Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: i on May 05, 2025, 12:42:36 pm
-
I have a similar issue, I was hoping you were successful! I'm going to escalate to tribunal too
-
Thanks - was about to post this eve after work!
I made it clear in the appeal that I was appealing only the tow charge and not the PCN
Unsure if there's anything else I can do so would appreciate all the help and advice you might have!
-
This appeal was lost. Any grounds for review?
--------
Case reference 2250315966
Appellant xxxxxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Waltham Forest
VRM OO56MDP
PCN Details
PCN FR65342834
Contravention date 01 May 2025
Contravention time 10:03:00
Contravention location Beresford Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked restricted street during prescribed hours
Referral date -
Decision Date 03 Sep 2025
Adjudicator Joanne Coombe
Appeal decision Appeal refused
Direction Full penalty charge notice amount stated to be paid within 28 days.
Reasons
1. This is an appeal against a penalty charge notice (PCN) imposed by the London Borough of Waltham Forest, the Authority.
2. The appeal was listed as a personal appeal and the Appellant attended. The Adjudicator adjourned the case to allow the Authority to respond to further representations made by the Appellant. The Adjudicator concluded the case on the papers.
The Appellant’s case
3. The Appellant relies upon the grounds of appeal that there has been a procedural impropriety and that the penalty amount exceeds the amount applicable.
4. The Appellant has questioned why the ‘no waiting’ contravention was used rather than a contravention of parking (partially) outside of a parking bay. The Appellant says that they are a resident of the road and parked in good faith not realising there had been a minor encroachment onto the yellow line.
5. The Appellant requested a copy of the Traffic Regulation Order.
6. The Appellant referred to the Department for Transport guidance for local authorities and questioned whether the Civil enforcement Officer (CEO) was appropriately trained. The Appellant quotes from the guidelines as follows ‘the decision on whether to immobilise or to remove a vehicle requires an exercise of judgement and must only be taken following specific authorisation by an appropriately trained CEO’.
7. The Appellant relies on the authorisation notice and says that the authorisation was provided after the vehicle had started to be removed.
The Authority’s Case
8. The Authority has submitted a copy of the Traffic Management Order dated 25th July 2019 and have highlighted paragraph 8 which deals with removal of a vehicle from a parking or loading place. The Authority has further highlighted a section of schedule 1 of the order with a ‘Map title list’ of BC50.
9. The Authority submits that the Traffic Management Act 2004 empowers local authority civil enforcement officers to clamp or remove any vehicle that is parked in contravention of parking regulations. The Removal and Disposal of Vehicles Regulations 1986 were the regulations, and these were amended through the Removal and Disposal of Vehicle Regulations 1993 to enable Civil Enforcement Officers to remove or arrange for the removal of vehicles that are parked in contravention of parking regulations.
10. The Authority confirms that Civil Enforcement Officers are compelled to work in accordance with the current Code of Practice as laid down by the then Parking Committee for London now incorporated into the London Councils. This can be obtained through the London Councils: https://www.londoncouncils.gov.uk
Findings of Fact
11. I am satisfied, from the photographs taken by the CEO, that the vehicle was parked in contravention of the restrictions with the whole of the front wheel on the yellow line. The yellow line is accompanied by a ‘no waiting’ sign. The CEO has identified the correct restriction code and the restriction is lawfully in place.
12. The decision to remove the vehicle is in the exercise of the discretion of the CEO and it is not open to me as an adjudicator to challenge the exercise of discretion.
13. As the CEO has the power to authorise removal, the fact that the authorisation document is signed after the vehicle has started to be removed does not cause a procedural impropriety.
Outcome of the Appeal
14. The appeal is dismissed. I am satisfied, from the evidence before me, that the penalty was validly imposed in relation to the use of the vehicle and that none of the grounds of appeal are made out.
-
OP, unless the council have uploaded their evidence, then IMO what you've assembled is premature.
Do you have the TRACE report to which you referred?
'Where vehicles are removed, enforcement authorities should contact the police or, in London, the towed vehicle tracing service (TRACE) operated by London councils and advise them of the time, place, vehicle registration number, and pound to attend for retrieval so they can deal with queries from motorists who report their vehicle stolen.'.
Similarly, where are the council's policies as regards removal?
'An enforcement authority should formulate and publish clear guidelines for CEOs on when it will be appropriate to use immobilise or remove.
The guidelines should cover the order of priority in which vehicles should be dealt with, based on the nature of the contravention. Powers should not be used randomly, and authorities should draw up guidelines in consultation with the police.
