Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: Finderskeepers on May 10, 2025, 12:10:39 pm
-
I received a PDF of a letter, sent by email, informing me that PCN and NTO had been cancelled. Saves postage I guess.
-
"After a full investigation, I am pleased to inform you that the Penalty Charge Notice and Notice to Owner have now been cancelled."
Love,
My local council
I presume on the basis of that, from the parking enforcement team, that I'm no longer being pursued.
Except you tell us you have received a Charge Certificate, presumably for the same cancelled PCN and NtO. You need to contact the council to ask them what is going on, bearing in you have a letter dated <date> that the PCN and NtO had been cancelled. Was this a letter or email ?
Best if you post up the original rather than a transcription of the text.
-
"After a full investigation, I am pleased to inform you that the Penalty Charge Notice and Notice to Owner have now been cancelled."
Love,
My local council
I presume on the basis of that, from the parking enforcement team, that I'm no longer being pursued.
-
I didn't pay the initial but appealed. My initial appeal against the ticket was rejected. I had a further notice come (which I ignored as I was waiting for a response to the FoI I made about why there were parking restrictions on the road). Then came a Charge Notice, and with it an opportunity to submit further evidence. The further evidence I had learned in the meantime that the initial restrictions were not consulted upon nor installed by the Council seems to have been what was necessary for the fine to be dropped.
All very nice, but where is the email/letter that tells you the penalty was cancelled, (you use 'dismissed')
-
I didn't pay the initial but appealed. My initial appeal against the ticket was rejected. I had a further notice come (which I ignored as I was waiting for a response to the FoI I made about why there were parking restrictions on the road). Then came a Charge Notice, and with it an opportunity to submit further evidence. The further evidence I had learned in the meantime that the initial restrictions were not consulted upon nor installed by the Council seems to have been what was necessary for the fine to be dropped.
-
Three months on and a Charge Certificate arrives giving me two weeks to pay up or else.
My fine was duly dismissed.
How? If you made valid reps in time and did not receive a NOR then a CC was procedurally improper and grounds for cancellation anyway.
Would you clarify pl.
+1
What proof have you that the PCN penalty was paid ?
-
Don't ignore the charge certificate (or rather, do, but not the next document in the process which comes after the charge certificate).
-
My fine was duly dismissed.
How?
-
Three months on and a Charge Certificate arrives giving me two weeks to pay up or else.
My fine was duly dismissed.
How? If you made valid reps in time and did not receive a NOR then a CC was procedurally improper and grounds for cancellation anyway.
Would you clarify pl.
-
Three months on and a Charge Certificate arrives giving me two weeks to pay up or else.
I resubmitted the evidence I previously sent in, with slightly clearer Google Streetview images taken at various points in the past that showed how blanking (tar/paint) had evidently been applied to the yellow lines a decade ago and has progressively worn off since.
In the meantime I had received a response from an FoI to traffic engineers who said they were aware of the anomaly with the partially painted over yellow lines that served no purpose but were on a TRO and they were planning to amend the TRO in due course. The Council held no information on why the yellow lines were painted in the first place, nor any record of the work to pavement over the parking bay, then remove it a few years later.
Further enquiries found that the matter had been raised at the local Ward committee 17 years ago when the lines were first installed (before online records were available). I obtained a copy of the records, and it appears that health centre contractors were building a new health centre nearby, and they, rather than the Council, instigated the yellow lines and the movement of the pavement, without either Council or residents being aware! Something to do with improving traffic flow, that actually had no impact on road safety and had not been properly authorised. Hence why the Council had no record of why there should be a TRO showing the enforcement along a stretch of partially blanked off or burnt off double yellow lines. Residents protested and after some wrangling the lines were (partially) removed. Some years later a TRO was put in place - ironically restricting parking along the stretch of road that had incorrectly had the markings applied then removed.
My fine was duly dismissed. But it took a lot of investigative legwork to get that far, and the double yellows remain increasingly visible so it may not be the last time someone gets a PCN for parking in this parking bay.
