Free Traffic Legal Advice
Live cases legal advice => Civil penalty charge notices (Councils, TFL and so on) => Topic started by: r45 on May 21, 2025, 02:10:58 pm
-
Any advice on how to proceed? The rejection is dated 24/10/25 so if I have 28 days that gives me until 21/11/25 so another 10 days or so
-
Thank you both. NOR is attached. I can confirm I submitted separate reps for each PCN
(https://i.ibb.co/n8r0gkFq/00053104-page-0001.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/XrQ9wjtf/00053104-page-0002.jpg)
-
Post the actual NOR pl.
-
I'm a bit confused about the notice of rejection as it refers to two PCNs but presumably it's asking you to settle or appeal both of them.
Someone else may know if this is usual.
At the tribunal, certainly, PCNs are often grouped and taken together in one appeal.
But here separate and different reps were made for each.
Whatever, you should register an appeal that covers both PCNs and opt for a telephone or online hearing.
You can just say you rely on your representations for each PCN.
I think you'll end up paying one and the adjudicator will allow the appeal on the continuous contravention.
They may not contest of course.
-
Thanks stamfordman. I did make separate reps for the two PCNs.
Shall I start the appeal process at https://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/about/online-appeals ?
Should the form of the appeal be similar to what I submitted to Merton or is there some other line I should take. Thank you
-
Initial thought is they should have sent individual rejections if you made separate reps for each.
The second was on the continuous contravention which they are wrong about in the rejection - a 24/7 suspension can't have PCNs issued on multiple days.
-
Response received, rejected :( Next step appeal to the parking adjudicator?
NOTICE OF REJECTION
Penalty Charge Notice: MT01121049, MT01121435
Environment and Traffic Adjudicator Verification Code: 76J514
Contravention Date: 19/05/2025 at 09:11 Vehicle Registration: NYN724
Location: MURRAY ROAD, WIMBLEDON (VOT)
Thank you for writing to us.
I have investigated the circumstances raised in your correspondence and have made the
decision to not cancel your notices. The reasons for my decision are set out below, along
with the options available to you at this stage.
The Penalty Charge Notice (PCN) was issued to you because your vehicle was seen parked
in a suspended parking bay/place or part of a suspended parking bay/place.
Whilst it is noted that you state that no works took place and that the signage did not go up
on that day shown, please note that regardless of whether works had taken place the bay
was suspended and I have checked our records and your vehicle was not present when the
suspension signs were erected on the day shown on the suspension sign. Also as you had
parked after the suspension signs had went up both of these PCNs are valid as the drivers
must observe the relevant signage that is in place prior to leaving their vehicle especially for
multiple days, therefore both PCNs are valid and we are unable to cancel.
Furthermore we also note that you have stated that the signs were not covered making the
suspension invalid, however please note that the suspension sign shows that the bay is
being suspended. Therefore the suspension as well as the PCNs remain valid.
You can view photographic evidence of this PCN online at: www.merton.gov.uk/pcn.
You have these choices:
• The full fine of £160.00 is now due. To date you have paid £0.00, the balance of
£160.00 is outstanding. You can pay £160.00 within the period of 28 days beginning
with the date of service of this Notice of Rejection.
• Appeal to the Parking Adjudicator using the enclosed form. The Adjudicator can ask one
side to pay costs if he or she believes, for example, that they have been vexatious,
frivolous or wholly unreasonable. However, the Adjudicator rarely asks either side to pay
costs. The Adjudicator is independent and both sides must accept the Adjudicator's
decision. For more information about the Adjudicator please visit
www.londontribunals.gov.uk
If you do nothing
If you take none of the above actions in the timescale shown, we may send you a Charge
Certificate increasing the charge from £160.00 to £240.00. If you do not pay the increased
charge before the end of the period of 14 days beginning with the date of the Charge
Certificate being served we may apply to the County Court to recover the money - plus court
costs - from you
-
Submitted. I believe they have 56 days to respond so should hear something by 14/11. Will update in here when I do. Thanks again for all help so far
-
Understood, thank you. I will submit two slightly different variants then
Will update in here when I hear back!
-
In the reps for the second PCN start with the point it must be cancelled as it is a continuous contravention.
