Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: robincatto on May 06, 2025, 11:18:13 am
-
Depends on what you think "wholly" means ! This is a subjective word, so depends on individual opinion. Here's one dictionary definition anyway : -
https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/wholly
-
Agreed.
They must be playing a numbers game given that some people will simply pay the 50% off discounted £65 because they lose the will to keep fighting.
I mentioned costs to the adjudicator and she suggested that Brent's decision to enforce might not be considered WHOLLY unreasonable given that there was a post with a yellow sign on it 20 yards down the road.
Do you think it's still worth having a go?
-
This was silly by Brent - could be worth a modest costs application but they set the bar high.
-
27th November 2025
Case Reference: 2250397756
ROBIN CATTO
-v-
London Borough of Brent (the Enforcement Authority)
ROBIN CATTO appealed against liability for the payment of the Penalty Charge in respect of:
Vehicle Registration Number KX04BOC
Penalty Charge Notice BT24620378
Full PCN Amount £ 130.00
Contravention Date 28th February 2025
Contravention Time 07:17
Contravention Location Riffel Road
Contravention Parked in a suspended bay/space or part of bay/space
Adjudicator's Decision
The adjudicator, having considered the evidence submitted by the parties, has allowed the appeal.
The adjudicator directs London Borough of Brent to cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Adjudicator's Reasons
An online hearing with Mr Catto took place today.
The issue in this case is the adequacy of the signing of the suspension.
The civil enforcement officer's photographs show the appellant's car parked at the end of a bay with the back of the car adjacent to a yellow line. The photographs show a suspension sign on a post a short distance in front of the appellant's car. The sign states that on Friday 28th February 2025 the parking bays outside 8-12 Riffel Road were suspended for the purposes of a domestic removal.
The appellant states that when he parked his car on the evening of 27th February he looked at the nearest sign to where the car was parked. The appellant has provided a photograph of a sign for the permit bay which is on a post to the right of the bay adjacent to the single yellow line. I am satisfied that this sign relates to the bay in which the appellant's car was parked as it clearly does not relate to the single yellow line. I do not accept the council's argument that the sign that states permit holders only does not relate to a parking bay. Further this was the post nearest to the appellant's car. Although there was a suspension sign on one of the posts for the bay in which Mr Catto parked his car there was no sign on the post nearest to the appellant's car. I find that the suspension was inadequately signed.
I allow this appeal.
At the appeal for the first time the appellant also argued that the Notice of Rejection had been issued
out of time. I make no finding on that point as I allow the appeal on the substantive issue.
Teresa Brennan
Adjudicator
26th November 2025
2250397756
BT24620378
-
Appeal decision: Appeal allowed
HUGE thanks to stamfordman and H C Andersen for your invaluable help!
-
Another case, from yesterday.
---------
Case reference 2250387311
Appellant Callum Osborne
Authority London Borough of Camden
VRM WN06EDJ
PCN Details
PCN CU70932503
Contravention date 02 Jun 2025
Contravention time 08:05:00
Contravention location King Henrys Road
Penalty amount GBP 160.00
Contravention Parked wholly/partly in a suspended bay or space
Referral date -
Decision Date 17 Nov 2025
Adjudicator Herjinder Mann
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction
cancel the Penalty Charge Notice.
Reasons
1. This is a personal appeal a penalty charge on the basis there was no contravention.
2. The Appellant states that his car was parked in the resident permit bay outside 131 King Henry’s Road. The pole that governed that bay, he says had no yellow advance warning sign. The yellow sign was outside number 135, around 33m away from the other pole.
3. The Appellant says that he took a photograph on the 2nd June 2025, that shows there was no yellow sign on the pole nearest his vehicle. He submits that this bay has 2 sign posts and only one had the suspension sign.
4. The Enforcement Authority submit that there was a parking suspension on the 2nd June 2025 and the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a suspended bay.
