Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: anonymous on February 28, 2025, 07:21:01 pm
-
With 2 days to go before the hearing and no evidence having yet been uploaded to the tribunal portal I received a phone call from the tribunal to say that the Council have cancelled the PCN and discontinued the Appeal for Khartoum Rd.
-
Congratulations. Taking a screenshot of the portal might be a wise precaution just in case they try to change their minds, but it's highly unlikely.
-
Good news all! They have cancelled the Roman Road PCN. I lodged an challenge 4 days ago and it seems they could not wait to cancel - seems they expect that bay is a problem having contradicting sign posts. Have not received a letter yet but I logged in to the portal and it says Notice Cancelled.
-
I get confused when we move from third parties to first person.
So do I :D. Third person is not natural for me. In this case I talk in first person because they have asked me for help with their tickets. And its easier to write haha
Roman
Single bay; traffic signs at either end with different restrictions?
Khartoum
Single bay; single defaced and unreadable sign?
Precisely
-
A family member has approached me for advice this time. They received 2 tickets on the same day (different roads) for parking.
In regards to Roman Road, do I just appeal saying that I was within my rights to park there? What grounds would I select?
I get confused when we move from third parties to first person.
Roman
Single bay; traffic signs at either end with different restrictions?
Khartoum
Single bay; single defaced and unreadable sign?
-
For Roman Road the reps would be contravention didn't occur if you are certain the permit for that bay is valid and the shared use sign is there, a pic of which you'd send.
If you want to go on with the other one I suggest starting a new thread for it and gathering the info posted so far.
Is it worth mentioning that no response was received for the challenges to the PCN?
In regards to the other PCN, mrmustard has very generously offered to make representations on the drivers behalf.
-
For Roman Road the reps would be contravention didn't occur if you are certain the permit for that bay is valid and the shared use sign is there, a pic of which you'd send.
If you want to go on with the other one I suggest starting a new thread for it and gathering the info posted so far.
-
Sorry I didn't read back. If there is a shared use permit/pay sign in the bay and the car has a permit for there then that's compelling grounds for cancellation despite the CEO taking a pic of the other sign.
We've broken a golden rule here with two cases in one thread...
OK thought I was going crazy there! Yes it is a bit confusing with the 2 different threads going on at the same time as this post was post was initially created just to ask for advice on no reply received to a challenge.
Is it easier if I split this into another thread?
In regards to Roman Road, do I just appeal saying that I was within my rights to park there? What grounds would I select?
-
Sorry I didn't read back. If there is a shared use permit/pay sign in the bay and the car has a permit for there then that's compelling grounds for cancellation despite the CEO taking a pic of the other sign.
We've broken a golden rule here with two cases in one thread...
-
In Roman Road that permit holder sign doesn't need to be there as there are no bays for permit holders in a PPA so it's redundant but can be seen as a repeater sign for the PPA.
I'm sorry I am a bit confused. It seems that you guys are saying that if it is a bay then permit holder can not park there at all?
The sign governing the bay is the pay sign. The permit sign is nothing to do with the bay. I was confused at first until Mr Anderson pointed out it's a PPA and that sign is at the end of the bay.
But this sign clearly does or am I missing something? Apologies if I am being daft.
(https://i.ibb.co/KxdKZRZs/Screenshot-2025-03-11-164944.png) (https://imgbb.com/)
-
In Roman Road that permit holder sign doesn't need to be there as there are no bays for permit holders in a PPA so it's redundant but can be seen as a repeater sign for the PPA.
I'm sorry I am a bit confused. It seems that you guys are saying that if it is a bay then permit holder can not park there at all?
The sign governing the bay is the pay sign. The permit sign is nothing to do with the bay. I was confused at first until Mr Anderson pointed out it's a PPA and that sign is at the end of the bay.
-
In Roman Road that permit holder sign doesn't need to be there as there are no bays for permit holders in a PPA so it's redundant but can be seen as a repeater sign for the PPA.
I'm sorry I am a bit confused. It seems that you guys are saying that if it is a bay then permit holder can not park there at all?
