewing adjudicator will know, the Statutory Guidance to which I was referring is:
Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions
(Updated 20 October 2022)
Which states, as far as is relevant in the Introduction:
Introduction and legal basis
This statutory guidance is published by the Secretary of State for Transport under section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA).
This document is also the Secretary of State’s guidelines on uniforms that section 76(3) of the TMA allows the appropriate authority to issue.
The guidance sets out the policy framework for civil parking enforcement. It explains how to approach, carry out and review parking enforcement.
......
All local authorities in England with designated civil parking enforcement powers to which schedule 8 to the TMA applies should use this guidance in conjunction with the following regulations that give effect to the parking provisions in part 6 of the TMA:
.........
The guidance has no special authority in regard to matters of legal interpretation. Where there appear to be differences between the guidance and the legislation, the legislation always takes precedence.
......
Authorities must have regard to this statutory guidance (as stipulated by section 87 of the TMA) when exercising their functions.
These functions include developing, implementing and reviewing their civil parking enforcement regimes.
Local authorities will be expected to explain any decision not to implement the terms of the guidance, and adjudicators may consider it to be a procedural impropriety, sufficient to allow an appeal if no sufficient explanation is provided. This guidance should also be read in conjunction with the guidance on Certification of Approved Devices, and the Home Office Surveillance Camera Code of Practice.
I submit that it was not open to the adjudicator to fail to consider this ground of appeal. Furthermore, as it is accepted that the authority's extant policy is dated 2017 then it must follow that the council in this case has failed in its duty to have regard to the Guidance and, given that no reason was offered in evidence by the council in regards to this failure, I submit that the adjudicator should have 'considered it to be a procedural impropriety'.
I ask that the reviewing adjudicator substitutes their own decision and allows my appeal on these grounds.
Thank you. He did not make a decision during the call. He listened to what I had to say and then said he will look into everything including the statutory guidance point and then make a decision. Also, I’ve made payment to TH last night. Will I still be ok to ask for a review?
-
For peer review by others.
OP, note the time limit on applying for a review.
See para. 12 of Schedule 1:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348231564
12(1)(vi)the interests of justice require such a review.
Re: Case No. ********, ******* v **********
I refer to the above and hereby submit a request for review under the provisions of para. 12(1)(vi) of Schedule 1 to the Civil Enforcement of Road Traffic Contraventions (Representations and Appeals) (England) Regulations 2022:
(vi)the interests of justice require such a review.
My reasons are as follows:
On ***, Adjudicator Wallington rejected my appeal after a hearing which I attended. His reasons were set out in writing and were thorough, addressing each of my grounds of appeal in detail and making corresponding findings of fact and, in one case, dismissing my grounds for lack of relevance.
My request for a review is in respect of this determination which is objectively and manifestly incorrect.
Specifically his written decision stated:
19. Finally, in respect of the issues raised regarding the EA's policy on cancelling PCNs, I accept the Appellant's evidence that the Secretary of State issued guidance in October 2022 under s.87 of the TMA. However, that guidance is headed "Statutory guidance for local authorities outside London on
civil enforcement of bus lane and moving traffic contraventions". Whether the EA considered 2022 guidance issued for local authorities outside London and relating to moving traffic and bus lane contraventions can have no relevance, and cannot amount to a procedural irregularity, in the current
appeal which relates to a parking contravention occurring within London.
I was flummoxed by this statement and did not have rebutting proof to hand. However, as the reviewing adjudicator will know, the Statutory Guidance to which I was referring is:
Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions
(Updated 20 October 2022)
Which states, as far as is relevant in the Introduction:
Introduction and legal basis
This statutory guidance is published by the Secretary of State for Transport under section 87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 (TMA).
This document is also the Secretary of State’s guidelines on uniforms that section 76(3) of the TMA allows the appropriate authority to issue.
The guidance sets out the policy framework for civil parking enforcement. It explains how to approach, carry out and review parking enforcement.
......
All local authorities in England with designated civil parking enforcement powers to which schedule 8 to the TMA applies should use this guidance in conjunction with the following regulations that give effect to the parking provisions in part 6 of the TMA:
.........
The guidance has no special authority in regard to matters of legal interpretation. Where there appear to be differences between the guidance and the legislation, the legislation always takes precedence.
......
Authorities must have regard to this statutory guidance (as stipulated by section 87 of the TMA) when exercising their functions.
These functions include developing, implementing and reviewing their civil parking enforcement regimes.
Local authorities will be expected to explain any decision not to implement the terms of the guidance, and adjudicators may consider it to be a procedural impropriety, sufficient to allow an appeal if no sufficient explanation is provided. This guidance should also be read in conjunction with the guidance on Certification of Approved Devices, and the Home Office Surveillance Camera Code of Practice.
I submit that it was not open to the adjudicator to fail to consider this ground of appeal. Furthermore, as it is accepted that the authority's extant policy is dated 2017 then it must follow that the council in this case has failed in its duty to have regard to the Guidance and, given that no reason was offered in evidence by the council in regards to this failure, I submit that the adjudicator should have 'considered it to be a procedural impropriety'.
I ask that the reviewing adjudicator substitutes their own decision and allows my appeal on these grounds.
-
However, that guidance is headed "Statutory guidance for local authorities outside London on civil enforcement of bus lane and moving traffic contraventions". Whether the EA considered 2022 guidance issued for local authorities outside London and relating to moving traffic and bus lane
contraventions can have no relevance, and cannot amount to a procedural irregularity, in the current appeal which relates to a parking contravention occurring within London.
What nonsense.
Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions#introduction-and-legal-basis
I'd request a review in the interests of justice. No adjudicator acting reasonably and knowledgeably could have made such a mistake.