5. The Enforcement Authority say that the suspension signs were within reasonable distance of where the Appellant was parked. They have not provided evidence of the actual distance. I have considered the images provided to me in this appeal. The PCN enforcement images do not show the proximity of the suspension signage to where the Appellant was parked. I accept the Appellant’s evidence that there was a signpost very close to the rear of the Appellant’s vehicle that does not have a visible yellow suspension sign.
6. I find that the Enforcement have not provided evidence to show that the suspension signs were clear and visible from where the Appellant was parked. I am not satisfied that there was a contravention, so I allow this appeal.
-
Am I in a position to request some sort of financial compensation for all the time I've wasted on this when we win?
You can claim when/if you win the adjudication, but the bar you have to climb over is quite a high one. The test of the council's action in enforcing the PCN is "wholly unreasonable". Obviously this is subjective so depends on what the adjudicator thinks at the time.
For your info, the whole system was written way back in the early 90s so as to avoid costs. Remember, costs can be awarded both ways, so it's probably best they are not awarded very often, as it would discourage people from appealing.
-
Am I in a position to request some sort of financial compensation for all the time I've wasted on this when we win?
-
The extract from the TMO and the timeline are both from the evidence pack. It also includes the pic of the car adjacent to the parking sign as per reps.
Really odd that they've chosen to die on the hill of their own parking sign being a foot away from the bay.
What's also interesting is that their system doesn't appear to be coded to flag up that the NOR is late by date of service.
-
Yes I have the evidence pack which is 84 pages long. Please let me know how you'd like to see it.
-
OP, have you received the authority's evidence pack yet?
Stamfordman's post yesterday with the timeline is very good. I want to pick up on this from the authority's evidence.
-
Thank you both again from the bottom of my heart for being so incredibly helpful!
-
You have a touching faith in adjudicators' ability to apply the law, but yes they should get this one right.
-
Sorry to be pedantic, but the '56-day' issue is the law. It does not lie with the adjudicator to make alternative findings, the evidence is objective and they are required to apply the law.
-
Both the 56 day time out and the signage are winners on their own so if for some strange reason the adjudicator doesn't buy one they almost certainly will the other.
-
Amazing!
Thanks so much again!!
-
(7) If the enforcement authority fails to comply with the requirements specified in paragraph (4) within the 56-day period—
(a)it is deemed for the purposes of these Regulations to have accepted the representations made by the recipient, and
(b)it must—
(i)cancel the relevant enforcement notice,
(ii)refund any sum paid in relation to it, and
(iii)serve a notice on the recipient informing the recipient that the enforcement notice has been cancelled because the enforcement authority failed to serve a decision notice in accordance with paragraph (4)(b).
The Appeals Regs:
https://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukdsi/2022/9780348231564/regulation/6
Simply include and lead with this in your appeal. This would be copied to the authority who, if they were to continue to resist i.e. they do not 'Do not contest', then apply for a costs award at your hearing.
-
Thanks!
That sounds easy.
1 Do I wait for the tribunal or bring this up in advance?
2 Is there some official reference to this timing issue so that I can cite this if I'm challenged about it?
Thank you!
-
My understanding was that a NOR is deemed to have been served on the day it's sent.
You're wrong. It's deemed served on the second working day after posting.
So, can we engage with this pl. The NOR is out of time and if you bring this to the adjudicator's attention you win.
-
Here are relevant bits.
(https://i.ibb.co/7tjkNcVc/Screenshot-2025-11-17-at-16-29-24.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/JWHYxCJS/Screenshot-2025-11-17-at-16-27-18.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/QFk3dtMQ/Screenshot-2025-11-17-at-16-27-44.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/mrR46HJx/3.jpg)
-
I made the representation online on 5/6/25.
The NOR (which I have emailed to you) is dated 29/7/25 not 31/7/25.
My understanding was that a NOR is deemed to have been served on the day it's sent.
-
How were your formal representations made?
If by email or online then deemed received 5 June which is day 1.
Therefore NOR deemed served 31 July is out of time by 1 day because there were 26 days remaining in June plus 31 for July = 57 days.
The adjudicator has NO power to vary this, it's strict and the law.
So, how did you make your reps?
-
Thank you!
I have forwarded the email.
