Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Jill on March 05, 2025, 10:49:12 am
-
Iv started a new thread, thank you
-
I would advise you to open a new thread for your new PCN. Otherwise members will get confused.
-
You could send them the reviewed decision and put them on notice you will apply for costs if they don't cancel.
-
No signs, no yellow lines, and the date on that sign that he’s taken a picture of is March
-
They've sent you another rejection with the same BS about the CPZ being in force where there is no parking place sign?
-
Guess I can’t stay away from this site, so I’m back again with another ticket, same place that mrmustard recently won, 3 TIMES, look at the event date
https://postimg.cc/gallery/PxYBG1s
-
An exquisitely constructed application for review.
I had better not say anything further save for 6 decisions of the said adjudicator have now been overturned recently.
-
Well done! And don't worry, it won't be the last PCN you'll have to fight. So now you know where to get advice.
-
Just checked my bank account and newham have refunded me in full £130
Thank you for all the help Iv received especially from mrmustard
-
Thank you very much, I will let you know the outcome
-
This situation comes about because the Enforcement Authority, in this case Newham, is not routinely informed when a request for review is submitted by the appellant.
You have 14 days to submit a review request. And it maybe a further 4-6 weeks before the "request" is scheduled. If the request is granted the appeal is reheard immediately. But it can also be adjourned.
All this means that in the meantime the EA's enforcement machine carries on automatically, if you haven't paid the penalty within 28 days as specified in the original Tribunal decision. The enforcement process has not been put on hold. And can escalate to the Charge Certificate and Order for Recovery stages. So my standard advice is to submit a review request, where it is possible and to also pay the penalty, then seek a refund if you prevail at review, as you have done.
As I recall the advice to pay the original tribunal decision before any review has been heard was also on the LT website, but I can't find it now.
However Newham seem to have no procedures in place to deal with successful reviews when the decision notice lands in their inbox. Reviews are very rare and successful reviews are even rarer.
The fastest way to resolve this seems to be to email the London Tribunals, FAO the Chief Adjudicator, and copied to the Council's CEO and Chief Legal Officers. Ask the Chief Adjudicator to write to the other two to remind them of their legal duty to comply with the order of Adjudicator ???? made on the dd/mm/yy cancelling PCN nnnnnnnn and to arrange immediate refund of the amount already paid.
Doing so provoked very quick responses from the Council on several occasions, followed by the money. However in one case it took over 30 days for the money to arrive in the appellants account.
rachel.mckoy@newham.gov.uk is the Director of Law & Governance - resigning in September
Paul Martin is the newly appointed Interim Chief Executive - at a guess paul.martin@newham.gov.uk
queries@londontribunals.org.uk
-
Now that his covers blown :D, Iv received a reply from the parking manager,
Thank you for your email however, I have no remit regarding penalty charge notices so I have copied in colleagues from the ENV – Parking Enquiries team who will be able to assist you here
But id previously emailed the ENV 3 times, oh well let’s see how it goes,
-
I gave Jill the parking manager's email.
-
Oh you tease....
..do share!
-
I had a great tip for who I should email, so I sent an email and will give it a bit more time to see what happens.
-
Have you spoken to the Tribunal about the reviewing Adjudicator's directions of 30th June being ignored?
As there was no evidence from which the Adjudicator could find that the restriction relied on was correctly signed I find that it is in the interest s of justice that the decision be reviewed and I substitute a decision allowing the Appeal
Does Newham have an online status/history for the PCN?
-
Although we won this case (2250149506, Iv been unsuccessful at getting my £130 back, 3 emails and an online inquiry form, and still nothing, you can’t get any worse than Newham
-
Well done.
IMO, I don't think this changes anything about the understanding of parking place (not bay) signage (other than for Gerald Mohabir): every parking place must be signed in accordance with the council traffic order or the TSRGD whichever is the more onerous*. When permitted by the regs, signs may include permitted parking expressions and when these refer to 'match days' or similar those days may be displayed other than on the sign itself e.g. 'controlled parking zone' gateway signs when located within a zone etc. The legal test remains LATOR (surprised this wasn't mentioned in the review decision).