The decision on whether to immobilise or to remove a vehicle requires an exercise of judgement and must [footnote 21] only be taken following specific authorisation by an appropriately trained CEO.
The immobilisation and removal operatives should not take the decision.
Vehicles should not be immobilised or removed by contractors unless a suitably trained CEO is present to confirm that the contravention falls within the guidelines.'
IMO, you should write to the authority, refer to your PCN and Case Number and request copies of their vehicle removal guidelines failing which you request that these are included within their evidence to the tribunal. You would also request confirmation, again either under separate cover or within their evidence, the the CEO who authorised the removal was suitably qualified and authorised to do so under this policy and the council's Scheme of Delegation.
Penalty
-
Looks like an excellent presentation. Hopefully Mr Andersen will have a look. He spotted the timing issue on the tow and you must ensure this is discussed. I think you won't win on the contravention but hopefully on the tow.
Offence is spelt with a c.
The picture of another car on a single yellow is not really relevant - they can't remove all vehicles.
-
Thanks both, this has been incredibly helpful and honestly really grateful for your expertise and insight.
My hearing will happen over Teams on 29th July. I have gathered the following evidence to submit but will once again appreciate your help in strengthening the case.
Let me know your thoughts? Tribunals evidence (https://docs.google.com/presentation/d/1Br9XFdxavYn1jqBFj1JPTZZidLPl4VZUlI818JFIL5U/edit?slide=id.g36d723f663c_0_95#slide=id.g36d723f663c_0_95)
They've not addressed anything in your reps so that's a good start for you.
But it may just come down to mitigation, which the tribunal can't consider for allowed appeals but an adjudicator can recommend say a refund of the removal fee as I think the DoT's Department of Transport’s Statutory Guidance on traffic management purpose is well worth bringing to their attention.
I guess penalty exceeded is the best ground of appeal.
Opt for a personal online hearing if you can.
OP, look at your timeline again pl:
Timeline 1 May
10.03: PCN issued
10.36: Authorised for Removal
12.22 (approx): Towed and sent to vehicle pound - this time was on TRACE London from memory, but has since been updated as I have collected vehicle.
15.49: Paid full amount of £360 for vehicle to be released from pound
There is a photo showing the car lifted OFF the road timed at 10.34. How could it have been removed 2 minutes before being 'authorised' at 10.36!
An enforcement authority should formulate and publish clear guidelines for CEOs on when it will be appropriate to use immobilise or remove.
The guidelines should cover the order of priority in which vehicles should be dealt with, based on the nature of the contravention. Powers should not be used randomly, and authorities should draw up guidelines in consultation with the police.
The decision on whether to immobilise or to remove a vehicle requires an exercise of judgement and must [footnote 21] only be taken following specific authorisation by an appropriately trained CEO.
-
Good spot HCA - something more to add to the appeal. Looks like they lifted it and did the notice just after. If that's highlighted at the start of the appeal they may cave in.
-
OP, look at your timeline again pl:
Timeline 1 May
10.03: PCN issued
10.36: Authorised for Removal
12.22 (approx): Towed and sent to vehicle pound - this time was on TRACE London from memory, but has since been updated as I have collected vehicle.
15.49: Paid full amount of £360 for vehicle to be released from pound
There is a photo showing the car lifted OFF the road timed at 10.34. How could it have been removed 2 minutes before being 'authorised' at 10.36!
An enforcement authority should formulate and publish clear guidelines for CEOs on when it will be appropriate to use immobilise or remove.
The guidelines should cover the order of priority in which vehicles should be dealt with, based on the nature of the contravention. Powers should not be used randomly, and authorities should draw up guidelines in consultation with the police.
The decision on whether to immobilise or to remove a vehicle requires an exercise of judgement and must [footnote 21] only be taken following specific authorisation by an appropriately trained CEO.
-
They've not addressed anything in your reps so that's a good start for you.
But it may just come down to mitigation, which the tribunal can't consider for allowed appeals but an adjudicator can recommend say a refund of the removal fee as I think the DoT's Department of Transport’s Statutory Guidance on traffic management purpose is well worth bringing to their attention.
I guess penalty exceeded is the best ground of appeal.
Opt for a personal online hearing if you can.
-
Thank you so much. This has been incredibly helpful.
You might be surprised to hear that my friends at Waltham Forest have rejected my appeal. [Letter] (https://drive.google.com/file/d/1fSmrimPla0040DRxMJl1fe7TRO-q_pj9/view?usp=drive_link)
I will be taking this to tribunals and need your help once again please.
