Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: elucidate on April 14, 2025, 08:49:17 pm
-
You received the NOR but didn't post this here.
You then wrote to the authority - when we don't know but their reply implies that you did not acknowledge that you had received the NOR - who replied as posted.
The NOR was dated Mon. 7th July, therefore served on 9th which is day 1 of the regulatory period of 28 days whose end date is therefore 5th August, NOT 6 Aug. as the NOR states i.e. 28 days from! Hence your PI grounds.
-
@elucidate I'll drop you a PM.
-
There's no discount now so may as well appeal.
It could be worth getting the traffic order. The case below suggests those CPZ entry signs could be wrong with all the dates but the case is for Newham not Haringey.
-------------
Case reference 2250234820
Appellant
Authority London Borough of Newham
VRM SX64EFL
PCN Details
PCN PN21502865
Contravention date 29 Dec 2024
Contravention time 09:56:00
Contravention location Ham Park Road
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked resident/shared use without a valid permit
Referral date -
Decision Date 29 Jul 2025
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons I heard this appeal by video link.
The Appellant’s case is essentially that there was no signage in the immediate vicinity to inform her that the day in w question was an event day. This may be so. However the Council clearly relies on this information being given on Controlled Zone signage which the motorist must pass in order to reach the eventual parking place – a standard form of stadium signage.
In the present case, however, although plans have been provided together with photographs of the signs relied on, these are of very poor quality and do not clearly show either the location of the signs or the location where the vehicle parked. I am not satisfied this evidence is sufficient to prove what is needed to be proved, namely that the Appellant could not have reached her parking place without passing such a sign.
I would also add that the Secretary of State’s authorisation for the sign allows the lower panel to be varied to the “date of the next event” – not the date of the next event and the event following that.
The Appeal must therefore be allowed
-
OP, pl read what you've posted.
Their NOR was sent on 7 July. Their letter dated 29 July advises you and includes a copy.
Assuming you didn't receive the original NOR, you could simply ignore the copy and wait for the process to unfold i.e. Charge Certificate, Order for Recovery, revocation order, authority referral to adjudicator and your appeal.
Or you could register an appeal now - and add procedural impropriety to what you had in your reps- and carry on. This would be quicker and you would be in control.
With a NOR dated 7 July the mandated (as opposed to the period stated in the NOR) 28 days to appeal ends on TUESDAY 5 AUGUST.
WaIt for other views.
...but don't wait too long.
I received the original NOR but I misplaced it hence I asked them to send me another one, with the intention to abide by the given timeline, hence I am getting everything in place for me to file a case with the adjudicator by midnight tonight. Is today not the last day, then?
Here (https://docs.google.com/document/d/1yLXbbtUi7nMmSEN6oJQPd_Bq3Dto6QDs/edit?usp=sharing&ouid=117727268490317838063&rtpof=true&sd=true) is the draft (if you want to skip the points I have previously submitted to the Council then you can start reading from halfway down the second page).
And here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/16sLCNZfuD7Kn7lhsE0n33CXkEPlQhtwg/view?usp=sharing) are the URL analytics.
Link to full folder of docs --> https://drive.google.com/file/d/16sLCNZfuD7Kn7lhsE0n33CXkEPlQhtwg/view?usp=sharing (https://drive.google.com/file/d/16sLCNZfuD7Kn7lhsE0n33CXkEPlQhtwg/view?usp=sharing)
-
OP, pl read what you've posted.
Their NOR was sent on 7 July. Their letter dated 29 July advises you and includes a copy.
Assuming you didn't receive the original NOR, you could simply ignore the copy and wait for the process to unfold i.e. Charge Certificate, Order for Recovery, revocation order, authority referral to adjudicator and your appeal.
Or you could register an appeal now - and add procedural impropriety to what you had in your reps- and carry on. This would be quicker and you would be in control.
With a NOR dated 7 July the mandated (as opposed to the period stated in the NOR) 28 days to appeal ends on TUESDAY 5 AUGUST.
WaIt for other views.
...but don't wait too long.