-
In Roman Road that permit holder sign doesn't need to be there as there are no bays for permit holders in a PPA so it's redundant but can be seen as a repeater sign for the PPA.
-
According to GSV, Khartoum is a Permit Parking Area for permit holders C, 'except in signed bays'.
So, any marked bay will NOT be reserved for holders of permit C.
The car was in a marked bay which comprised one car space. The question then arises: was it signed correctly?
IMO, given that a PPA sign has already been passed then the driver was obliged to look for a sign within the bay. The sign was covered in paint and the wording could not be determined..if true.
A signed bay does not preclude that the bay was shared use thereby allowing permit holders to park. Contravention did not occur.
The CEO wasn't a cheat IMO. GSV shows what the restriction is..and it's not shared use..therefore the actual restriction was pay by phone and they sought to convey this by finding an equivalent sign. Their problem is that it's not what the restriction is, it's what's conveyed.
Frustrating for them that the sign was defaced, but c'est la vie.
As for Roman..
This is another PPA, permit holders cannot park in signed bays unless permitted by the sign. Photos show that the car was again in a bay and therefore subject to the signed restriction, in this case a clear pay by phone sign.
The bay is very long. On one end of the bay it allows permit holders, and on the other it does not. The signs contradict each other for the same bay so surely either payment or permit should be allowed?
(https://i.ibb.co/c5ttDpD/Screenshot-2025-03-11-164944.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/99TsHLnW/Screenshot-2025-03-08-at-15-15-50.png)
-
Can I make the representations for Khartoum Rd please. The traffic warden is a cheat. They have not photographed the bay sign as it is blacked out. No contravention has occurred. Email mrmustard@zoho.com
Thank you very much! I will send you an email.
-
According to GSV, Khartoum is a Permit Parking Area for permit holders C, 'except in signed bays'.
So, any marked bay will NOT be reserved for holders of permit C.
The car was in a marked bay which comprised one car space. The question then arises: was it signed correctly?
IMO, given that a PPA sign has already been passed then the driver was obliged to look for a sign within the bay. The sign was covered in paint and the wording could not be determined..if true.
A signed bay does not preclude that the bay was shared use thereby allowing permit holders to park. Contravention did not occur.
The CEO wasn't a cheat IMO. GSV shows what the restriction is..and it's not shared use..therefore the actual restriction was pay by phone and they sought to convey this by finding an equivalent sign. Their problem is that it's not what the restriction is, it's what's conveyed.
Frustrating for them that the sign was defaced, but c'est la vie.
As for Roman..
This is another PPA, permit holders cannot park in signed bays unless permitted by the sign. Photos show that the car was again in a bay and therefore subject to the signed restriction, in this case a clear pay by phone sign.
-
Can I make the representations for Khartoum Rd please. The traffic warden is a cheat. They have not photographed the bay sign as it is blacked out. No contravention has occurred. Email mrmustard@zoho.com
-
Just to add. I took a video to show the 2 contradicting posts with the bay. It doesn't seem to be split up
https://filebin.net/05787xc2mctcx2mh
Well, yes, it is a complete nonsense, and I would think is a slam-dunk appeal at London Tribunals. Normally when we have seen things like this, it is two bays with a bay divider consisting of a double-dashed line perpendicular to the kerb, and one sign for each bay. Many people miss things like this, but here there is no bay divider. So you should submit representations on the basis that you parked and went to the nearest sign that told you you could pay to park by phone, and that is what you did. Attach a photo of the sign.
Don't be miffed if they refuse your reps, because councils ruthlessly game the system to get the money in, so refuse almost all informal representations and re-offer the discount. They do this because they know most people, (>95%), then just cough-up believing the council are right, and also don't want to risk the full PCN penalty.
Just to be clear the driver has a resident permit - they did not pay to park. The sign post that said residents was the furthest away albeit it was the same bay.