As regards permitted variants of 'controlled' the situation might be different as alluded to by there reviewing adjudicator.
*- Cambell v Camden for background.
According to the Chief Adjudicator's reports Gerald Mohabir has been in post for at least 3 years....which means that he might be due his three-yearly appraisal!
https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/sites/default/files/Annual%20report%20202324.pdf
Part 4, Training and Appraisal page 18. ;D
-
Very well done ! So this would seem to drive a coach and horses through a lot of councils enforcement of Event Zones.
This one is about the fundamental point of a parking bay with no sign. It just happened to have been on an event day.
If the tribunal is using new adjudicators it really needs to give them basic training.
-
Brilliant result, you was like a dog with a bone you never gave up, Thank you a 1000 times over
-
Very well done ! So this would seem to drive a coach and horses through a lot of councils enforcement of Event Zones.
-
Here is the review decision - 2250149506
(https://i.ibb.co/gLq9XSP9/review-1.jpg) (https://ibb.co/21VhLvsh)
(https://i.ibb.co/dwH3RHvc/review-2.jpg) (https://ibb.co/TxNnsNGT)
-
Can we please have a look at the Council's case summary
&
your "skeleton".
-
You shouldn't have to exhibit anything - an adjudicator who doesn't know the fundamentals of CPZs and parking places is not fit to be on the panel IMO.
-
I exhibited 2240575122 and 2240458898 & 2240576318 on 16 May 25 so well in advance of the hearing.
-
That's a bonkers decision and it sounds like the adjudicator is confusing a CPZ with a PPA.
There are numerous decisions allowed where a parking sign is missing in a designated parking place and where we have full confidence of winning, eg this live case in Newham:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/newham-abercrombie-road-parking-ticket
And Mr M you won case 2250106627, and in the thread on this I posted the below:
Case reference 2240575122
Appellant Razwan Razaq
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM WM66MRY
PCN Details
PCN PN21061442
Contravention date 20 Nov 2024
Contravention time 09:56:00
Contravention location First Avenue
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 29 Mar 2025
Adjudicator Jack Walsh
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and refund forthwith the penalty charge and the release fees paid.
Reasons The PCN in this case was not issued for parking on a restricted street during the prescribed hours. Rather, it was issued for parking in a residents' or shared use bay without a valid permit. That is because the vehicle was not parked on part of the road marked with a single or double yellow line but was, instead, parked in a parking bay.
Mr. Razaq makes the point that there were no signs in the vicinity of the parking bay indicating what, if any, restrictions applied in that bay. The enforcement authority (EA) has provided no evidence of any signage indicating that the bay in question was indeed a residents'/shared use parking place.
Instead, the EA has provided a single photograph of what is known as a controlled parking zone (CPZ) entrance sign, which is to be found at item 1 of the Part 3 sign table in Schedule 5 to the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016. The sign appears to be on a street called Balaam Street, which is a street not shown in the map provided by the EA. This photograph does not assist the EA's case one bit, however. A CPZ entrance sign informs motorists of the prescribed hours of the restricted streets, marked with single yellow lines, within the CPZ to which it applies. It is not the appropriate sign to inform motorists of parking restrictions in parking bays. Indeed, the sign shown in the photograph says nothing about any requirement to possess or display a parking permit when parking in bays.
If the EA wished to create a permit parking area (and not a CPZ) the appropriate sign is that at item 5 of the Part 3 sign table. But that is not the sign that was used. The EA's case summary and notice of rejection indicate a confusion on its part between a CPZ and a permit parking area. They are in fact quite distinct and require different signage. It is surprising that the EA seems to be confused about such a fundamental distinction in terms of parking restrictions.