-
You don't seem to be any further forward with this.
Email them and ask which of the two lines they are enforcing in this case.
-
Besides the standard details for payment and the option to challenge after waiting for a Notice to Keeper, the letter I received states the following:
Thank you for your enquiry concerning the Penalty Charge Notice detailed above. I have given careful consideration to the circumstances you have described but regret that there are not sufficient grounds for the notice to be withdrawn.
The Penalty Charge Notice was issued for the following contravention - Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours , as your vehicle was observed parked where double yellow lines were present when waiting restrictions were in force. These restrictions were clearly shown in accordance with the Road Traffic legislation.
With regards to your comments concerning the condition of the yellow lines, although there are a couple of small gaps in the yellow lines due to utility works, etc, it is quite clear that a yellow line is in place and therefore as the motorist it remains your responsibility to ensure that signage is located and checked so that you are aware of the times in which the waiting restrictions apply at that particular area.
I have noted your comments in relation to other vehicles parked at this location and can confirm that your vehicle was not the only one to receive a Penalty Charge Notice around that time. Unfortunately due to the Data Protection Act we are unable to discuss other peoples' information.
In regards to your comments that you were previously advised by a Civil Enforcement Officer that you could park at this location. However, whilst I appreciate the circumstances that you have described I regret that I unable to investigate this matter as the identity number of the Civil Enforcement Officer, which is unique for every Officer has not been provided.
There is no mention of other material I included in my appeal including
(1) previous PCNs issued to cars parked in this parking bay have been overturned;
(2) no consideration to the lines not meeting traffic signs manual guidance or whether the alleged contravention was the roadside or kerbside line
(3) no recognition that the bay was created specifically for resident parking around 2012 (after intervention by the local MP to reverse an earlier decision to remove the bay in favour of a widened pavement, thus intentionally creating additional parking spaces). Photos from that time show that the kerbside yellow lines were partially but not fully removed or obscured and the work was never returned to be completed. Over passage of time the kerbside lines have become more prominent and the TRO dated 2014 has never been updated to reflect the renewed parking bay so still refers to the bay as restricted parking, ignoring the work started but not completed in 2012. The section of the bay where there is a stretch of double yellow the length of about four cars is used daily by local residents for parking, being continuous with a parking bay running for the length of rest of the road.
I'm guessing the next step is to ask the Council to explain why they created the bay in 2012 and started, but never finished, removing the yellow lines or updating the TRO...
-
You haven't posted your challenge and their rejection.
Did you pin them down to which line they are enforcing, which was partly the aim of my challenge.
I would be inclined to go on with this.
- The kerbside lines were blanked but the blanking has worn off an you can show that.
- The space between the lines in the carriageway and the kerb is contrary to the traffic signs manual.
-
And possibly the local press...
'Is *** council on the right lines'
'Double-trouble for motorists'
They'd find something, I'm sure!
-
Is it possible for a TRO to contain an error? Or am I missing something?
Sort of. For a PCN like this to be valid, the Council needs to have a TRO and markings/signs that convey the restriction in the TRO to the motorist. Sadly, there is no requirement for the TRO to be logical, justifiable or rational, it just has to exist and be conveyed to the motorist by markings and signs.
Errors do sometimes creep in, in the form of a mismatch between the TRO and the markings/signs. Given that the line painters are clearly incompetent in this case, I think it's worth checking the relevant TRO does actually create a restriction there.
-
I suggest you ask questions on these points if the rationale is important to you. But IMO butting your head against enforcement of a PCN is not the way to go about it.
Get on to your local councillor, ask to meet them there to explain etc. Don't make it sound like a crusade, just ask them why the council allows such an arrangement of lines - which is not supported by regulations or the Traffic Signs Manual - to persist as it must certainly bring their ability to manage the public realm into question.
-
>It's not and never was a parking bay.
>Whether a motorist thinks that a restriction is illogical is not an issue for an adjudicator.