-
Just to add. I took a video to show the 2 contradicting posts with the bay. It doesn't seem to be split up
https://filebin.net/05787xc2mctcx2mh
Well, yes, it is a complete nonsense, and I would think is a slam-dunk appeal at London Tribunals. Normally when we have seen things like this, it is two bays with a bay divider consisting of a double-dashed line perpendicular to the kerb, and one sign for each bay. Many people miss things like this, but here there is no bay divider. So you should submit representations on the basis that you parked and went to the nearest sign that told you you could pay to park by phone, and that is what you did. Attach a photo of the sign.
Don't be miffed if they refuse your reps, because councils ruthlessly game the system to get the money in, so refuse almost all informal representations and re-offer the discount. They do this because they know most people, (>95%), then just cough-up believing the council are right, and also don't want to risk the full PCN penalty.
-
Just to add. I took a video to show the 2 contradicting posts with the bay. It doesn't seem to be split up
https://filebin.net/05787xc2mctcx2mh
-
I have just done some reconnaissance and I can confirm my findings.
So for clarity, they have the parking permit to park on Roman road. That long bay has 2 different posts, one that says pay and display only, and one that says permit holders or pay and display.
Khartoum road the signs have been blacked out.
Is it better for me to start these as desperate topics? I had originally started this topic as they did not receive any replies to their challenges, but now that I have had a look myself it seems that they should not have received these pcns in my opinion anyway.
-
Neither of these make much sense.
The one in Roman Road shows the car at the end of the bay to the right but the parking signs pic taken by the CEO indicates a resident's bay to the right not a pay bay.
The other in Khartoum Road shows no parking sign but a RingGo info sign.
Ok so just re-read this. I think the one on Roman Road, the post seems to be to the right of the end of the bay, according to gsv anyway:
LINK ROMAN ROAD GSV (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5452803,0.0765266,3a,75y,181.16h,92.45t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sd0IiNl5qzZ1Q8OIapkPBWw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D-2.4473448362539756%26panoid%3Dd0IiNl5qzZ1Q8OIapkPBWw%26yaw%3D181.16033600666978!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDMwNC4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDU1SAFQAw%3D%3D)
BUT I have found something interesting. In the same bay, but on the other end of it towards the main road, there is this sign. Seems to contradict the first sign as taken by the parking enforcement.
(https://i.ibb.co/c5ttDpD/Screenshot-2025-03-11-164944.png) (https://ibb.co/rPMM4L4)
For Khartoum Road, the sign is blacked out, according to gsv anyway
LINK KHARTOUM ROAD GSV (https://www.google.co.uk/maps/@51.5482031,0.0754242,3a,73.8y,149.61h,77.42t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s9d15RgQmtL8dg9zuNmCzmw!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D12.583355354803714%26panoid%3D9d15RgQmtL8dg9zuNmCzmw%26yaw%3D149.61295218572505!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDMwNC4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D)
-
Neither of these make much sense.
The one in Roman Road shows the car at the end of the bay to the right but the parking signs pic taken by the CEO indicates a resident's bay to the right not a pay bay.
The other in Khartoum Road shows no parking sign but a RingGo info sign.
Yeah I think they were trying their luck. The first one was an obvious pay and display but they had no other spaces to park in, and the driver could not walk properly due to his injury. That would have probably been a better defence than what they wrote but they aren't the best when it comes to thinking straight.
They are more concerned about losing the discount as they did not receive a response to either of their challenges, if the tickets can be cancelled that's obviously a bonus.
EDITED to remove images
-
Neither of these make much sense.
The one in Roman Road shows the car at the end of the bay to the right but the parking signs pic taken by the CEO indicates a resident's bay to the right not a pay bay.
(https://i.ibb.co/99TsHLnW/Screenshot-2025-03-08-at-15-15-50.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/dwhjsMMh/Screenshot-2025-03-08-at-15-15-41.png)
The other in Khartoum Road shows no parking sign but a RingGo info sign.
(https://i.ibb.co/BK5Mh9zQ/Screenshot-2025-03-08-at-15-18-17.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/h1hk6Dj9/Screenshot-2025-03-08-at-15-17-52.png)
-
Shall I just go with no replies received then?