From the Introduction:
Local authorities will be expected to explain any decision not to implement the terms of the guidance, and adjudicators may consider it to be a procedural impropriety, sufficient to allow an appeal if no sufficient explanation is provided.
I was completely baffled by that also. I have no idea where he got that from!
How do I request a review?
-
However, that guidance is headed "Statutory guidance for local authorities outside London on civil enforcement of bus lane and moving traffic contraventions". Whether the EA considered 2022 guidance issued for local authorities outside London and relating to moving traffic and bus lane
contraventions can have no relevance, and cannot amount to a procedural irregularity, in the current appeal which relates to a parking contravention occurring within London.
What nonsense.
Statutory guidance for local authorities in England on civil enforcement of parking contraventions
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions#introduction-and-legal-basis
I'd request a review in the interests of justice. No adjudicator acting reasonably and knowledgeably could have made such a mistake.
From the Introduction:
Local authorities will be expected to explain any decision not to implement the terms of the guidance, and adjudicators may consider it to be a procedural impropriety, sufficient to allow an appeal if no sufficient explanation is provided.
-
Just recieved my decision from LT appeal and sadly it’s been refused. :'(
Adjudicator's Reasons
1. The penalty charge notice (PCN) in this case was issued on the basis that the Appellant's vehicle
was parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours at Brady Street on 26 February 2025 at
19:27.
2. The appeal was decided following a video hearing attended by the Appellant, Mohammed Khan.
The appellant relies upon the ground of appeal that there was procedural impropriety on the part of
the Enforcement Authority (EA).
3. The Appellant does not dispute the facts of the contravention, but raises a number of issues
regarding the contravention circumstances and whether it should be enforced. The Appellant states
that he parked his vehicle at approximately 18:32 at which time the parking bay was subject to a pay
by phone requirement. However, the Appellant was transporting a family member who had a Blue
Badge. This was displayed in the vehicle upon parking and so no payment was made to park.
4. The Appellant states that, at the time he parked, Blue Badge holders could park without restriction.
He therefore did not display the parking clock. However, he acknowledges that after 19:00 the bay
becomes restricted for parking or waiting and then a Blue Badge holder may only park for up to 3
hours and is required to display the parking clock showing when they began parking. The Appellant
was unaware at the time of the transition between restrictions. He returned to his vehicle around
20:00 by which time the PCN had already been issued.
5. The Appellant submits that the signage was confusing and inadequate. It primarily highlighted the
pay to park obligation, with only a smaller sign showing the restrictions between 19:30 and 07:30. The
signs make no reference to Blue Badge holders nor the requirement to display a parking clock after
19:00. Where signage fails to specify a condition, it is unenforceable (Moses v Barnet LBC [2005]
EWHC 1900 (Admin)). He submits that a reasonable person would understand from this that
displaying just the Blue Badge is sufficient. In oral evidence, the Appellant stated that in all his years
of driving he had never seen signs, such as are at this location, where restrictions change from pay to
park to single yellow line restrictions.
6. Further, he submits that failure to display the parking clock is purely a minor technical oversight
which should not lead to a PCN. He refers to similar cases where this position was upheld
(2110072817 & 2250128346). He also submits that any breach was "de minimis" as the restriction did
not commence until 19:00 and the PCN was issued at 19:27.
7. The Appellant emphasised in his oral submissions that, even without the parking clock being
displayed, the maximum amount of time that his vehicle could have been parked while the single
yellow line restriction was in force was 27 minutes when the PCN was issued. This is well within the
three hours allowed to Blue Badge holders and this would have been evident to the CEO whether the
clock was displayed or not. This is similar to the circumstances in case no. 2250128346.
8. Finally, and the Appellant emphasised that this is his main point of challenge, the Appellant has
made two Freedom of Information requests to the EA which establish that the EA's policy on
cancellation of PCNs dates from 2017 and that the EA fail to show that they have reviewed the policy
in light of guidance issued in October 2022 by the Secretary of State under s.87 of the Traffic
Management Act 2004 (TMA). The Appellant submits that there is a duty on the EA under the TMA to
have regard to this guidance and that their failure to do so amounts to procedural impropriety.
9. The Appellant also expressed his belief that the circumstances of this case are such that the EA
could and should have exercised discretion under part 6) of the section headed "Compelling
Reasons/Mitigating Circumstances" of their cancellation policy. The Appellant acknowledged his
understanding that adjudicators do not have discretion and cannot compel EA's to exercise discretion.
10. The EA have provided photographs taken by a Civil Enforcement Officer (CEO) showing the
contravention, including the Appellant's vehicle parked on a marked single yellow line next to a
signpost showing signs relating to "Pay to park" and that "No waiting" restrictions apply "Mon-Sat
between Midnight - 7am and 7pm - Midnight". They submit that it is a driver's responsibility to check
all sign plates and road markings when they park.
11. The EA submits that Blue Badges are not valid for parking in areas where loading restrictions or
waiting restrictions are in force. Also, that all actions pertaining to the PCN have been dealt with in
accordance with the TMA. A copy of the relevant Traffic Management Order for the restrictions on
Brady Street is produced.
12. I am satisfied from the evidence, which is not disputed, that, as a matter of fact, the Appellant's
vehicle was parked on Brady Street on 26 February 2025 at 19:27 when there was a single yellow line
waiting restriction in place which operated from 7pm until 7am. I find that the Appellant's vehicle
displayed a Blue Badge while parked. I accept the Appellant's evidence that he was entitled to use the
Blue Badge in his vehicle as it belonged to a family member who he had been transporting at the time
he parked.
13. I find that the signage at the location was clear and compliant. The times and dates when pay to
park applied and when the single yellow line no waiting restrictions applied are clearly set out on signs
immediately above one another and are displayed immediately adjacent to the parking bay. I accept
the EA's submission that it is incumbent upon a driver to check all restrictions that apply when they
park.