Mr. Razaq is correct to say there is no evidence of any signage informing motorists of the restrictions, if any, applicable to the parking bay in which his vehicle was parked. He made that point very clearly in his representations against the PCN and the fee for the removal and recovery of his vehicle. Those representations should have been accepted. The contravention is not proved and the appeal is allowed.
-
I agree. That bay when placed has to be accompanies by a sign or else it is free to use.
I have the TMO, it actually includes that they must put up a sign 'in the vicinity' of the bay which the adjudicator decided was met by the cpz entry signs which are at both ends of the road.
-
..and the TSRGD themselves.
Do you have a copy of their Order?
Good luck.
-
I was wrongfooted. I had technical problems with my desktop & laptop (both now fixed) that stressed me out and I wasn't within reach of backup materials.
The answer is in the Traffic Signs Manual
(https://i.ibb.co/ynv3km1V/tsm.jpg) (https://imgbb.com/)
-
Idiot.
A parking place must be signed. Adjudicators have held that when a bay is signed to the effect that the restrictions are amended on 'event days' or other similar 'permitted parking expression' the exact detail of these restrictions may instead be conveyed by publicising on CPZ gateway signs. Practicality v procedural imperatives.
But if a parking place does not have a sign which informs a motorist that the location is subject to 'event day' restrictions in the first place, then it's not.
The adjudicator appears to have decided that parking places within CPZs don't need traffic signs at all, everything can be hung on a CPZ sign.
Mr M, I can understand that you were wrong-footed by such stupidity, and perhaps not prepared. I would suggest looking at the council's TMO (they might have provided it in full with their evidence) and look at how this deals with 'Traffic Signs'. In 99.9999% the order itself will require the council to place traffic signs within or in the vicinity of the parking place, therefore (as in Campbell v Camden) what the regs says is really secondary: if the council have imposed this requirement upon themselves then they must comply.
https://londontribunals.org.uk/ords/pwslive/f?p=14952:70::INITIALISE::70:P70_CAS_REFNO,P70_PCN_REFNO,P70_RETURN_PAGE,P70_AST_CODE:823489,937114,60,APPEAL&cs=381DkoCCbUtLz6XchA3P9I9VcJlOZLmyhfGFlSi_GWMtW3Y27QsQWUCvO7UfvkJlW6GvlRvOS62etWvzmU3SC2w
-
I managed to lose this case, no. 2250149506 with the adjudicator asking me to explain why the law says the bay must have its own sign. Such a fundamental disagreement from the findings of every other adjudicator I have been in front of and which wrongfooted me. I will ask for a review. Expert comments welcomed.
(https://i.ibb.co/tTyc45YV/decision-image.jpg) (https://ibb.co/LX468f9V)
-
Received this reply as expected.
https://postimg.cc/gallery/FsVxgh5
-
I have now made the formal representations, which were threefold.
1 no sign
2 an unfair website as it highlights 'pay now' after you have chosen 'make a rep'.
3 unfair chatbot as it doesn't know what a procedural impropriety us, so how can the public rely on it for help.
Expect we will end up at the tribunal where I have previously beaten Newham for blacked out signs.
-
You can go on GSV (google street view) and then make your own screenshots but I would make an alternative suggestion, as below, or you can retain me as your free representative by emailing mrmustard@zoho.com - I have previous success with Newham and blacked out signs at the tribunal.
Dear Sirs
I was parked within a bay. There was no sign adjacent to the bay setting out the rules or doubtless the CEO would have photographed it. Each and every bay which the council paints can have its own unique set of rules (different days, times, classes of vehicle etc) and for that reason each and every bay must have a sign in order to adequately inform motorists of the rules. If there was no sign, which there wasn't, and a quick persual of google street view going back some years suggests that it has been missing for some time, then no contravention can possibly have occurred and the bay is in effect a free bay.
To issue a PCN in such a situation was an abuse of power, wholly unreasonable and/or veaxatious.
Please cancel the PCN without putting me to the trouble of asking an independent adjudicator at London Tribunals to do so.