-
Thanks, changed "should" to "must":
"Even if the suspension is deemed valid, the second PCN (MT01121435) must be cancelled on the grounds of continuous contravention."
And sorry I didn't understand your second point, is there a typo there? Or is my brain just slow this morning :-[
-
On continuous contravention change should to must.
For reps to the second one I would out this ground upfront.
-
Hi all, does above seem OK? Have until end of next week to submit my challenges
Thank you!
-
How about this? I have incorporated suggestions based on above feedback from stamfordman and H C Andersen, namely:
- inclusion of the fact that the positioning of the suspension signage is not in line with the guidance from the Traffic Signs Manual
- included a couple of paragraphs at the start setting the scene in terms of dates etc
Does that seem good to submit? Thank you!
To:
London Borough of Merton
Parking Services
Civic Centre
London Road
Morden, SM4 5DX
Date: 12 September 2025
Subject: Appeal Against Penalty Charge Notices MT01121049 and MT01121435
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally appeal two Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued to my vehicle, registration NYN 724, on Murray Road, SW19. The details of the PCNs are as follows:
• PCN MT01121049: Issued on 19/05/2025 at 09:11 for contravention code 21 (Parked Wholly or Partly in a Suspended Bay or Space).
• PCN MT01121435: Issued on 20/05/2025 at 09:32 for the same contravention.
I hold a resident’s permit for zone VOt and on 13/05/2025 I parked my car as can be seen in the authority's photos. At this time I did not see any signs advising of a forthcoming suspension. My car remained parked until 20/05/2025 (I was on holiday from 16/05/2025 until 19/05/2025) when I returned to my car and found the above 2 PCNs.
I inspected the suspension signs which stated that my bay was suspended from 19/05/2025 to 23/05/2025 for utility works to be carried out by Thames Water. I discovered subsequently that no works took place at any time during these dates, neither were the bays used for any other associated purpose as can be seen in the CEO's photos of my car.
I respectfully request that both PCNs be cancelled on the following grounds:
1. Invalidity of the Parking Suspension
The parking suspension on Murray Road, SW19, from 19/05/2025 to 23/05/2025, was purportedly implemented to facilitate utility works by Thames Water. However, no such works took place during the entire suspension period. No Thames Water vehicles, engineers, or equipment were observed on Murray Road at any point during the five days. Furthermore, on 23/05/2025, I placed a call to the council to report the absence of any works. During this call, a demand was made for either the commencement of works or the removal of the suspension signage. Within two hours, council representatives removed the signage, which strongly suggests that no works were planned or executed, further indicating that the suspension was invalid. I kindly request that you provide evidence of any works carried out to substantiate the necessity of the suspension.
2. Uncertainty Regarding When the Suspension Signage was Placed
The council claims that suspension signage was erected on 12/05/2025, prior to the vehicle being parked in the bay. However, no independent evidence has been provided to confirm this. Given the prominent nature of the suspension signage (e.g., bright yellow signs overhanging the parking bay), it seems unlikely that I would have overlooked such signage when parking. While I do not dispute the council’s assertion outright, the absence of verifiable evidence raises reasonable doubt about whether the signage was in place at the time the vehicle was parked.
3. Positioning of Suspension Signage Not Conforming to Traffic Signs Manual Guidance
The Traffic Signs Manual advises that, when an entire bay is suspended – as is the case here, as it was a single-space bay I parked in – the suspension signage should cover up the parking sign. However this was not the case, as can be seen in the CEO’s photos. The suspension signage is attached to the pole, with the parking sign remaining visible further up the pole. This is in contravention of the guidance provided by the Traffic Signs Manual.
4. Continuous Contravention for PCN MT01121435
Even if the suspension is deemed valid, the second PCN (MT01121435) should be cancelled on the grounds of continuous contravention. The vehicle remained stationary in the same location and was not moved between the issuance of the first PCN on 19/05/2025 and the second on 20/05/2025. As the vehicle’s position and circumstances remained unchanged, this constitutes a single continuous contravention. Issuing multiple PCNs for the same infraction is unfair and contrary to established parking enforcement principles.