14. The use of a Blue Badge is governed by its own legislation which sets out the terms of use of the
Blue Badge. The responsibility is upon the holder of a Blue Badge, or those people who use their
vehicle to transport a holder of a Blue Badge, to know and understand the relevant terms of use. I am
satisfied that there was no obligation on the EA to include within its signage reference to either Blue
Badge holders generally or the need to display a parking clock if parking on a single yellow line during
restricted hours. These are general matters covered by the terms of Blue Badge use which do not
require any separate signage.
15. I find that, in order to be allowed to park for up to three hours on a single yellow line during
restricted hours, it is a requirement that both the front of the Blue Badge and a parking clock, showing
the time that parking commenced, are displayed. The Appellant did not display a parking clock as
required. I do not accept that this is purely a technical breach. The clock is essential to fix the time
that the three hours allowed runs from.
16. I have considered the two cases referred to by the Appellant. Although I am not bound by the
decisions of other adjudicators and all cases are decided upon their own facts and merits, cases can
sometimes provide persuasive support for a case advanced.
17. Case no. 2110072817 does not appear relevant to any of the matters raised by the Appellant. It
primarily deals with the wording of a Notice of Rejection.
18. Case no. 2250128346 is a recent appeal where the appeal was allowed as the adjudicator found
that the absence of a parking clock with a Blue Badge was not necessary as the restricted time only
lasted two and a half hours, therefore a Blue Badge holder could never exceed the three hours
parking allowed in such a restricted area. The current appeal differs significantly due to the fact that
the Appellant was parked in an area where the restriction lasted for 12 hours. It is essential that a
parking clock is displayed in order to establish when the three hour parking period commenced. While
the PCN was issued only 27 minutes into the restricted time period, the requirement for the parking
clock was an essential element of the Blue Badge parking concession at that location and the PCN
was therefore validly issued. I do not accept that 27 minutes out of a twelve hour period is a "de
minimis" period of time.
19. Finally, in respect of the issues raised regarding the EA's policy on cancelling PCNs, I accept the
Appellant's evidence that the Secretary of State issued guidance in October 2022 under s.87 of the
TMA. However, that guidance is headed "Statutory guidance for local authorities outside London on
civil enforcement of bus lane and moving traffic contraventions". Whether the EA considered 2022
guidance issued for local authorities outside London and relating to moving traffic and bus lane
contraventions can have no relevance, and cannot amount to a procedural irregularity, in the current
appeal which relates to a parking contravention occurring within London.
20. The matters raised by the Appellant regarding the use of the Blue Badge amount to mitigation
only. They have been considered by the EA who have declined to exercise their discretion.
Adjudicators have no discretion to consider mitigation, as confirmed by the Court of Appeal in Walmsley v Transport for London [2005] EWCA Civ 1540. Adjudicators also have no jurisdiction to
review the manner in which EA's exercise their discretion. Adjudicators are limited to considering the
legislative grounds for appeal against a PCN.
21. The Appellant has not established a ground of appeal. The appeal is refused. The Appellant
must pay the penalty of £130.00 within 28 days of the date of this letter.
Graeme Wallington
Adjudicator
29th November 2025
2250368543
TT58827100
I even emphasised the point that while they cannot apply discretion at this stage they can recommend the EA to cancel the PCN. They didn’t even recommend that. Sad
-
The TMO looks OK based upon their map.
IMO, you've only got the issue of discretion.
..I appealed on the same grounds in both stages of representation and was dismayed, disappointed and surprised when the council did not exercise discretion despite my strong grounds. After receiving the Notice of Rejection I decided to examine their policy for exercising discretion and found that this dates from 2017, a fact which was confirmed by the council, see attached.
I decided to pursue this issue and found that the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance was reissued in October 2022. My understanding of the duty imposed on councils under the Traffic Management Act 2004 is that they must have regard to this guidance whose wording as regards my circumstances suggests to me that discretion would more likely than not have been exercised had the council had regard to this guidance. I submit that it is axiomatic that a policy dated 2017 fails in this regard.
I therefore request the adjudicator to allow my appeal on the grounds of Procedural Impropriety by virtue of the council's failure to have regard to a duty imposed on it by virtue of s87 of the Traffic Management Act 2004.
Is the best I can come up with.
Make sure you present their reply(ies) in support.
-
So weird. When I click the link using private browser it all shows. Anyway, here’s a new Dropbox link
https://www.dropbox.com/scl/fo/qmi329sctq0yqm9l94b8z/AM-7FkzxoXSSBuPL4THDdVs?rlkey=0jdh7c6phe0efjbr30jwsxzfd&st=ju892end&dl=0
-
All I get when I tap a file is the message 'Copy File'. Nothing opens.
-
Did anyone have a chance to look at the evidence?
-
How about now?
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Csh8y2wn3pbT2G2gJjpp1UJ6wJeUWcRN/view?usp=drivesdk
If you unzip the file, all the pdf evidences will be there.
-
This links to files I cannot open.
Nor me !
-
This links to files I cannot open.
-
Any assistance with the appeal would be appreciated
-
Evidence is attached in this link
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Csh8y2wn3pbT2G2gJjpp1UJ6wJeUWcRN/view?usp=drivesdk
-
Where's their evidence?
-
Hi everyone. Hearing was rescheduled for 29/11. Any help with the appeal would be greatly appreciated. Even better would be if someone could represent me? Thanks in advance
-
Yes they sent me a pack. Pretty standard stuff.
-
Have the council uploaded any evidence?
-
Yes and no. They gave November 10th but somehow the email ended up in my spam folder. Found out about it yesterday when I called to ask them for an update. By that time, it had been allocated to an adjudicator so they’ve requested it. I will find out Monday if they will reschedule. However, the person said to upload something for my appeal in the meantime. So was hoping I could conjure something up by tomorrow
-
Have you a new date?