I can't seem to attach anything to this thread any more, so I have also sent you via email the relevant picture which has been sent to the tribunal with my appeal.
-
Forward me the email - marcb@csi.com
I want to look at the traffic order which should be in it.
If you look back you'll see I posted a couple of cases. Here's another one with my highlights.
Also you should upload the pic of your car next to the sign for the tribunal if you've not done so.
All pics have disappeared from this thread.
---------------
Case reference 2250421806
Appellant Dan Chandrakumar
Authority London Borough of Lambeth
VRM MT20KBF
PCN Details
PCN LJ33934038
Contravention date 25 Mar 2025
Contravention time 10:05:00
Contravention location Clarence Avenue
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked wholly/partly in a suspended bay or space
Referral date -
Decision Date 26 Sep 2025
Adjudicator Lola Moses
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons Introduction
1. This appeal concerns a Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) issued for parking in a suspended bay. The appeal was determined following a personal hearing via Microsoft Teams. The Appellant attended and made submissions in support of the appeal. The Enforcement Authority was not represented.
Appellant's case
2. The Appellant submits that the suspension signage was not adequately placed to notify him that the bay was suspended. He parked adjacent to a standard time plate which authorised parking for permit holders and did not display any suspension notice. He provided contemporaneous photographs showing that the only suspension sign was positioned approximately 30 metres away, at the opposite end of the bay, and was not visible from the point at which his vehicle was parked due to the presence of other parked vehicles. He argues that the bay was not lawfully suspended at the location where he parked.
Enforcement Authority’s case
3. The Enforcement Authority relies on photographic evidence showing a yellow suspension notice affixed to one time plate along the bay. Their case summary asserts that appropriate signage was in place and that it is the driver’s responsibility to check for any restrictions. The Authority does not dispute that only one suspension sign was used, nor that the time plate nearest to the Appellant’s vehicle did not carry that notice. They also rely on the relevant Traffic Management Order (TMO), the Lambeth (Charged-For Parking Places) Order 2023 (LBC 2023 No. 2).
Findings and Conclusion
4. The TMO at Article 16.3 provides that in order for a parking bay to be suspended it must have a sign “…placed in or adjacent to that parking place or that part thereof, as the case may be, the use of which is suspended, a traffic sign indicating that waiting by all vehicles is prohibited.”
5. I am satisfied that the Appellant parked in a bay which was covered by a permit sign and that this sign did not carry a suspension notice. I accept the Appellant’s evidence that the only suspension sign in place was at the opposite end of the bay and approximately 30 metres away. The photographic evidence shows that this sign would not have been visible from the point where the vehicle was parked, particularly given the presence of other vehicles along the bay at the relevant time.
6. On the evidence, I find that the Enforcement Authority did not comply with the requirement under Article 16(3) to place the suspension sign “in or adjacent to” the part of the bay that was suspended, that is the location where the Appellant’s vehicle was parked.
7. In the absence of signage placed in accordance with the requirements of the TMO, I find that the suspension was not properly effected at that part of the bay. Accordingly, the restriction was not properly conveyed, and the alleged contravention did not occur.
Decision
8. I allow the appeal.
-
Thanks so much for replying so quickly!
The hearing is on 26/11/25.
Regarding your comment "But you have no duty than to check the most obvious nearest sign" in response to their claim "Motorists should check the adjacent signs on the left and right of where the vehicle is parked", is there somewhere reliable you know of that this is stated so that I can reference it regarding this discrepancy?
Thank you!!
-
Have you got a date for the hearing.
They say:
Motorists should check the adjacent signs on the left and right of where the vehicle is parked
But you have no duty than to check the most obvious nearest sign.
It's vital you clearly explain the layout to the adjudicator, and that they haven't made any defence to what the parking sign you relied on is for.
-
Astonishingly Brent are sticking to their guns.
This morning I received an email with a document attached, but I can't seem to figure out how to attach it here, so this is a paste of the important bit:
On 28/02/2025 at 07:17 hours, the vehicle with registration mark XXX was seen
in Riffel Road, outside Nos 8, use of which was suspended. Parking at the location on
Riffel Road was suspended between 28/02/2025 and 28/02/2025. The Brent (Parking
Places) (Zone MW) (No. 1) Order 2019.