(1) Which of their proposed 'limited grounds' would you deem most appropriate to select?
(2) Details of appeal - can I use the same content as above?
-
It certainly does no
wt justify the impounding of my car.
I like the text, so ram it up them ! And, of course, having been towed, the OP has paid all there is to pay so taking the matter to London Tribunals is a no-brainer
-
This what I've come up with. Wait and see if others agree. Whatever, there is nothing to lose by taking this to adjudication.
--------------
I write to make representations against the PCN and towing of my vehicle.
I am a resident of Beresford Road and parked in good faith in a parking bay not realising that there was a minor encroachment on the single yellow line. This was a trivial transgression and barely worthy of a PCN.
It certainly does now justify the impounding of my car.
I put you to three tests to justify the PCN and tow:
1. Please supply the traffic order that details the extent of the yellow line to the exact metre/centimetre where it meets the unrestricted parking bay.
2. Please explain why a contravention of a waiting restriction was given instead of a minor one of being outside of bay markings, as the great majority of my car was in the parking bay.
3. Please provide the traffic management purpose in removing my car from this very minor contravention.
Please bear in mind that this yellow line is restricted to one hour and in a matter of minutes after impounding my car it would have no longer been in this minor contravention.
When considering the traffic management purpose, I also direct you to the Department of Transport’s Statutory Guidance for Local Authorities in England on Civil Enforcement of Parking Contraventions, which states:
Immobilisation and removal activity should only take place where it gives clear traffic management benefits.
I also further direct you to the same guidance and request you supply the following guidelines and whether the CEO was appropriately trained:
An enforcement authority should formulate and publish clear guidelines for CEOs on when it will be appropriate to use immobilise or remove.
The guidelines should cover the order of priority in which vehicles should be dealt with, based on the nature of the contravention. Powers should not be used randomly, and authorities should draw up guidelines in consultation with the police.
The decision on whether to immobilise or to remove a vehicle requires an exercise of judgement and must only be taken following specific authorisation by an appropriately trained CEO.
As a local resident I am naturally upset my council has carried out what seems to me to an unjustifiable use of its powers to remove my car.
I look forward to your review of my case and a positive outcome for me.
-
This can be beefed up - I'll look at it later.
-
Draft something and post here first.
I see now they lifted the car at 10:35 so when it was in contravention.
I would ask them to give their traffic management reasons to remove a vehicle that was in a minor contravention in a 1 hour restriction.
I would also ask for the traffic order that establishes the yellow line to the exact extent it exists as paint.
Stress you are a resident.
Thanks, that's helpful as have never written one of these! How does the below look?
Dear Sirs,
RE: PCN FR65342834 VRM OO56MDP
I write to make a formal representation against the towing of my vehicle.
What is the traffic management reason to remove my vehicle that was in a minor contravention in a 1 hour restriction? It is hard to comprehend the removal after such a short amount of time, on the first PCN occasion.
I am a resident of Beresford Rd and parking has become a challenge on my own street. Beresford Rd is now being used by high street shoppers for free parking following the scrapping of 15 min free parking on Station Rd.
Regards,
-
Draft something and post here first.
I see now they lifted the car at 10:35 so when it was in contravention.
I would ask them to give their traffic management reasons to remove a vehicle that was in a minor contravention in a 1 hour restriction.
I would also ask for the traffic order that establishes the yellow line to the exact extent it exists as paint.
Stress you are a resident.
-
This is a disgraceful, predatory tow by Waltham Forest - there is no traffic management purpose in towing a vehicle no longer in contravention after a minor incursion onto a single yellow that is restricted for one hour only.
I wonder if their power to remove still applies if the vehicle is no longer in contravention and is not a repeat offender.
All you can do is make reps and follow it up with a tribunal appeal as you cannot pay any more.
I can't be sure they have painted the yellow line in anything but an arbitrary way as there are no designated parking places here other than disabled bays - it's not a controlled zone.
(https://i.ibb.co/kg4mX4Zn/Screenshot-2025-05-05-at-15-00-38.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/wZMyD00L/Screenshot-2025-05-05-at-14-13-31.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/35Wj1jCK/Screenshot-2025-05-05-at-14-11-09.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/jk875Cyy/Screenshot-2025-05-05-at-14-06-32.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/XxcJ9DKL/Screenshot-2025-05-05-at-14-06-11.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/277VykqS/Screenshot-2025-05-05-at-13-47-52.png)
Agree on the predatory removal; this council must be the most ruthless and rapacious in all of London !