-
Hi all. Needed some assistance with the LT appeal please
-
? When did you register your appeal?
25th July. Sorry just checked they gave me a date in October but I will be out of the country so have requested to change it.
-
? When did you register your appeal?
-
Doesn’t really make much sense..
that's because it's c**p.
Have you received confirmation of your hearing date?
No. Not yet
-
Doesn’t really make much sense..
that's because it's c**p.
Have you received confirmation of your hearing date?
-
This is their reply to my FOI request. Doesn’t really make much sense.
-
The council are subject to this duty:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/87
This guidance, the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance states the following:
Authorities should formulate (with advice from their legal department) and then publish their policies on the exercise of discretion. They should apply these policies flexibly and judge each case on its merits. An enforcement authority should be ready to depart from its policies if the particular circumstances of the case warrant it.
'Should' does not mean 'must'. However, given that they must 'have regard' to the guidance means they are obliged to consider the recommendation and to explain with reasons why they have departed from the recommendation. Simply not having considered because they forgot or whatever is, IMO, a procedural impropriety.
Have you registered your appeal?
When you have, write to the council and ask when the council considered the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance to local authorities published in October 2022 pursuant to s.87 TMA and to supply a copy of the committee report and applicable minutes or Cabinet member decision.
I’ve already submitted the appeal but not written up the actual appeal or evidence etc yet.
I’ve submitted a FOI request to the council requesting what you stated. Thanks
-
The council are subject to this duty:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/87
This guidance, the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance states the following:
Authorities should formulate (with advice from their legal department) and then publish their policies on the exercise of discretion. They should apply these policies flexibly and judge each case on its merits. An enforcement authority should be ready to depart from its policies if the particular circumstances of the case warrant it.
'Should' does not mean 'must'. However, given that they must 'have regard' to the guidance means they are obliged to consider the recommendation and to explain with reasons why they have departed from the recommendation. Simply not having considered because they forgot or whatever is, IMO, a procedural impropriety.
Have you registered your appeal?
When you have, write to the council and ask when the council considered the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance to local authorities published in October 2022 pursuant to s.87 TMA and to supply a copy of the committee report and applicable minutes or Cabinet member decision.
-
(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.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/87
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions
Sorry for persisting but could you please explain this point in detail? Will this point be relevant to all PCN’s issued by the council?
-
Don't wait.
Simply register your appeal. You would have until nearly the hearing date, probably Sept/Oct, to finalise your appeal.
Done. Thanks
-
Don't wait.
Simply register your appeal. You would have until nearly the hearing date, probably Sept/Oct, to finalise your appeal.
-
You posted:
I did a FOI request regarding the council’s PCN cancellation policy and whether they still use this same document from 2017. They have confirmed they still use that one and there has been no revision/updated version since
Have you registered your appeal?
Not yet. I’m waiting to write up your point about procedural impropriety but confused about what you mean etc
-
You posted:
I did a FOI request regarding the council’s PCN cancellation policy and whether they still use this same document from 2017. They have confirmed they still use that one and there has been no revision/updated version since
Have you registered your appeal?
-
I explained in my post dated 19 July.
How has the council 'had regard' to the Oct 2022 Stat Guidance when by their own admission their enforcement policies (you should read the guidance on this point) haven't been reviewed in light of the changes to the Guidance and withdrawal of the previous companion Operational Guidance?
I may be being extremely silly but where has the council said that?
-
I explained in my post dated 19 July.
How has the council 'had regard' to the Oct 2022 Stat Guidance when by their own admission their enforcement policies (you should read the guidance on this point) haven't been reviewed in light of the changes to the Guidance and withdrawal of the previous companion Operational Guidance?
-
(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.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/87
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions
I know what it means. Im asking how it applies to my case. Where has there been a procedural impropriety on their part
-
(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.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2004/18/section/87
https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions
-
I did a FOI request regarding the council’s PCN cancellation policy and whether they still use this same document from 2017. They have confirmed they still use that one and there has been no revision/updated version since. I have attached the response to this post.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Then you must take this to the adjudicator who is the arbiter in this matter. IMO, given that this policy gives effect to the council's intention to 'have regard to' the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance issued pursuant to s87 of the TMA then the council has failed to comply because what you've posted is out of date. It states 'Next review - April 2018'.
The previous Stat Guidance(and non-stat Operational Guidance) were withdrawn in 2022. There is now only Stat Guidance: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions
IMO, your argument that the council did not exercise discretion in your favour is flawed anyway - the policy states 'these guidelines do not replace the exercise of discretion'. IMO, as you're past the discount date and should appeal then you would be on stronger ground with the council's failure to comply with their duty under s87(2) of the TMA which would be a 'procedural impropriety':
2) A “procedural impropriety” means a failure by an enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by[in this case]-
(a)the TMA 2004,
Sorry I didn’t quite understand what you meant? Please could you clarify regarding the procedural impropriety
-
Then you must take this to the adjudicator who is the arbiter in this matter. IMO, given that this policy gives effect to the council's intention to 'have regard to' the Secretary of State's Statutory Guidance issued pursuant to s87 of the TMA then the council has failed to comply because what you've posted is out of date. It states 'Next review - April 2018'.
The previous Stat Guidance(and non-stat Operational Guidance) were withdrawn in 2022. There is now only Stat Guidance: https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/civil-enforcement-of-parking-contraventions/guidance-for-local-authorities-on-enforcing-parking-restrictions
IMO, your argument that the council did not exercise discretion in your favour is flawed anyway - the policy states 'these guidelines do not replace the exercise of discretion'. IMO, as you're past the discount date and should appeal then you would be on stronger ground with the council's failure to comply with their duty under s87(2) of the TMA which would be a 'procedural impropriety':
2) A “procedural impropriety” means a failure by an enforcement authority to observe any requirement imposed on it by[in this case]-
(a)the TMA 2004,
-
Document is attached to my post with the AI written appeal. Ive attached it here again. I think you’re now stretching. It said “place” not “parking bay”. So the “place” was a SYL. It required a blue badge and so on.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Where's the policy document pl.