That's debatable. Until around 2000 both stretches of road were parking bays. When a health centre was built around the corner the pavement was widened to cover the parking bay and double yellow lines were painted at what was the new road edge. Due to parking pressures people them took to parking on the newly extended pavement instead. Residents took this up with the local MP who intervened and a few years later the pavement was cut back to its original position, restoring the road and the parking bays. Work was also started around 2012 to remove the yellow lines, though this was never completed as they were left behind in the bay furthest away from the health centre, and partially removed (leaving behind about 5 metres where a car was parked blocking the removal). And that's how it's been left ever since.
What would be the point of widening the road and removing pavement to create a parking bay that can't be used due to placement of a double yellow line? And if the intention was to create a parking bay that can't be parked in due to a double yellow, why was the double yellow line partially removed when the bay was reinstated?
All that happened prior to 2014 when the current TRO. came into force. Would there have been an earlier TRO that could explain the half baked thinking around the parking bay? As it stands, the first bay is technically a restricted area according to the TRO yet almost all of its double yellows was burnt off before the current TRO came into force. Which suggests someone in a position of authority back in around 2012 decided the restrictions no longer made sense and started to remove them, stopped partway through then failed to note that this process was in hand when the 2014 TRO was published. Is it possible for a TRO to contain an error? Or am I missing something?
-
a stretch of road that has no possible justification for a restriction inside a parking bay, and illogical signage at that.
It's not and never was a parking bay.
Whether a motorist thinks that a restriction is illogical is not an issue for an adjudicator.
IMO,
According to you, there is a restriction in a TRO;
DYL are marked to indicate this restriction;
Whether these are placed at the edge of the carriageway alone or, through error, in the traffic lane would not persuade an adjudicator IMO;
DYL apply to the whole road from centreline to building line and this is where you were parked;
There are NO contra indicators e.g. parking place signage.
You might continue and through their embarrassment get this PCN cancelled by them(but as above, the authority's embarrassment wouldn't sway an adjudicator) but I wouldn't push it further by continuing to park there
-
Almost all councils nowadays just send out Fob-Off letters to informal reps, knowing from experience that most people, (like >95), so that is what you have received, but best of you posted their letter.
-
Update.
I pointed out in my appeal to the council the inconsistent, confusing and contradictory yellow lines that are not in accordance with the transport manual, the advice from previous wardens that they are very obviously a legacy mistake that got partially but not fully removed years ago, and that previous tickets given to other residents who have parked in this short stretch have been overturned at their first appeal.
My appeal has been rejected on the grounds that the double yellow markings are clearly marked so I should not have parked there. I remain liable for the fine therefore.
What should my next steps be? Paying up certainly isn't an option as it sets a precedent for ticketing cars parked on a stretch of road that has no possible justification for a restriction inside a parking bay, and illogical signage at that.
-
Well you can send my humorous challenge. I didn't do it just for fun. They may see the funny side and it does include the substance for challenging both lines.
-
Bit of an update.
Incidentally I didn't draw the plan to scale in the first diagram. Section A is one car length and section B (in which the lines have been completely burnt off and are practically invisible) is five car lengths going right to the end of that bay. Section C (where I was ticketed) is four car lengths.
So I asked for, and received by email, a copy of the TRO dated 2014, ie after the pavement was cut back to creat the bay. Inexplicably, the entire stretch of road covering A, B and C is marked as restricted parking at any time! This despite the lines having been completely removed from B except around one car length A where a car must surely have been parked when the workers came to remove the lines. So had I parked at B I could have been ticketed, but there is no indication of it being restricted.
A neighbour of mine then told me he had been ticketed in the exact same place as me, C, a few year ago. He appealed successfully on the grounds of confusing yellow lines.
Any further suggestions for how to approach this? There is no possible rationale for having yellow lines anywhere along this stretch of road, yet there is a restriction in force according to the TRO. Despite that the lines have been completely burnt off along one of the two restricted stretches of the road which begs questions around why they were burnt off yet the TRO not updated, or why they were burnt off when there's a TRO in force.
-
Dear Parking, are you sitting comfortably? Then I’ll begin, with the tale of two double yellow lines.