The contemporaneous notes of the civil enforcement officer (CEO) that issued the
PCN state: parking suspension lo loading from Friday 28 February at any time Riffel
Road outside Nos. 8-12, reason domestic removal reference number BS/04025; all
windows of the vehicle were checked; no driver seen; no note seen; no
loading/unloading activity seen; no disability persons badge seen; no permit seen;
PCN attached to the vehicle and photographs taken.
The CEO concluded that the vehicle was parked in contravention of the parking
regulations and the completed PCN was issued on 28/02/2025 at 07:17 hours
accordingly and affixed to the vehicle.
From the details recorded, the council was able to contact the D.V.L.A. and ascertain
the registered owner/keeper of the vehicle. In this case, Mr Robin Leigh Catto was the
D.V.L.A registered owner/keeper of the vehicle at the time of the contravention and is
held liable for this PCN.
The Appellant Mr Robin Leigh Catto has appealed on the notice of appeal to the
Adjudicator on the ground: There has been a procedural impropriety on the part of the
Enforcement Authority.
To summarise, the appellant has stated in the notice of appeal to the Adjudicator the
following information: the appellant states that the prohibited zone is outside houses
numbers 8- 12. Although the pictures supplied by Brent do not show the signpost I
checked, which is outside number 8 nearest to where my car was parked, my picture
clearly shows that this signpost has no yellow sign attached advising of any parking
restriction. Since I always check the signpost nearest to where I park, and this signpost
had no yellow sign attached advising of any parking restriction, I saw no reason that I
shouldn’t park there on the evening of 27/2/25. Therefore, this PCN should be
cancelled because the signage is evidently insufficient. It is unreasonable to expect
residents to look further than the nearest sign. In Brent's notice of rejection, dated
29/7/25, they state that "We have noted your comments that you followed to (sic) sign
to the rear of your vehicle. However, this does not provide a defence or exemption as
the signage is not within the confines of the bay in question." In my opinion this is
wholly unreasonable (and bordering on frivolous/vexatious) because if that sign
doesn't apply to the bay in question then (a) why is it there? (b) which bay does it apply
to? (c) it is very misleading. It is fairly obvious that the council attached the sign to that
lamppost because it is right next to the bay it applies to, and the council decided it was
unnecessary to add another post.
In response to the notice of appeal received: the parking spaces located outside Nos.
8-12 were suspended on 28/02/2025. Sign of the suspension was affixed to the
nearest post, located at the same location. The nearest suspension sign was
positioned in front of the appellants vehicle at the time of the contravention. Please
refer to evidence form C for the photographs of the contravention. For the Learned
Adjudicator’s perusal, please find enclosed the suspension record sheet (please see
evidence J). The suspension sign was placed as close to the road as possible to allow
it to be viewed more easily by motorists, and although the appellant states there was
a post close to where he had parked, this post was against the garden wall of a
property and not in full view for motorists to see the signage.
If there is a whole or part suspension of a parking bay the suspension notice would be
positioned on the nearest/appropriate street furniture. Motorists should check the
adjacent signs on the left and right of where the vehicle is parked to ensure that there
is not a part suspension of a parking place. In this instance as per the first photograph
taken by the CEO clearly shows the signage in front of the appellants vehicle.
Parking bays may be suspended for a range of different reasons. Suspensions are not
arranged to allow vehicles to park, but to allow essential access for activities such as
domestic or commercial moves, special events, highway repairs, utility company works
(gas, electricity, water, telephone), building work, tree pruning or cutting or
loading/unloading of heavy equipment etc.
The Council always endeavours to erect suspension signs 1 week prior to the start of
the suspension if possible. In this particular case, the suspension sign was erected on
26/02/2025, to give residents due notice of when the suspension will be enforced.