-
Good afternoon everyone,
Some linked updates:
- My formal representation (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1VR24bRwkj7PiA-o2deTKLLgxa_mqOOUP/view?usp=drive_link)
- Their rejection of my formal representation (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1zWnjDUXzTiQ3KPBylL9pCAVkuz4jChBR/view?usp=sharing)
In order to try and leverage the Strategy of Last Resort, I did provide them with a Bitly link as mitigating evidence, and my Bitly analytics clearly show no-one ever clicked on it.
@cp8759 Can you please advise on how to proceed on this basis?
[EDIT: Broken links fixed]
-
Is me saying the sign hadn't been flipped over a poor defence?
It's arguable, as the quality of the photo from the CEO is so bad, an adjudicator might decide that he can't be sure it had been flipped. But by your own admission, you don't really recall if it was flipped or not.
... surely that can't be true, because, if what they're saying is indeed the case, the implication is that, on the days leading up to an event, people are able to park without any restrictions whatsoever?
No, if that's what they're saying the implication is that they're imposing event day restrictions on non-event days.
The only thing I can come up with is just a screenshot of GSV which I saw before I set off. Or proof of purchase at the restaurant. They probably won't bother to look at either of those things.
OK so that's something.
If I wait for the NtO, appeal and then they reject it, will they re-offer the discounted rate?
You can't appeal an NTO, you can only make a formal representation against it. They would normally reoffer the discount but you can take it as read that they will reject. It's only when you appeal to the tribunal that you get a fair hearing.
-
Thank you all for your ongoing discussion. In particular thank you @stamfordman for going through the trouble of going to the location to take a photo.
I'm honestly at a loss for how I got it so badly wrong, I have good vision and don't normally make these kinds of mistakes.
Is me saying the sign hadn't been flipped over a poor defence? Would there be any onus on the authority to prove it had been done? The rejection letter says they do it "days before" an event, therefore any assertion that the sign wasn't flipped to match mode cannot be correct.
... surely that can't be true, because, if what they're saying is indeed the case, the implication is that, on the days leading up to an event, people are able to park without any restrictions whatsoever?
In these circumstances the best option might be the strategy of last resort (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/ealing-cumberland-road-w7-code-53j-failing-to-comply-with-a-restriction-on-vehic/msg56444/#msg56444), though I have come up with a few variations of it they all depend on the OP having some sort of mitigating evidence for the council to (fail to) look at.
The only thing I can come up with is just a screenshot of GSV which I saw before I set off. Or proof of purchase at the restaurant. They probably won't bother to look at either of those things.
If I wait for the NtO, appeal and then they reject it, will they re-offer the discounted rate?
-
A few nonsense posts have now vanished. We all need to remember that it's not up to any of us to decide the rights and wrongs, what we have to bear in mind is, if the adjudicator asks the appellant "what's wrong with this sign ?"
(https://imgur.kageurufu.net/vzG0yjB.png)
there needs to be a compelling answer, not one that they can deal with by saying "I disagree and find as a fact that the contravention occurred".
Simply saying that it was impossible to know whether the sign applied or not is not going to cut it. Please let's be realistic and remember that we need to give legal advise on arguable points and on the prospects of success of those arguments, this is not a philosophical debate about the rights and wrongs of what the council has done. Further posts that ignore this will be removed without further warning.
Going back to the previous issue, clearly for the 1st April the council could say that the extended hours means people wouldn't turn up and occupy all the bays before kick-off, so the ultra-vires argument doesn't work either.
In these circumstances the best option might be the strategy of last resort (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/ealing-cumberland-road-w7-code-53j-failing-to-comply-with-a-restriction-on-vehic/msg56444/#msg56444), though I have come up with a few variations of it they all depend on the OP having some sort of mitigating evidence for the council to (fail to) look at.
-
Within the controlled times Mon-Sat, the Pay-by-Phone times are identical for normal and event days being 10am to 5pm
-
Yes there are entry signs with event days but as we know these control only single yellows.
If you park in the bay with that parking sign I do think the only conclusion you can make is it that those times are operational on that day. The only alternative IMO is that there are no restrictions on non-event days, which is a point that could be tested.
But it could be clearer and also say 'Event day today'.
(https://imgur.kageurufu.net/BzoyLQC.png)
-
Why they need to use the sign for a lunchtime game (as today) as a match day though is a bit daft as it was over by 14:30.
So there might be an argument that the restriction was ultra-vires, similarly to the box junction case in Ricardo Bowden v London Borough of Newham (2240295228, 2 January 2025) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X3SEOqKaiXoh1m6I-E0jMATjztIEyOVG/view).