I’ll call these the Offside and Nearside Stories, corresponding to the lines on either side of my car.
Offside Story
In the beginning, in the Genesis of Google, the footway was built out to this line, which was then along the kerbside. Residents were seen to park on the footway.
Then in the time we call the Great Bay Revolution, the footway parking section of the footway was removed by the Gods of the Highway to provide parking bays on the carriageway.
The Offside lines remained in a state called Splendid Isolation. No doubt they have True Meaning but the Guardians of Traffic Signs say:
13.4.6. If restrictions are imposed in a lay‑by, the lines to diagram 1017 or 1018.1 should be laid at the back of the lay‑by and not along the continuation of the main carriageway edge. This should leave no room for doubt that restrictions apply in the lay‑by.
And it did come to pass that parking was indicated by the Gods of the Highway behind the Splendid Isolation.
Nearside Story
In keeping with the Guardians of Traffic Signs, lines were painted by the correct kerbside place by the Counter-Revolutionaries to the Great Bay Revolution but the Revolutionary force quickly won a Darkness Battle that blanked these lines.
But over time the Great Bay Revolutionaries have disbanded and the Darkness Power has steadily diminished giving the Counter-Revolutionaries – who also no longer exist – an unexpected Historical Artefact: what we call There but Not There.
So I hope you enjoyed these Tales and invite you to consider whether One, Two or No contravention(s) occurred and look forward to writing the next chapters in these stories.
-
Thanks - road must have briefly been narrowed/pavement widened shortly before 2008 (covering the original yellow lines and painting new ones). In 2012 the new pavement covering the road and previous double yellows would have been removed (it's unclear to me if the 2012 photo shows cuts in the road where the extra pavement would have been dug out from, or a crude attempt at indicating that part of the road is now to be a parking bay but these have long since faded. Also the double yellows are not continuous and don't have a perpendicular bar on the kerb side.) This would explain why the furthest double yellows are so faded - they must have been covered by a thin layer of stones and tarmac for that four year period). The fresher yellows were left behind on one side of the junction, and partially burnt away (except around parked cars) on the other side of the junction, position B on earlier schematic).
Hardly surprising everyone ignores them as they are completely pointless, but how should I challenge a non-enforceable but possibly non-rescinded TRO? I took a look at the previous link to Birmingham TROs but there are over a hundred impenetrable documents there and of the ones that looked possibly relevant ie street parking, in only a few cases were any roads listed by name.
On a separate matter, I found at least one old TRO which included photocopies of letters sent to named individuals regarding the illegal parking of their cars many years ago, complete with the car reg and name and address of registered keepers. Surely that's a breach of information governance, and certainly shows that noone reads these documents now!
Anyway, that aside, I would appreciate advice both on challenging this PCN and ensuring that future parking in this spot is not going to risk further ticketing.
-
We can see what's happened here. In 2008 the footway was built out to where the double yellow is and people were using it for pavement parking. By 2022, that part of the footway had gone and at some point double yellows were also correctly put in alongside the kerb but bizarrely the other redundant double yellows have been left and then the correct ones blanked but still showing through.
In 2012 it seems the council thought better of the lines by the kerb and you can see what looks like a dashed line indicating a parking bay.
Naturally people use what looks like a parking bay behind the silly yellow lines. While it's not against regulation to bung yellows like this it's contrary to the traffic signs manual guidance and I can't see this can be enforced.
I suspect a traffic order still specifies lines there - which one though - and the council has been blindly maintaining the bonkers ones.
As by 2025 the blanked ones that are actually in the right place should they want to prohibit parking there now look decent.
(https://i.ibb.co/0yQTLCvr/Screenshot-2025-05-10-at-16-14-41.png)
(https://i.imgur.com/hWusqJS.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/FL9vNrkC/Screenshot-2025-05-10-at-16-15-26.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/vvQPGDfB/b3.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/p6kPTmZG/b2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/VcGzp2rH/b1.jpg)
-
Park Road Sparkhill.