The suspension sign is of yellow colour and highly visible. In this particular case, the
suspension sign was located behind in front of the appellants vehicle. The sign
displays nationally recognised sign for ‘No Waiting’ and the date and time of the
suspension. Resident permits holders are not allowed to park in suspended bays. The
Council is satisfied that the suspension sign at the location was adequate. Every
motorist is expected to check the relevant signage every day for possible suspensions
and act accordingly. Motorists are required to park legally at all times.
I have enclosed a copy of the Traffic Management Order in respect of the location of
the contravention. Article 12 of the Order refers to the ‘power to suspend the use of a
parking place.’
The Council is satisfied that the contravention did occur and that an exemption does
not apply in this case. The Council is also satisfied that the PCN was correctly issued
and legally served. The Council has decided not to accept the mitigation put forward
in this case.
In conclusion, Brent Council wishes to contest the Appeal. No payment has been
received in respect of the PCN and the amount of £130 is outstanding.
-
Make sure you opt for a telephone or online hearing if they contest this.
-
Thanks so much again!
5/6/25 to 29/7/25 is within 56 days so I don't think I can exploit that route.
So I have appealed to the tribunal with the attached picture as follows:
Ground(s) for appeal:
EA Procedural Impropriety
Reason for appeal:
The prohibited zone is outside houses numbers 8-12. Although the pictures supplied by Brent do not show the signpost I checked, which is outside number 8 nearest to where my car was parked, my picture clearly shows that this signpost has no yellow sign attached advising of any parking restriction. Since I always check the signpost nearest to where I park, and this signpost had no yellow sign attached advising of any parking restriction, I saw no reason that I shouldn’t park there on the evening of 27/2/25. Therefore this PCN should be cancelled because the signage is evidently insufficient. It is unreasonable to expect residents to look further than the nearest sign. In Brent's notice of rejection, dated 29/7/25, they state that "We have noted your comments that you followed to (sic) sign to the rear of your vehicle. However, this does not provide a defence or exemption as the signage is not within the confines of the bay in question." In my opinion this is wholly unreasonable (and bordering on frivolous/vexatious) because if that sign doesn't apply to the bay in question then (a) why is it there? (b) which bay does it apply to? (c) it is very misleading. It is fairly obvious that the council attached the sign to that lamppost because it is right next to the bay it applies to and the council decided it was unnecessary to add another post.
Let's see...
-
As advised, when the NTO arrived I made the following representation on 5/6/25:
NOR dated 29 July, deemed served 31st.
the authority must, within the period of 56 days beginning with the date on which it receives the representations (“the 56-day period”), comply with the requirements specified in paragraph (4)[serve on the recipient a notice of its decision (a “decision notice”) which states whether or not it accepts the representations made by the recipient]..
If you made your reps online or by email then this matter and its outcome are simplified:
Elapsed period is 57 days. End of.
OP, the only issue is can you evidence how and when you made your reps?
Over to you.
-
They are offering the discount but I would take them to the tribunal.
Wait for others to have a look.
Also, the sign they rely on was put up on 26 Feb for a suspension on 28 Feb but as you say they've put suspension signs on the post by your car before anyway.
I can't see you losing this and they may not contest.
Cases below show the principles for suspended bays, and a specific case like yours.
---------
Case reference 2240447643
Appellant
Authority London Borough of Redbridge
VRM BW16 FSJ
PCN Details
PCN AF07202027
Contravention date 30 May 2024
Contravention time 16:08:00
Contravention location High Street
Penalty amount N/A
Contravention Parked wholly/partly in a suspended bay or space
Referral date -
Decision Date 09 Dec 2024
Adjudicator Carl Teper
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons The Appellant has attended his appeal.
The Authority's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a suspended bay when in the High Street on 30 May 2024 at 16:08.
The Appellant denies the contravention on the basis that the suspension notice was not clearly on display.
In a case of a vehicle alleged to be parked in breach of a bay suspension the Authority is required to prove:
First, that the bay in question had in fact been lawfully suspended;
Secondly, the terms of the suspension (time, extent etc.);
Thirdly, that the terms of the suspension were correctly indicated on any suspension signage in place;
Fourthly, that the signage was clear and;
Finally, that the vehicle was in fact parked within the bay, or part of it, that was covered by the terms of the suspension.