What you've posted looks selective:
When in a place that requires a permit, scratchcard, pay & display ticket,
Disabled Person's Badge or any other item to be displayed in the vehicle, that
item must be displayed so that all details are clearly visible. If a CEO cannot see
all the details then a PCN may be issued. It is not a defence against a PCN
simply to possess an item. If the item can be produced with the representations,
however, and was valid at the time of the contravention then the Council will
consider using its discretion to cancel the PCN. In general, discretion will only be
applied once.”
But at 7.27pm you weren't in a [parking] place, you were on a SYL. What you've selected IMO applies to parking places where 'a permit, scratchcard, pay & display ticket, Disabled Person's Badge....' may be displayed.
-
Going by their own cancellation policy, they should cancel first time offences for blue badge users. So I don’t get why you’d need a separate SYL policy?
To quote their policy:
“When in a place that requires a permit, scratchcard, pay & display ticket,
Disabled Person's Badge or any other item to be displayed in the vehicle, that
item must be displayed so that all details are clearly visible. If a CEO cannot see
all the details then a PCN may be issued. It is not a defence against a PCN
simply to possess an item. If the item can be produced with the representations,
however, and was valid at the time of the contravention then the Council will
consider using its discretion to cancel the PCN. In general, discretion will only be
applied once.”
So the blue badge was valid at the time, only mistake being clock missing. Only contention would be if more than 3 hours of the allowed time had elapsed. However, since the PCN was issued at 1927, this was only 27 minutes into the allowed 3 hours, using common sense you’d comfortably say that 3 hours hadn’t been violated.
So the council could easily have cancelled had they implemented their own cancellation policy.
-
I sadly got a ticket on my windscreen today. We parked on a pay and display with a blue badge, which allows unlimited parking. As a result, I did not display the clock. The thing I didn’t know was that after the hours of enforcement (0700-1900) it changes to an enforced single yellow line from 1900-0700.
The four corners of this contravention are that the car was parked in contravention on a SYL having been thus parked for more than 2 hours. The parking place is not germane to the contravention: it's simply that the car was parked on a SYL. A BB was displayed but in order to rely upon this exemption a clock must also be displayed. But it wasn't.
To say again: the parking place is irrelevant as regards the in-situ signs(whether these are supported by a traffic order, who knows?)
The parking place is not germane to the contravention: it's simply that the car was parked on a SYL. A BB was displayed but in order to rely upon this exemption a clock must also be displayed. But it wasn't.
That's it IMO.*
So as regards your itemised points:
1. Procedural Impropriety (Failure to consider evidence, baseless criminal allegation). They did consider the evidence i.e. there wasn't a clock. Whether the BB itself was being misused isn't central because it's immaterial given the absence of a clock unless IMO you could prove that this caused the council to not exercise discretion pursuant to their policy which otherwise they WOULD have done.
2. Inadequate Signage (Sign failed to specify Blue Badge clock requirement after 19:00). Doesn't have to. A SYL is a SYL. The holder of a BB is instructed on this in the Rights and Responsibilities booklet and the driver is presumed to know by virtue of holding a driving licence.
3. Council’s Failure to Apply Own Policy (Valid Blue Badge held but clock not displayed). The right to the exemption on a SYL arises under legislation, nothing to do with council policies.
4. Misapplication of Blue Badge Law (Badge used lawfully with holder present). Wrong as explained above.
*- where's their cancellation policy for SYL?
- the only link is that the signs are on the same post. The defence of confusing signage could still be put forward if you are at tribunal.
-
Hi all. I found the councils own cancellation policy. Please see point 6 on page 6. Do I have a case? AI seems to think I have a strong case? lol
Here is AI’s defence write up:
Grounds for Appeal
1. Procedural Impropriety (Failure to consider evidence, baseless criminal allegation).
2. Inadequate Signage (Sign failed to specify Blue Badge clock requirement after 19:00).
3. Council’s Failure to Apply Own Policy (Valid Blue Badge held but clock not displayed).
4. Misapplication of Blue Badge Law (Badge used lawfully with holder present).
Detailed Arguments
1. Procedural Impropriety & False Allegation
The council’s rejection letter falsely alleged Blue Badge "misuse" – a criminal accusation. This is unlawful because:
- Regulation 9(1)(b) of the Disabled Persons (Badges for Vehicles) Regulations 2000 permits use of the badge by a third party when the disabled person is present.
- Fact: My mother (the badge holder) was in the vehicle during the journey and parking.
- The council provided no evidence of misuse and ignored this statutory exemption. This prejudiced the entire process.
2. Legally Deficient Signage
The sign at the location breaches TSRGD 2016:
- It states restrictions for "Business permit holders" and "Pay by phone" after 19:00 but omits all information about Blue Badge concessions.
- No mention that a parking clock must be displayed alongside the Blue Badge after 19:00.
- Legal Precedent:
>Where signage fails to specify a condition (e.g., clock display), the penalty is unenforceable."
> Moses v Barnet LBC [2005] EWHC 1900 (Admin)
A reasonable person would assume displaying the Blue Badge alone was sufficient (as in daytime pay-and-display bays).
3. Council’s Breach of Cancellation Policy
Tower Hamlets’ own [Policy: Cancellation of PCNs (p.6, §6)](553208338-Tower-Hamlets-Council-Policy-Cancellation-of-PCNs.pdf) states:
> The Council will consider using its discretion to cancel the PCN... [if] the motorist had a valid permit or other required item... but the item was not displayed.