I acknowledge that the vehicle was parked in the bay during the stated suspension period. However, I was away on holiday from 16/05/2025 to 19/05/2025 and was unaware of the suspension until returning on 20/05/2025, when the PCNs were discovered. While this does not negate the initial contravention, it underscores the absence of intent and the mitigating circumstances surrounding the incident.
In light of the above, I respectfully request that both PCNs be cancelled. Should you require further information or clarification, please contact me by response letter/email. I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this appeal and look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
[name]
-
Thank you, I will make a new draft based on the above suggestions and post it here in a day or two
-
My preferred approach is to set the scene first and clearly.
I hold a resident's permit for zone ** and on ** (no idea, you've not said) I parked my car as can be seen in the authority's photos. At this time I did not see any signs advising of a forthcoming suspension. My car remained parked until *** (I was on holiday from ** to **) when I returned to my car and found 2 PCNs issued on ** and ** respectively both citing the same contravention, namely *****.
I inspected the suspension signs which stated that my bay was suspended from ** to *** for '***** (works) to be carried out by ***'. I discovered subsequently from *** that ****(no works), neither were the bays used for any other associated purpose as can be seen in the CEO's photos of my car.
Is this the story when the gaps are filled?
IMO, then you make your arguments e.g. for both PCNs the penalty exceeded ...circumstances of the case, these being that as no works took place the suspension as such was void and as the signs were not erected when I parked the council failed to give adequate notice of the suspension; for PCN 2, this is void by virtue of any contravention being continuous etc..
Then...
If the authority reject my representations on the grounds that the signs were in situ before I parked and gave adequate notice then they are required to provide proof in support, a simple claim to this effect being both insufficient and suspicious. If the authority...the bay was used for the stated purpose then again they are required to produce evidence in support e.g. CEO notes/photos etc. Finally, as regards PCN **, why, when the car had remained stationary, the demand for a second penalty predicated on a single act of parking is lawful.
Just some thoughts.
-
Looks good - send online for both PCNs.
There's one other thing that has come up in another thread - traffic signs manual guidance says parking signs should be covered up by a suspension sign on days/times when suspended, and this would apply in this case as it's a single space bay (ie wholly suspended) but I don't think we've ever seen an authority do this.
-
Hi all, just wondering if anyone has any feedback on the above, if it seems appropriate for a challenge to the Notices to Owner - or if there's anything I should add/amend/remove.
Thank you!
-
What about something like this?
To:
London Borough of Merton
Parking Services
Civic Centre
London Road
Morden, SM4 5DX
Date: 5 September 2025
Subject: Appeal Against Penalty Charge Notices MT01121049 and MT01121435
Dear Sir/Madam,
I am writing to formally appeal two Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) issued to my vehicle, registration NYN 724, on Murray Road, SW19. The details of the PCNs are as follows:
• PCN MT01121049: Issued on 19/05/2025 at 09:11 for contravention code 21 (Parked Wholly or Partly in a Suspended Bay or Space).
• PCN MT01121435: Issued on 20/05/2025 at 09:32 for the same contravention.
I respectfully request that both PCNs be cancelled on the following grounds:
1. Invalidity of the Parking Suspension
The parking suspension on Murray Road, SW19, from 19/05/2025 to 23/05/2025, was purportedly implemented to facilitate utility works by Thames Water. However, no such works took place during the entire suspension period. No Thames Water vehicles, engineers, or equipment were observed on Murray Road at any point during the five days. Furthermore, on 23/05/2025, I placed a call to the council to report the absence of any works. During this call, a demand was made for either the commencement of works or the removal of the suspension signage. Within two hours, council representatives removed the signage, which strongly suggests that no works were planned or executed, further indicating that the suspension was invalid. I kindly request that you provide evidence of any works carried out to substantiate the necessity of the suspension.
2. Uncertainty Regarding the Placement of Suspension Signage
The council claims that suspension signage was erected on 12/05/2025, prior to the vehicle being parked in the bay. However, no independent evidence has been provided to confirm this. Given the prominent nature of the suspension signage (e.g., bright yellow signs overhanging the parking bay), it seems unlikely that I would have overlooked such signage when parking. While I do not dispute the council’s assertion outright, the absence of verifiable evidence raises reasonable doubt about whether the signage was in place at the time the vehicle was parked.