I have considered the evidence and I am not satisfied that the Authority has proved the fourth point above. I find, on a balance of probabilities, and as a fact, that the suspension notice was clearly identifiable and could be too easily missed.
In light of my finding this PCN cannot be upheld.
The appeal is allowed.
---------
Case reference 2240513191
Appellant
Authority London Borough of Tower Hamlets
VRM LW15HHN
PCN Details
PCN TT57643816
Contravention date 26 Jul 2024
Contravention time 20:32:00
Contravention location Empson Street
Penalty amount GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked wholly/partly in a suspended bay or space
Referral date -
Decision Date 10 Feb 2025
Adjudicator Michael Burke
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons The allegation in this case is that the vehicle was parked wholly or partly in a suspended bay or space. Mr. x does not dispute this but he criticises the quality of the signage which he asserts was non-compliant with Traffic Signs Manual as it was approximately 100 meters away from the vehicle. he has provided photographs as supporting evidence.
It happens from time to time that the Enforcement Authority need to suspend the use of a parking space for one reason or another. This is a question to which the motorist must always be alert.
I have considered Google Streetview which appears to show that there are 2 time plates for this parking space. In such circumstances I would expect the Enforcement Authority to erect a suspension sign beneath each time plate. The evidence I have seen does not appear to show any suspension sign below the time plate which was closest to the vehicle. I am not satisfied the Enforcement Authority have established that their suspension signage was substantially compliant, clear and adequate. Accordingly I allow the appeal.
-
SORRY!
2nd try...
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
You've posted two pages of personal stuff about something else instead of the second page of the rejection. First page is OK.
-
Thank you for replying so quickly!
I have attached the letter in full.
Cheers
Robin
-
Looks like they should be found guilty of crimes against English language.
Post the rejection in full, not a transcript.
But that sign by your car can only be for the bay you were in as it's adjacent to a yellow line.
-
Hi again
As advised, when the NTO arrived I made the following representation on 5/6/25:
The prohibited zone is outside houses numbers 8-12. Although the pictures supplied by Brent do not show the signpost outside number 8 nearest to where my car was parked, my picture clearly shows that this signpost has no yellow sign attached advising of any parking restriction. Since I always check the signpost nearest to where I park, and this signpost had no yellow sign attached advising of any parking restriction, I saw no reason that I shouldn’t park there on the evening of 27/2/25. Therefore this PCN should be cancelled because the signage is evidently insufficient. It is unreasonable to expect residents to look further than the nearest sign.
Today (30/7/25) I received a Notice Of Rejection from Brent advising as follows:
We have noted your comments that you followed to (sic) sign to the rear of your vehicle. However, this does not provide a defence or exemption as the the (sic) signage followed is not within the confines of the bay in question. The signage within the confines of the bay that you were parked is in front of your vehicle as per the CEO images.
And later in the letter:
The point that needs to be addressed here is whether the suspension signs were clearly visible and did they supply sufficient information on them as not to mislead the motorist. Due consideration has been given to the circumstances described, however, Brent Council is satisfied that the science present were clear and that they provided sufficient information to motorist's (sic).
If the sign to the rear of my vehicle isn't relevant, why is it there? Presumably when the bay was painted they decided to simply use the nearest lamppost for the bay advice rather than going to the trouble of installing another post within the confines of the bay?
Possibly also the sign used to be in the confines of the bay and subsequently the kerb was dropped for a driveway which shifted the boundary of the bay further down.
I'm not sure if it helps, but elsewhere in the letter, they have made an error by saying that"...signs for the suspension were displayed in advance at the location on 31/3/25..." although earlier in the letter they give 26/2/25 as the date the signs were posted.
I am now at a complete loss as to what to do. As Brent Council is probably hoping, I am getting close to simply paying the PCN just to end the matter. But something in me is still resisting.
I would be most grateful for any input.
Thank you all!