- I held a valid Blue Badge and was entitled to park for 3 hours on single yellow lines.
- The only failure was not displaying the clock – a minor technical oversight covered by this policy.
- The council’s refusal to exercise discretion was unreasonable and irrational.
4. De Minimis Breach
- The PCN was issued at 19:27– just 27 minutes after restrictions began.
- I had substantive entitlement to park under Blue Badge rules.
- Penalising a technical oversight ignores the spirit of the law (*Davies v Camden LBC*).
---
Remedy Sought
Cancel the PCN because:
1. The badge was used legally (holder present).
2. Signage failed to warn of the clock requirement.
3. The council breached its policy by not cancelling for a forgotten item.
4. The "misuse" allegation tainted the process with procedural unfairness.
Any thoughts would be appreciated. Thanks
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
You can have a go as long as you are prepared to pay the full amount.
I'd say there is a reasonable chance they won't contest, or if they do the adjudicator could make a recommendation to cancel (which is non-binding) but the tribunal can't apply mitigation.
-
So should I just pay? :'(
-
What is the date of the NOR. The discount was time-limited and if it's expired then you might as well go to tribunal.
Still have time. Was dated 30th June
-
What is the date of the NOR. The discount was time-limited and if it's expired then you might as well go to tribunal.
-
A BB is not a clock.
Don’t quite get your point? My point is there were more than satisfactory reason for discretion and cancelling but they didn’t.
Maybe so, but discretion means they have a choice to apply it or not to apply it. They have decided not to apply discretion. Only if you can prove there was no contravention, or they have mismanaaged the process, would you have any case to take to London Tribunals, who cannot consider discretion.
-
Can anyone else offer their input please?
@cp8759
-
A BB is not a clock.
Don’t quite get your point? My point is there were more than satisfactory reason for discretion and cancelling but they didn’t.
-
A BB is not a clock.
-
Found one document regarding cancellation of PCN for blue badge holders
https://democracy.towerhamlets.gov.uk/documents/s89346/5.1%20CPZ%20Parking%20Policy%20Review.pdf#:~:text=3%20There%20are%20restrictions%20that%20Blue%20Badge,will%20be%20liable%20for%20Penalty%20Charge%20Notices.&text=4%20Currently%2C%20Tower%20Hamlets'%20policy%20requires%20the,Badge%20but%20that%20is%20still%20in%20contravention.
https://www.scribd.com/document/553208338/Tower-Hamlets-Council-Policy-Cancellation-of-PCNs
Page 6 of this link states the follliwing:
“When in a place that requires a permit, scratchcard, pay & display ticket, Disabled Person's Badge or any other item to be displayed in the vehicle, that item must be displayed so that all details are clearly visible. If a CEO cannot see all the details then a PCN may be issued. It is not a defence against a PCN simply to possess an item. If the item can be produced with the representations, however, and was valid at the time of the contravention then the Council will consider using its discretion to cancel the PCN. In general, discretion will only be applied once.
This policy does not apply to multi-vehicle permits or Disabled Person's Badges if they are not visible in the vehicle as they could be in use elsewhere.”
-
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf
See p171 which gives examples of the form of traffic signs to be used where waiting restrictions and parking apply in the same length of street. IMO, the sign which is shown in GSV is an exemplar. IMO, the ad hoc 'market day' only sign above would not persuade an adjudicator that the signage of yellow line and traffic sign was confusing.
As regards discretion, this is a matter for the council only. They've decided not to exercise in your favour which is their choice. An adjudicator may not interfere with their decision.
Wait for others who might have other more prospectively positive points.
One may argue that Permit/p&d parking in peak times then no parking at all in off peaks is arguably far from the norm as well as confusing to the average person.
Apart from there I’ve never come across such a restriction.
With regards to their refusal for discretion, I’m sure their own cancellation policy states that discretion be allowed to blue badge holders? I’ll try dig it up
-
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/5c78f895e5274a0ebfec719b/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf
See p171 which gives examples of the form of traffic signs to be used where waiting restrictions and parking apply in the same length of street. IMO, the sign which is shown in GSV is an exemplar. IMO, the ad hoc 'market day' only sign above would not persuade an adjudicator that the signage of yellow line and traffic sign was confusing.
As regards discretion, this is a matter for the council only. They've decided not to exercise in your favour which is their choice. An adjudicator may not interfere with their decision.
Wait for others who might have other more prospectively positive points.
-
This doesn't change the facts. You were parked where and when you were not entitled.
Whether the badge was being used improperly is not the issue. You were obliged to display the clock. IMO, you would have been in a better, but not necessarily winning, position had you displayed the clock and set it for the quarter-hour when you parked and then pleaded confusion as to when it should have been set. But you didn't.
Their NOR doesn't contain any silver bullet errors IMO.
Appealing and therefore rejecting the discount would be a gamble IMO. Yes, it's possible that the restricted hours are incorrect, but how would establish this before the discount expires?
Is there any grounds with the signage being confusing? Also, the council failed to apply any discretion for a vehicle with a disabled blue badge holder? They don’t really address these points I raised in their NOJ.
-
This doesn't change the facts. You were parked where and when you were not entitled.
Whether the badge was being used improperly is not the issue. You were obliged to display the clock. IMO, you would have been in a better, but not necessarily winning, position had you displayed the clock and set it for the quarter-hour when you parked and then pleaded confusion as to when it should have been set. But you didn't.
Their NOR doesn't contain any silver bullet errors IMO.
Appealing and therefore rejecting the discount would be a gamble IMO. Yes, it's possible that the restricted hours are incorrect, but how would establish this before the discount expires?
-
The problem with your reps is you continually refer to "my valid Blue Badge", "my badge" etc. But it's not your BB it is your mothers, so that made them accuse you of BB misuse. You should have told them the full story.