@stamfordman what evidence is there about the end time of the relevant event?
And crucially, was the end time something that was known in advance?
The kick-off for the 1 April game when the OP parked was 19:45. I'm just pointing out that flipping it to the match day plate makes little sense for a 12:30 kick-off if all it does is add 2 hours after the usual 18:30 end time.
There could be another event though on the same day (eg in Finsbury Park).
As I said though the advantage of this signage is you don't need to know anything about events and just obey the sign.
-
Why they need to use the sign for a lunchtime game (as today) as a match day though is a bit daft as it was over by 14:30.
So there might be an argument that the restriction was ultra-vires, similarly to the box junction case in Ricardo Bowden v London Borough of Newham (2240295228, 2 January 2025) (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1X3SEOqKaiXoh1m6I-E0jMATjztIEyOVG/view).
@stamfordman what evidence is there about the end time of the relevant event?
And crucially, was the end time something that was known in advance?
-
Can't fault the sign as at time of PCN it was indeed a 12r contravention resident bay only and it tells out that it is a match/event day.
Why they need to use the sign for a lunchtime game (as today) as a match day though is a bit daft as it was over by 14:30.
(https://imgur.kageurufu.net/36PCv6M.jpeg)
-
+1
Also I don't think the P&D times differ between event and non-event days. The sign has always seemed clear enough to me, but we do see rather a lot of cases where OPs just haven't read the full sign, usually because they're in a hurry. Another recent case saw the OP totally ignore the yellow background "No Waiting" sign at the top of the pole which had the times parking was barred.
Act in haste, repent at leisure !
-
Aside from the fact that it's out of focus, can someone please explain to me what is unclear or ambiguous about the middle panel?
(https://imgur.kageurufu.net/tosE1HF.png)
Because that's the only one that is relevant, and when an adjudicator asks what's wrong with it I don't think it's going to matter what the other panels say.
-
The Council must communicate a restriction in a way that a diligent motorist has a fighting chance of understanding. The Council must do this with compliant signage, it cannot invent a secret code based on the presence of hinges in signs and expect this to be understood.
I can't see why the bottom panel would be of any relevance, as the Tuesday in question was neither a Sunday nor a Bank Holiday.
The top panel refers to "match and event days", and I'm in agreement with HCA that it's meaningless. How is a motorist supposed to determine if there is both a "match" and an "event" on any given day (the Council may well have intended 'match or event', but they wrote "match and event", so hold them to it)?
I propose a variant on the strategy of last resort, a highly pedantic appeal that demands the council provide evidence all sorts of things that they won't bother doing, with a note that they will be held to strict proof of them all at the tribunal stage.
Admit nothing, use their bad photo against them: I can't read the restriction in your photo, what does it say (in full, all sides)? is it variable? what does the other side say? What proof do you have of the state of the sign when I parked? Do you only flip on match days? At midnight exactly? What about event days? What's your proof that it was a match day? How was I supposed to know that? What's your definition of an match day? How was I supposed to know that? What's your proof that your definition of what match day is was available to me at the time I parked? etc. etc.
-
How can why should the top panel be construed as having effect on the day in question when the use of the same permitted parking expression in the middle or lowest panel does not.
Even if you ignore the top panel, the lower panels are not unclear or ambiguous and in any event there's substantial compliance. Elucidate's case isn't that the sign was confusing or unclear, but simply that he misread the end time of the restrictions.
-
How can and why should the top panel be construed as having effect on the day in question when the use of the same permitted parking expression in the middle or lowest panel does not.
As I posted, IMO we're in danger of reading what we want to see.
OP, by way of example see diagram 13.48 on page 170 of the Traffic Signs Manual and Schedule 18 of the Traffic Signs etc. Regs:
https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/782724/traffic-signs-manual-chapter-03.pdf
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2016/362/schedule/18/made
IMO, the permitted parking expression is meaningless on its own, it must be brought into effect by other sign(s) stating that today is a 'match etc. day'.
-
@elucidate my understanding is that @stamfordman isn't a million miles away and if you ask nicely he might be able to go and get a photo of the sign in the next few days.
-
I'm loath to act before the OP has bothered to answer.