Robin
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
Sorry yes rely not reply. You have a great pic of your car by the sign.* There are lots of cases at the tribunal where authorities have messed up suspension signage like this that are found in favour of appellants.
*Can you preserve a timestamp of the pic as I presume it was taken on the day.
Thanks!
Yes the picture was taken on the day.
The time/date of the picture (28/02/2025, 15:46:55) is in the picture's "properties" on my PC but I don't have the picture in my phone any more.
-
Sorry yes rely not reply. You have a great pic of your car by the sign.* There are lots of cases at the tribunal where authorities have messed up suspension signage like this that are found in favour of appellants.
*Can you preserve a timestamp of the pic as I presume it was taken on the day.
-
When this arrives will I have the opportunity to challenge it again?
You will have the opportunity to submit a formal representation against the NtO. Hopefully, it will be considered by someone higher up the food chain who will see sense.
Signs only govern the side of the road on which they are placed.
Thank you, @John U.K.!
-
When this arrives will I have the opportunity to challenge it again?
You will have the opportunity to submit a formal representation against the NtO. Hopefully, it will be considered by someone higher up the food chain who will see sense.
Signs only govern the side of the road on which they are placed.
-
You are entitled to reply on a parking sign by your car and they should have cancelled this.
I would wait for the notice to owner - are you the registered keeper and is the logbook address correct?
Thank you, @stamfordman.
Yes I am the registered keeper and the logbook address is correct.
I presume you meant that I am "entitled to RELY on a parking sign by your car"?
So, just to clarify, I am waiting for a Notice To Owner.
When this arrives will I have the opportunity to challenge it again?
Many thanks
Robin
-
You are entitled to reply on a parking sign by your car and they should have cancelled this.
I would wait for the notice to owner - are you the registered keeper and is the logbook address correct?
-
Hi
Firstly, thank you for being such angels as to offer this service.
I received a ticket at 0717 on 28/2/25 in Riffel Road NW2 4PG for parking in a suspended bay/space. The nearest signpost to where I parked (at the end of the bay) displayed no advice regarding the suspension.
I parked on the evening of 27/2/25, checked the sign, saw nothing unusual, and walked to the shops.
I disputed the PCN by submitting the following explanation along with three pictures:
I live in Riffel Road. Occasionally resident parking bays are suspended and yellow signs advising the suspension details are attached to all the posts in and near the prohibited zone, usually with plenty of notice (1-2 weeks), to advise where we must not park. In this case the prohibited zone is outside houses numbers 8-12. As you can see from the pictures, there is no yellow sign attached to the parking signpost outside number 8 where I was parked. Since I always check the signpost nearest to where I park, I saw no reason that I shouldn’t park there last night. It was only when I came out to find a PCN on my Smart car KX04BOC this morning that I looked further down the street and saw the yellow sign attached to the parking signpost in between houses 12 and 14. Therefore this PCN should be cancelled because (a) the signage is evidently insufficient (it is unreasonable to expect residents to look further than the nearest sign) and (b) because only two days notice was given for this suspension. Please would you reply to confirm that the PCN has been cancelled.
As you can see in the pictures in the response letter, the signpost with the yellow suspension sign (also shown in my 2.jpg picture) is further down the road. Their pictures (unsurprisingly) do not show the angle in my picture with the signpost that has no suspension sign on it.
They write that:
The point that needs to be addressed here is whether the suspension signs were clearly visible and
did they supply sufficient information on them as not to mislead the motorist. Due consideration has
been given to the circumstances described, however, Brent Council is satisfied that the signs present
were clear and that they provided sufficient information to motorist's.
Obviously, in this case, it is untrue that: "... the signs present were clear and that they provided sufficient information to motorist's". Furthermore, since I looked at the nearest sign to my space, it is also untrue that: "... the suspension signs were clearly visible".
Presumably the sign nearest the parking space can be deemed to be displaying correct advice and motorists are not expected to then investigate further signage?
I can't really afford to pay the £65 just because it's the least hassle option but I don'ty know how to progress this.
Please would you advise.
Huge thanks!
Robin
@cp8759[attach=4]
[attachment deleted by admin]