Yours etc
-
As you will see from the attached GSV snapshots dated March 2018, April 2019, September 2020 and April 2022 the single traffic sign which was present in 2018 disappeared between then and April 2019.
How do I get the GSV snapshots
-
Happy to be the tribunal representative if we get that far. Newham cheat all the time.
-
I keep reading it because it’s so good, it’s like being a naughty girl sending it 😂 😂
-
I agree - 100% - the council pics show no bay parking sign, you say there is no parking sign and the contravention is a code 12.
We rarely see Mr Anderson in full on attack mode so you can be sure but I think I would tone it down a bit...
(https://i.imgur.com/BZBcCTJ.png)
-
:D
That’s brilliant thank you so much
-
IMO, 100%.
Putting this out for wider comment.....
But considering that GSV shows that there hasn't been a traffic sign here since 2019 they have a problem.
PCN *******
As you will see from the attached GSV snapshots dated March 2018, April 2019, September 2020 and April 2022 the single traffic sign which was present in 2018 disappeared between then and April 2019. I also refer you to your CEO's photos which show that the required traffic sign is not in situ.
That the council has not replaced this sign or installed an alternative in the following 6 years is disgraceful and dereliction of their duty under LATOR.
That you would have no doubt issued unenforceable PCNs during this time is even worse and constitutes systemic unlawful enrichment.
That you tried this on with me and denied my initial representations on this point I find unforgivable.
When you have confirmed that my PCN has been cancelled, I shall consider my next step. But if you reject these representations then this as well as the authority's embarrassment at adjudication - at which I would press for a hearing whether you contest or not- would be certain.
I await your response.
-
What do you think my chances are of winning
-
This is the sign from the other end
https://postimg.cc/gallery/NLTry5F
Looks as if the CEO needs to go onto a refresher course, because these signs have nothing whatever to do with the parking bays. They control the single-yellow lines.
-
This is the sign from the other end
https://postimg.cc/gallery/NLTry5F
-
This is the 2nd page Iv now managed to do
https://postimg.cc/gallery/pKkjZYL
-
Thank you very much,
would you please help me to word this in the appeal, I’m not good at letter writing, actually I’m hopeless
-
Their letter is the usual tosh we see so often from London councils, and is an actual mis-statement of the law and regulations. As SFM says, the CPZ signs only control parking on the single-yellow lines in the zone, not the parking bays, which must have their own signs.
If one looks around virtually using GSV, there are signs by some bays, but it is clear that Newham have failed in their duties under LATOR Regulation 18 which puts them under a duty to erect signage advising of restrictions and to maintain those signs for the whole time the restriction remains in operation.
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/1996/2489/regulation/18
-
https://maps.app.goo.gl/aDGwqfvDb1fQrFES9
Entered from the other end of the street via corporation st
-
I’m trying to post the 2nd page but it seems to only download 1 page
-
You are in a parking bay so if there was no sign (and it could well have been vandalised) then there is no contravention.
Their reference to the controlled zone is right that it has the hours of the zone but the signs control only single yellow lines and parking bays must have their own sign(s).
-
Is this right 🤞
Yes - please post the remainder.
-
(https://i.postimg.cc/MK20LYLJ/B5768045.png) (https://postimg.cc/Btp1L2sm)
Is this right 🤞
-
Hi
Yes I challenged it and it was refused, I’m just working out how to download the letter
-
Please post a GSV link to the location.
Did you make any challenge to the original PCN?
-
Hi
I could really use your help. I parked in a bay that everyone uses because there’s no restriction on that side of the road. But guess what? I got a ticket even though there’s no signage stating any changes. When I confronted the warden, he said there’s a sign at the other end of the street, the end I didn’t enter from. But here’s the catch - he also said that the pole that was there had been vandalised and cut down, which isn’t true at all. Do I have any grounds for appeal?
https://postimg.cc/gallery/C0wfWPQ
Hope Iv done this right, thank you