At the best of times it's a one-hour round trip for me to go to the sign and come home again, and things are slightly more complicated what with me needing to go on a match or event day. I'm not saying I refuse to do it but there's obviously nothing I can do until I get the opportunity.
-
Each panel is to be read in isolation, and I don't think it's arguable that the sign is not capable of being understood.
-
I'm loath to act before the OP has bothered to answer.
But if pushed...
When are 'Match and Event days'?
A parking sign is formatted as follows:
Top, upper or only panel: The restriction(in this case parking, but it could be loading or similar) and its scope, in this case the 'permitted parking expression' of 'Match and Event days'.
But they're not defined. Not every Mon, Tues, Wed, Thurs, Fri, Sat or Sun is a 'match or event day'.
So, WTF does the top panel mean in isolation?
IMO, nothing.
The sign is meaningless as it stands.
When are the 'Match and event days'?
Or is a motorist supposed to guess that as the top panel is exposed then it's a 'Match or event day'?
Good luck to the council succeeding on this at adjudication.
-
It's hard to make out but it does say till 8:30 pm:
(https://imgur.kageurufu.net/lMmIQWd.png)
Might be one for the strategy of last resort (https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/ealing-cumberland-road-w7-code-53j-failing-to-comply-with-a-restriction-on-vehic/msg56444/#msg56444).
-
..and the sign says verbatim?
It's important, so it's worth spending time(3 minutes?).
-
Good evening,
The rejection letter has come in: https://1drv.ms/b/c/f11da62e0ed95d12/EZy--ppPRkZEoU69i-9UMOQBmxUc5-Dp_-neSq9Y81FbYg?e=hE824h
That's the direct link. Again, please use Incognito to avoid the need to sign-in.
Also added to the folder.
-
OP, I think confirmation bias is kicking-in again!
Can we agree what the sign actually says and how it's formatted first pl.
It comprises 3 panels.
Top panel
'P' 'Match and event days'.
Middle panel
'Mon-Sat 8.30am-8.30pm'
Resident permit holders FFC
or
10am - ?pm
Pay at machine
Display ticket
or
Pay by phone
Max stay 2 hours
No return within 2 hours
Bottom panel
Sundays and public holidays
Noon-4.30pm
Resident permit holders only FFC
Is this correct?
-
I have appealed citing the fact that I checked the sign both before and after arriving at the location and, from both those readings, I understood that I can park after 6:30pm, and I can't see anything on the sign to show that I have breached any rule.
No, you've made an informal representation, you're a long way from making any appeal.
-
I guess I'll just have to be contrite and see how it goes?
No, stamfordman has indicated the signs can be checked on Saturday so let's wait and see what the signs show on an event day.
On the event day in question, the headline time at the top definitely did say restrictions apply till 8:30pm.
I have appealed citing the fact that I checked the sign both before and after arriving at the location and, from both those readings, I understood that I can park after 6:30pm, and I can't see anything on the sign to show that I have breached any rule.
-
In some ways this is a better way of handling event days as it doesn't rely on zone entry signs with event days, parking signs with separate event days times (and best practice, also small plates with an event day phone hotline).
In others it's worse as a diligent motorist planning ahead can fall into a false sense of security and the sign can be more complicated.
-
I guess I'll just have to be contrite and see how it goes?
No, stamfordman has indicated the signs can be checked on Saturday so let's wait and see what the signs show on an event day.
-
I've only now finally understood what you mean by a flipped sign on a hinge. I didn't know such a thing existed.
The sign hasn't changed at all then.
I suppose what happened with me was:
1) I looked at GSV before I left home, thinking I can park there safely after 6:30pm
2) I looked at the sign once I parked, but "confirmation bias" kicked in making me misread 8:30 for 6:30
I guess I'll just have to be contrite and see how it goes?
-
The obvious question is, if the only contemporaneous image is blurred, how can the council prove what sign was on display at the material time? I somehow doubt they take a photo of each and every sign ahead of each event day.
-
The next match at the Emirates is this Saturday - women's champions league game. That is the earliest we can check the sign.