3. Continuous Contravention for PCN MT01121435
Even if the suspension is deemed valid, the second PCN (MT01121435) should be cancelled on the grounds of continuous contravention. The vehicle remained stationary in the same location and was not moved between the issuance of the first PCN on 19/05/2025 and the second on 20/05/2025. As the vehicle’s position and circumstances remained unchanged, this constitutes a single continuous contravention. Issuing multiple PCNs for the same infraction is unfair and contrary to established parking enforcement principles.
I acknowledge that the vehicle was parked in the bay during the stated suspension period. However, I was away on holiday from 16/05/2025 to 19/05/2025 and was unaware of the suspension until returning on 20/05/2025, when the PCNs were discovered. While this does not negate the initial contravention, it underscores the absence of intent and the mitigating circumstances surrounding the incident.
In light of the above, I respectfully request that both PCNs be cancelled. Should you require further information or clarification, please contact me by response letter/email. I appreciate your time and consideration in reviewing this appeal and look forward to your response.
Yours sincerely,
[name]
-
The second is certainly a continuous contravention.
I would include question that the sign went up before parking as it does seem unlikely your father could have missed it. If it goes to adjudication putting doubt in an adjudicator's mind can be useful.
You need to also put the question about the council's knowledge of the works as your father was able to get the sign removed which rather suggests they knew.
-
Hi all,
My dad has now received the two Notices To Owner, both dated 29/08/2025. So by my count we have until 26/09/2025 to submit the representations.
Is someone able to help draft a response? Based on all the previous messages I think the grounds are:
a) the parking suspension should not be considered valid as no utility works actually took place at any time during the suspension period - thus neither PCN should be enforceable
b) notwithstanding the above, the second PCN should not be enforceable on the grounds of continuous contravention
Any help would be gratefully received.
-
You could just have a go at them saying no works took place from the start and we may be able to find a case to support this but you can see from their reply that they want your father's money regardless of the circumstances because they can.
-
I doubt we'd have any way of establishing that one way or the other unfortunately.
Either Thames Water contacted Merton and said "actually we aren't going to be doing any works these days" and Merton just left the signage up due to oversight or laziness
Or, Thames Water never notified Merton that they wouldn't be turning up, I don't know if there is any onus on Merton to proactively check that works are taking place
-
Surely the key question is whether the organisation requesting the suspension told the council to cancel it.
I think the key question is if Merton knew no works were going to be done and left the signs up.
One other point my dad has asked me to ask about, I'm not sure if it's pertinent at all - but the utility works that the parking suspension was meant to be for, never actually took place. I.e. no vehicles from Thames Water ever actually turned up in the street at any point during the suspension period. Does that give any additional grounds for appeal on the first PCN?
or to quite my dad's message to me directly:
Quote
Can we take the Council to task for their utter incompetence and failure to have due regard to the interests of the council tax payers who finance their activities. I refer specifically to their failure to exercise even the most basic form of supervision/management/ oversight over the conduct of utilities which obtain parking suspensions in Merton and the consequent neglect of their (i.e. Merton Council's) statutory duties. These appalling failures are most clearly signified by the fact that NO WORKS were carried out during the Murray Road 19 to 23 May suspension and by the fact that in a phone call I had with the Council early on 23 May (when , as I requested, I was assured that the call was recorded) I gave them a 2 hour ultimatum, for EITHER (i) the suspension notices to be removed within two hours of my call OR (ii) Thames Water to be carrying out actual works in the street within 2 hours of the call. The Council took the point and the notices were removed within the stipulated two hour period. How on earth can a reputable local authority conclude that it is just and equitable to impose parking fines on council tax payers in these circumstances?
-
Surely the key question is whether the organisation requesting the suspension told the council to cancel it.
-
We could do with someone else looking at this.
The safest thing to do is pay the first and contest the second but I'd be tempted to pursue the no works angle but not my money.
-
Thank you stamfordman
Does anyone else have any input on how to proceed? Shall I just wait for the Notices to Owner and then make a formal challenge along the above lines i.e.