However, the contravention is made out as the photos show. A PCN would have sufficed, so one does have to ask what is going on between the tow truck crewe and the CEO. If the tow company are paid per tow, then getting a sympathetic CEO on board will facilitate the tow company maximising their income. I bet the council won't reveal the contract terms !
Best thing is to take them all the way to London Tribunals, because everything that has to be paid is already paid, and there are no additional costs. However, OP must first submit reps to the council.
Thanks both, for the pictures and advise - it is much appreciated. I will be submitting reps and taking this all the way to the London Tribunals.
Is there any language you recommend I should include when submitting reps please?
-
Agree on the predatory removal; this council must be the most ruthless and rapacious in all of London !
However, the contravention is made out as the photos show. A PCN would have sufficed, so one does have to ask what is going on between the tow truck crewe and the CEO. If the tow company are paid per tow, then getting a sympathetic CEO on board will facilitate the tow company maximising their income. I bet the council won't reveal the contract terms !
Best thing is to take them all the way to London Tribunals, because everything that has to be paid is already paid, and there are no additional costs. However, OP must first submit reps to the council.
-
This is a disgraceful, predatory tow by Waltham Forest - there is no traffic management purpose in towing a vehicle no longer in contravention after a minor incursion onto a single yellow that is restricted for one hour only.
I wonder if their power to remove still applies if the vehicle is no longer in contravention and is not a repeat offender.
All you can do is make reps and follow it up with a tribunal appeal as you cannot pay any more.
I can't be sure they have painted the yellow line in anything but an arbitrary way as there are no designated parking places here other than disabled bays - it's not a controlled zone.
(https://i.ibb.co/kg4mX4Zn/Screenshot-2025-05-05-at-15-00-38.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/wZMyD00L/Screenshot-2025-05-05-at-14-13-31.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/35Wj1jCK/Screenshot-2025-05-05-at-14-11-09.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/jk875Cyy/Screenshot-2025-05-05-at-14-06-32.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/XxcJ9DKL/Screenshot-2025-05-05-at-14-06-11.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/277VykqS/Screenshot-2025-05-05-at-13-47-52.png)
-
Thank you for the image! Yep.. unfortunately the images only loaded for me after posting!
We've just gone back out onto the street to identify exactly where the car was parked. Looking at the markings the bonnet was definitely overhanging as I've documented here (https://drive.google.com/file/d/12eK42l-Ch1X0BJ8SHWA5YY2tS8Q7TiqR/view?usp=sharing) but I believe wheels were in the lot. Unfortunately I can't get the remaining images from the PCN to load to get a better view!
-
It looks like you are beyond the end of the bay, but there's no clear photo showing this.
Removal after such a short time seems excessive, but I'll let others comment on this aspect.
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
- Parked on street outside no.20 Beresford Rd E4, on 1 May
- Sign is for single yellow, Mon-Fri 10-11am
- Yellow line was right in front of the parking spot
- I had moved the car after parking up for the first time to ensure it was in the spot. I believe I was in the spot, if not only just out. I remember this clearly as I had the dog in the boot & he had thrown up which is abnormal
Timeline 1 May
- 10.03: PCN issued
- 10.36: Authorised for Removal
- 12.22 (approx): Towed and sent to vehicle pound - this time was on TRACE London (https://trace.london/) from memory, but has since been updated as I have collected vehicle.
- 15.49: Paid full amount of £360 for vehicle to be released from pound
I live further up the street and had not noticed the PCN or that it had been towed until about 2pm. There was nothing on the street to indicate that my car had been removed.
No photographic evidence or location information from PCN available https://walthamocm.itsvc.co.uk/
Edit: This has now loaded after keeping page open for ages
Hoping for advice on what to say for the appeal please, even if it is just to recover towing costs.
- Towing cost: towing the vehicle seems extremely disproportionate to claimed PCN offence & beyond the hours of the sign. There was 30 ish minutes between PCN being issued & authorised for removal
- PCN: Vehicle was not in a dangerous location, and I believe I was within the spot. There is no photographic or location evidence available, though I understand this is not a legal requirement.
Links:
- Google street view (https://maps.app.goo.gl/4EaWm92vvvDQw2oW6) I was in the spot the Smart car is in
- PCN, Pound release, Authorised for towing notices (all were acquired at pound) (https://drive.google.com/drive/folders/17E7EaZWP9JwubrY2Lkp_sRLdVBJnO68t?usp=sharing)
Thank you!!