Agreed. The pitfalls of using AI! However, I’m sure I edited it before submitting. Is there any way I can get ahold of my reps from TH now?
-
The problem with your reps is you continually refer to "my valid Blue Badge", "my badge" etc. But it's not your BB it is your mothers, so that made them accuse you of BB misuse. You should have told them the full story.
-
Here’s my reps for the nto
I parked at approximately [time] in a bay governed by the sign shown in the attached image. During that time, the bay permitted Blue Badge holders to park without time restriction (within the 07:00–19:00 pay and display/business permit hours), which I correctly interpreted, so I displayed my valid Blue Badge.
However, after 19:00, the bay becomes restricted as a single yellow line, and Blue Badge holders may only park for up to 3 hours provided a parking clock is also displayed. I was unaware of this transition. As a result, while my badge was clearly displayed, I did not display the clock, not realising the restriction had changed.
I returned to my car at 20:00 to find the PCN issued at 19:27 — just 27 minutes after the restriction changed, and well within the allowed 3-hour Blue Badge exemption.
⸻
Grounds for Challenge
⸻
1. Signage is Confusing and Inadequate
The signage (see photo) is not sufficiently clear about the change in restrictions after 19:00. It primarily highlights pay-by-phone and permit holder regulations, with a small yellow sign above referring to Mon–Sat “Midnight–7am, 7pm–Midnight” restrictions.
The bay is physically marked as a parking bay — yet after 19:00 it reverts to single yellow line restrictions. A driver seeing a parking bay with signs referencing parking and pay-by-phone would not expect a sudden switch to a yellow-line rule after 7pm. This is ambiguous and fails to adequately convey the transition in restriction type.
This contravenes Regulation 18 of The Local Authorities’ Traffic Orders (Procedure) (England and Wales) Regulations 1996, which states:
“The order-making authority shall take such steps as are necessary to secure adequate information as to the effect of the order is made available to persons using the road.”
As established in Camden v. The Parking Adjudicator (Moses LJ), signage must clearly convey the operational rules to the reasonable driver. In this case, it does not.
⸻
2. Badge Was Valid, and Contravention Was Technical and Non-Prejudicial
Under the Blue Badge Scheme Guidance (DfT, 2011), badge holders may park on single yellow lines for up to 3 hours if no obstruction is caused and the badge and time clock are displayed. I fully complied with the spirit and function of this exemption — I was parked for less than 3 hours, caused no obstruction, and displayed my valid badge.
My sole omission was not displaying the clock — a technical oversight, made due to the misleading signage and misunderstanding of the restriction switch. There was no attempt to evade restrictions or overstay.
Adjudicators have accepted in many similar cases — such as Case 2110072817 (PATAS) — that minor omissions (like not displaying the clock where the badge is shown and no overstay has occurred) can render enforcement disproportionate, especially where no public interest is served by penalising the motorist.
⸻
3. Procedural Impropriety – Failure to Consider Representations
My initial informal representations were rejected with a template response that failed to address the specific grounds I raised. This breaches Paragraph 85 of the Traffic Management Act 2004 Operational Guidance, which requires that authorities:
“give proper consideration to the representations and respond to the motorist’s points.”
This amounts to a procedural impropriety, which is grounds for cancellation.
⸻
4. Proportionality
The PCN does not serve a deterrent or regulatory function in this case. The badge was valid. The duration was lawful. The mistake — not displaying the clock — did not result in overstay or abuse of the scheme.
It is disproportionate to penalise a disabled badge holder for a technical oversight caused by unclear signage.
⸻
Conclusion
I respectfully request the cancellation of this PCN on the following grounds:
• The signage was confusing and failed to convey the change in restriction clearly.
• I was parked legally under Blue Badge rules but inadvertently omitted the clock — a technical, not substantive, contravention.
• No overstay occurred.
• The council failed to properly consider my initial informal appeal.
• Enforcement in this case is disproportionate and contrary to the intent of the Blue Badge Scheme.
If this appeal is rejected, I request a full and reasoned response to each point raised and intend to take the matter to the independent adjudicator if necessary.
-
Where are your reps?
-
Please post their letter of rejection to the NtO
Their letter seems to be tosh on the subject of the Blue Badge. A Blue Badge holder may not be able to drive, but provided the car was used to convey the BB holder to the parking location, then that is OK. If you can explain more about this, then it might be worth taking them to London Tribunals, otherwise pay the discount. They are correct re the clock, I think.
My elderly mother held a BB and I used to use it when we took her out and parked, then returned to the car and took her home. This is entirely lawful.
What information do you require? I’m in the same situation as yourself. My elderly mother is the blue badge holder. She lives with us and I’m her carer. I only make use of the badge when she is with me.
-
Please post their letter of rejection to the NtO
Their letter seems to be tosh on the subject of the Blue Badge. A Blue Badge holder may not be able to drive, but provided the car was used to convey the BB holder to the parking location, then that is OK. If you can explain more about this, then it might be worth taking them to London Tribunals, otherwise pay the discount. They are correct re the clock, I think.
My elderly mother held a BB and I used to use it when we took her out and parked, then returned to the car and took her home. This is entirely lawful.
-
If someone could provide some input it would be appreciated
-
As you're at Notice to Owner stage, the discount has gone, so submit your original reps, but this time updated to reflect what they said in their response to the informal reps. They may reoffer the discount in their response, but if they don't it's then a total no-brainer to register an appeal with London Tribunals.
They’ve reoffered the discount.
-
Just received a notice of rejection from TH. Sadly, they showed no discretion and did not cancel the PCN. Additionally, they made baseless accusations of the badge being misused by myself even though the blue badge was with me!