-
The sign is indeed flippable, here it is 'unflipped' : -
https://maps.app.goo.gl/QZCdQwjwruN25Ndf8
However, I think the OP has misread the sign more than he thinks. The event days, ('flipped') sign, albeit blurred, shows that public pay-by-phone parking is only permitted 10am to 5pm (I think, it may be 6 pm). But I suspect the time period for payment parking is the same as on other, non-event days. It's certainly not a sign to be read when one is in a hurry !
-
Can you get us a photo of the new sign?
-
@cp8759 @stamfordman
You will need to disregard any sign you see on GSV because it is now completely different. Unfortunately I did not take my own picture, but I do recognise the CEO sign as the correct sign.
Having another look at it, from what I can see non-residents can P&D from 10am till 5pm. Whereas resident permit holders can park from 8:30am till (what I thought said 6:30pm but later I realised was) 8:30pm.
So I definitely could not have done a valid P&D at the time. I suppose I was so hung up on being certain about 6:30pm being the end of the restricted time, I didn't properly acknowledge anything else.
-
I think Haringey flips the signs on match days - you can see the hinge. On 1 April Arsenal were playing at home.
The blurred pic won't impress an adjudicator. It would be useful to see what it says as I wonder if the P&D times do not coincide with permit parking.
-
@elucidate this sign https://maps.app.goo.gl/SzbCiTDLT4znNFkF9 looks like it says it's a permit holders' bay from 5 pm to 6:30 pm, are you saying the sign has now changed? The photos on the council website are too blurred to make out the times.
This sign for the same bay https://maps.app.goo.gl/td9wzMuSrAhL23xk8 is very clear.
It looks to me like either the restrictions have changed very recently, or the CEO just made a mistake.
-
And this is in the criminal section because…?
I apologise.
-
And this is in the criminal section because…?
-
I had planned to take my family out (on Tuesday 01/04/2025) to Nando's in Finsbury Park, and we thought it would be nice to take our little one to the park itself before going to the restaurant.
Before setting off, I searched on GSV for where I should park the car. I chose not to park on Oxford Road where my chosen entrance to the park is, because, at the time in question, parking is strictly for residents' permit holders only on that road. So I decided to park on Upper Tollington Park which is partway between the park's entrance at the end of Oxford Road, and carried my little one from there to the park, and from the park to the restaurant, and back to the car again.
The reason for choosing Upper Tollington Park was that the bay I parked in allows for non-residents to park if they have a pay & display ticket. As I got out of the car, I checked the sign and I misread the sign as only being required to pay if parking between 8:30am and 6:30pm. In actual fact it said between 8:30am and 8:30pm. I also noticed that the restrictions only applies on match and event days, but I thought that was irrelevant to me because it was already past 6:30pm.
After visiting the park we walked past the car at 7:30pm and there was no PCN. As we continued walking towards the restaurant we saw a CEO issuing a PCN to another car further southwest on the same street, about 30 metres away from my car, on the same side of the road. I wondered if I was wrong to park too, but noticed that this particular car was in a separate bay which is strictly for business permit holders till 8:30pm. So I thought to myself I don't need to worry, because this driver was in the wrong and I was in the right. Little did I know that that same CEO was about to head to my car and give me the same treatment.
It was only when I got back to the car at 8:30pm that I saw the PCN and I checked the restrictions sign, and I realised it said 8:30am-8:30pm, not 8:30am-6:30pm.
In the PCN evidence I notice that the CEO's image of the restrictions is very low resolution. I don't suppose this would be of any help to me in my case?
Please note that the sign shown on GSV is outdated. This is a link (https://www.google.com/maps/@51.5694612,-0.109509,3a,60y,159.03h,60.86t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sQ3amTKG-ar_Iej5xqHEd3Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D29.13549222170372%26panoid%3DQ3amTKG-ar_Iej5xqHEd3Q%26yaw%3D159.03381006208656!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDQwOS4wIKXMDSoJLDEwMjExNDUzSAFQAw%3D%3D) to the exact location I was parked.
Today is the last day to post a challenge without losing the discounted rate, so any response I could get asap from anyone would be greatly appreciated. I realise I should have come here sooner but I just could not find the time.
Link to PCN and CEO evidence (https://1drv.ms/f/c/f11da62e0ed95d12/EtB36qZeZQVGierd11aRagEBGf2EVPXdMX5tXLTNkC5Yow?e=m4g9T2) - use Incognito to avoid needing to sign in to view.
@cp8759