Here is the latest GSV
https://maps.app.goo.gl/BC2cfpHEjv622ek88
It would appear you need to obtain any relevant TMO/TRO
https://tro.trafficpenaltytribunal.gov.uk/birmingham/
We have even had a council surveyor come out who said none the street was officially recorded as being restricted
Subject to what the experts here say (I am not one) you could challenge along the lines of
I believe the alleged contravention did not occur as I have been advised by a council official that there is no TRO in place for this road.
Should you be minded to reject, I require you to produce the relevant TRO.....
Have the Council put any photos up yet? If so, please post them here.
-
The point being the yellow lines are inconsistent (partly burnt off around previously parked cars), confusing and unnecessary, plus residents have been advised by previous surveyor that they should be ignored and in practice are always occupied by parked cars..
-
Is this enough?
https://www.google.com/maps/@52.4483075,-1.8669803,3a,75y,318.79h,72.08t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1s5qczKBjEdoFFi9b22js_0Q!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fcb_client%3Dmaps_sv.tactile%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26pitch%3D17.918635596339158%26panoid%3D5qczKBjEdoFFi9b22js_0Q%26yaw%3D318.79167266577156!7i16384!8i8192?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI1MDUwNy4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D
[attachment deleted by admin]
-
How can we help if we don't even know where this is. The only fact I can deduce from what you posted is that it's not London.
Have a look at other threads and read this:
https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/read-this-first-before-posting-your-case!-this-section-is-for-council-tfl-dartme/
-
I'm not seeking a discussion for the sake of it, I'm seeking to challenge this PCN and prevent any further PCNs in these spaces (A and C) on the grounds that the parking indications are meaningless and incorrect.
The text of the PCN is as follows:
(Redacted local authority)
(Redacted PCN number)
Served on 9/5/2025
By Civil enforcement officer (Redacted identify)
Who had reason to believe that the following contravention had occurred and that a penalty charge is now payable.
01
Parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours
Date of contravention: 9/5/2005
Time: 14:49
Location:
(Redacted road name and district)
Vehicle registration: (Redacted)
Vehicle make: (Redacted)
Vehicle colour: (Redacted)
Observed from: 14:43
Observed to: 14:49
Pay and display ticket: no
Pay and display expiry time (blank)
A penalty charge of £70 is now payable and must be paid not later than the last day of the period of 28 days beginning with the date on which this PCN was served.
The penalty charge will be reduced by a discount of 450% to £35 if it is paid not later than the last day of the period of 14 days beginning with the date on which this PCN was served.
Details on reverse for how to pay, etc etc
-
This section is for live PCNs. If you have one you want help with, post it with no redactions.
If you just want a discussion, we can move it to the Flame Pit.
-
I live on a residential street with no parking restriction signs but there are confusing double yellow lines in places. Some years ago the pavement was narrowed or road widened to create parking bays. However, existing double yellow lines were incompletely removed (in one section they have been burnt off, but other sections presumably cars were parked when the team came to burn them off). To make matters worse there's a section where there is a double yellow line painted alongside the pavement of the bay, and an old double yellow left on the road where the pavement used to be. So you end up parking in a bay with double yellows either side of you. The double yellow lines (which are all quite faded) are as shown - there is a termination bar on the right of where you would park (assuming facing direction of travel) but not on the left in the section where there are parallel double lines. See image below.
Now, being a residential street people park wherever there is a space. 99.9% of the time that's fine, but occasionally a parking warden comes along and tickets cars parked in positions A or C. If a local resident sees them we point out the idiocy of the parking lines and they generally accept it's an error. We have even had a council surveyor come out who said none the street was officially recorded as being restricted so the wardens shouldn't be issuing tickets. But I don't have written confirmation of that.
The wardens have been out again lately and cars parked in positions A and C have been ticketed for being "parked in a restricted street during prescribed hours". I have no idea what the prescribed hours are as there are no signs and I was led to believe the street was not restricted. How can we both challenge this and prevent recurrence?
[attachimg=1]
[attachment deleted by admin]