Any help would be appreciated on whether I should progress with adjudication as they’ve reoffered the discount. Thanks
https://share.icloud.com/photos/022lr5GB-SxdrBlVZMxairo0A
-
As you're at Notice to Owner stage, the discount has gone, so submit your original reps, but this time updated to reflect what they said in their response to the informal reps. They may reoffer the discount in their response, but if they don't it's then a total no-brainer to register an appeal with London Tribunals.
-
Can anyone advise on their response please?
-
Just received the NTO
https://share.icloud.com/photos/0592nJ44K8mXE_h8bivCOnZGw
-
Responses to informal reps count for little in the grand scheme of things IMO.
Here's the legal bit:
.....
(2) An order to which this regulation applies shall include an exemption from the prohibition in accordance with whichever of paragraphs (3) and (4) is appropriate in favour of any vehicle displaying a disabled person’s badge in the relevant position.
(3) Where the period of the prohibition does not exceed 3 hours the exemption shall be for the whole of that period.
(4) Where the period of the prohibition exceeds 3 hours [as here]the exemption shall be for a period of 3 hours subject to the conditions that–
(a)the period of exempted waiting does not begin less than one hour after a previous period of exempted waiting by the same vehicle in the same road on the same day;
(b)a parking disc is displayed in the relevant position on the vehicle marked to show the quarter hour period during which the period of exempted waiting began.
Whether the council have transposed this into their traffic orders correctly, who knows? But if they have then there is no exemption simply based upon how long you've parked and by what means this could be proved, the law requires the 'parking disc' AKA clock to be displayed.
-
Any issues with the response? Do I have chance at NTO or even with with adjudicator?
-
What was your challenge. The rejection is just a template.
(https://i.imgur.com/X3tjSTM.jpeg)
Essentially what you advised. Explained the whole confusion and also the fact that the 3 hours hadn’t elapsed etc.
-
What was your challenge. The rejection is just a template.
(https://i.imgur.com/X3tjSTM.jpeg)
-
Just received their response, and as expected, they’ve rejected it.
https://share.icloud.com/photos/0c27MfSrEZ3scN_4qcjd3VOag
-
Your best bet is to say you usually display your parking clock when parking on yellow lines but because you parked when it was a pay and display you didn't think it was necessary but realise that as the bay turned into a no waiting restriction the clock was necessary.
But as the PCN was issued early into what would have been a 3 hour exemption and you returned shortly after its issue you trust that the council would kindly exercise discretion as the blue badge was clearly displayed as shown in the CEO's pictures.
You have three other outstanding PCNs showing with Tower Hamlets including one from last May - is this still live?
No. It’s not live anymore. Not sure why it’s still showing. Thanks
-
Your best bet is to say you usually display your parking clock when parking on yellow lines but because you parked when it was a pay and display you didn't think it was necessary but realise that as the bay turned into a no waiting restriction the clock was necessary.
But as the PCN was issued early into what would have been a 3 hour exemption and you returned shortly after its issue you trust that the council would kindly exercise discretion as the blue badge was clearly displayed as shown in the CEO's pictures.
You have three other outstanding PCNs showing with Tower Hamlets including one from last May - is this still live?
(https://i.ibb.co/N6j4nhST/Screenshot-2025-02-28-at-10-42-06.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/fGMYjP1Y/Screenshot-2025-02-28-at-10-35-35.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/Wpf7vXGd/Screenshot-2025-02-28-at-10-35-17.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/WNpcdhWL/Screenshot-2025-02-28-at-10-34-59.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/w1J5mgv/Screenshot-2025-02-28-at-10-34-53.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/MyjFYT67/Screenshot-2025-02-28-at-10-34-42.png)
-
IMO, no on this point.
The driver holds a licence and is presumed to know what the combination of parking bay markings AND yellow line means. All they were expected to do when consulting the traffic sign was establish the detail KNOWING that there was a waiting restriction and parking restriction. Nothing else on the post bears upon this issue.
The analysis starts with the yellow line, which is clear.
But views differ.
-
Do you think I’ve got a chance?
-
Too much signage = confusion.
-
It is indeed in a CPZ. Weirdly enough, the timings for its zone (A3) is 0830-1730. I think just this small stretch of street is 0700-1900. There’s no mention of it in the website
https://www.towerhamlets.gov.uk/lgnl/transport_and_streets/Parking/parking_zones_and_charges/Parking_zones.aspx
Also, it does have the yellow “no waiting” sign.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Quite a few people get caught out by these hybrid bays, where there is a sign and a marked bay with a yellow line by the kerb. The yellow line is meant to alert you that there is a restriction outside the hours on the sign. Normally there would be a yellow sign at the top of the pole with the "No Waiting" sign, plus the days and hours restricted, placed above the parking sign. However, this location may well be in a Controlled Parking Zone, so I suggest you look on the TH website for a map of their CPZs.
One could say by not having the yellow sign at the top, they have failed in their LATOR Regulation 18 responsibility, but arguments like this usually end up at London Tribunals. Submit reps anyway, point out your are a BB holder so would have been exempt from the yellow line, and your total parked time was well within the time allowed.
-
Good evening everyone.
I sadly got a ticket on my windscreen today. We parked on a pay and display with a blue badge, which allows unlimited parking. As a result, I did not display the clock. The thing I didn’t know was that after the hours of enforcement (0700-1900) it changes to an enforced single yellow line from 1900-0700. We parked at around 1730 and by the time we came back at ~1940, I was greeted with a ticket on my windscreen. Do I have a case to fight considering the confusing hours of enforcement? Had I known, I would’ve just displayed the clock with it and I still would’ve been within the 3 hours. I feel the two different rules for one spot is very confusing.
Here is the GSV
https://maps.app.goo.gl/1oHAUgJm8eRXhRX39
Images of PCN and sign post
https://ibb.co/XnYnQv5
https://ibb.co/JRJ1pwBK
https://ibb.co/LzFtLjB
Any help would be greatly appreciated.