You can state in reps that no replies were received for informal challenges. They will reoffer the discounts in rejections.
If you can post the challenges we may be able to work up something extra.
-
You can state in reps that no replies were received for informal challenges. They will reoffer the discounts in rejections.
If you can post the challenges we may be able to work up something extra.
Hello again Chaps. I have just received the challenges they have sent - I would say that challenging tickets is not their strong suit.
(https://i.ibb.co/yFmjh2rm/Whats-App-Image-2025-03-04-at-21-04-09.jpg) (https://ibb.co/8gnZzkHn)
I would add for this one what they did not write is that although not a valid excuse, the street was full and there was no other place to park. The driver was suffering from a very painful case of gout and was having trouble walking.
(https://i.ibb.co/wZXFN5FY/Whats-App-Image-2025-03-04-at-21-04-18.jpg) (https://ibb.co/hxjJR3JC)
-
You can state in reps that no replies were received for informal challenges. They will reoffer the discounts in rejections.
If you can post the challenges we may be able to work up something extra.
-
Missing a reply to an informal challenge is not grounds for anything other than saying you didn't get it in the formal challenge to the NTO, which if made in time (which you must do) means no charge certificate will be served unless you fail to pay or make reps (and then if they reject and you don't get that rejection you can go down the reset charge certificate/order for recovery process).
What are the circumstances for each PCN - it's possible to beat these Redbridge parked without paying PCNs on grounds including the first hour is free.
So they claim that they normally park there on Khartoum Road with no problems. It seems that they have changed the signs recently and they did not notice. I think on the other one was a case of not having anywhere else to park (will have to confirm) as that is their road where they live.
I am not sure I understand what you mean by Missing a reply to an informal challenge is not grounds for anything other than saying you didn't get it in the formal challenge to the NTO
. Is this to say that they can't bring that up at all as they have now lost out on the 50% discount for both pcns?
-
instead they received the 2 respective NTO's which means that they lose the discounted rate.
[Wrong. Authorities often re-offer the discount after unsuccessful reps]
Am I right in assuming that they need to appeal the NTO's and wait for the charge certificate so they can select the option that they never received the replies?
No. See the Chief Adjudicator's Annual Report, page 5 Statutory Declarations and Witness Statements. https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Annual%20report%20202324.pdf
-
Missing a reply to an informal challenge is not grounds for anything other than saying you didn't get it in the formal challenge to the NTO, which if made in time (which you must do) means no charge certificate will be served unless you fail to pay or make reps (and then if they reject and you don't get that rejection you can go down the reset charge certificate/order for recovery process).
What are the circumstances for each PCN - it's possible to beat these Redbridge parked without paying PCNs on grounds including the first hour is free.
-
Hi All,
A family member has approached me for advice this time. They received 2 tickets on the same day (different roads) for parking. They appealed those within the 14 days time frame but did not receive a reply to their appeals - instead they received the 2 respective NTO's which means that they lose the discounted rate.
Am I right in assuming that they need to appeal the NTO's and wait for the charge certificate so they can select the option that they never received the replies?
I have attached the PCN and NTO's if you guys wish to peruse them.
(https://i.ibb.co/chVYy5yt/Whats-App-Image-2025-02-24-at-18-09-13.jpg) (https://ibb.co/yF74NTN5)
(https://i.ibb.co/3mc85Vvj/Whats-App-Image-2025-02-24-at-18-10-05.jpg) (https://ibb.co/qYp4LhCc)
(https://i.ibb.co/LDGzrQbw/Whats-App-Image-2025-02-24-at-18-09-37.jpg) (https://ibb.co/gbnMdvH1)
(https://i.ibb.co/d0pyHBss/Whats-App-Image-2025-02-22-at-20-44-23-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/4ZSx0Www)
(https://i.ibb.co/gM127JPp/Whats-App-Image-2025-02-22-at-20-44-23.jpg) (https://ibb.co/PZpLYg9n)
(https://i.ibb.co/yF2XccjP/Whats-App-Image-2025-02-22-at-20-43-38.jpg) (https://ibb.co/JjZKwwJt)