1. no work was ever carried out
2. continuous contravention
Any other advice/input gratefully appreciated
-
What an arrogant, mean spirited and ignorant response to one of their own residents.
See what others say about what to do.
I think the most you'd be risking is £80 by taking them both on.
-
Seems they are not interested in either of those arguments :(
(https://i.ibb.co/XxZYHLJG/Screenshot-20250809-111746.png)
-
As they are responding to you I see no reason not to engage further.
-
Well I would definitely ask for the second to be cancelled on the grounds of continuous contravention, and I'd like to ask them if they think the first (and second) should be considered valid given that no utility works in fact took place during the suspension period.
I could message them now something like the below and see what they say:
Dear Merton,
Thank you for getting back to me with the information about when the suspension signage was put up. I would however like to raise 2 further points.
Firstly, during the suspension period of 19-23 May, which was purportedly for utility works to be carried out by Thames Water, in fact no such utility works took place. There wasn't a single Thames Water vehicle on the street at any point during that period, and no workmen carrying out works of any kind at any point during that 5-day period. I therefore would suggest that the PCNs should be considered invalid - there have been similar rulings in the past (e.g. case reference 2180505318) where the adjudicator has confirmed that suspension signage should only remain in place for the duration of any works, and if works are completed (or in this case never started) then the signage should be removed and no PCNs issued. I did in fact phone Merton Council offices on the morning of 23 May to complain that no works had been taking place throughout the week, and within 2 hours of my phone call the signage was accordingly taken down.
And secondly, regardless of the above point, I don't believe the PCN from 20 May (MT01121435) can be considered valid, on the grounds of continuous contravention. My vehicle did not move in between the first and second PCNs being issued (indeed I was away on holiday), and there have been many similar cases (e.g. case reference 2180505318) where the adjudicator has ruled that, following the issuing of a first PCN, any subsequent PCNs cannot be considered valid on the grounds of continuous contravention.
Please let me know, I am planning to formally challenge the PCNs on the above 2 grounds once the Notices to Owner arrive later this month, but I wanted to bring these points to your attention beforehand as I feel they are important.
Best wishes,
[name]
What do you think?
-
You could ask them if they are aware no works took place and when they knew.
What are you planning to do - go for both or just second?
-------------
Case
reference
2180505318
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Hackney
VRM MW66 ORV
PCN Details
PCN QZ02624642
Contravention
date
07 Jul 2018
Contravention
time
07:13:00
Contravention
location
Queens Drive
Penalty
amount
GBP 130.00
Contravention Parked wholly/partly in a suspended bay or space
Referral date
Decision Date 01 Feb 2019
Adjudicator Alastair Mc Farlane
Appeal
decision
Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Cookies Privacy Policy Accessibility
Reasons The Council's case is that the Appellant's vehicle was parked in a suspended bay in Queens Drive on 7 July
2018. A penalty charge notice was issued at 07 13.
The Appellant states this was the second penalty charge notice issued to the vehicle within a 24-hour period.
The first was issued at 08 33 on 6 July 2018.As the vehicle did not move since the first penalty charge notice
was issued he contends that the second penalty charge notice should not have been issued. He states that
the first penalty charge notice was still on the vehicle at the time the second penalty charge notice was issued.
The Council has produced evidence to show that the location was suspended "24 hours a day" from Friday, 6
July 2018 to Sunday, 8 July 2018. The Council acknowledge that this was a second penalty charge notice
issued at the Appellant's vehicle in a 24-hour period and in the notice of rejection, dated 28 November 2018
state that "the other has already been cancelled".
However, it appears that the Council do not dispute that they cancelled the first penalty charge notice. This
would have been after the issue of the second penalty charge notice. It was the second penalty charge notice
that in law was void as this was a continuing contravention and it was the second penalty charge notice that
ought to have been cancelled by them, not the first. As I find the second penalty charge notice was void (which
is the subject matter of this appeal), this appeal must be allowed.
-
Thanks. Do you think I should message them through the Contact Us page on their site? Or wait for the Notice to Owner and do it formally
-
They probably suspended in good faith that works would be done but there does seem to be something odd about this.
I'm as sure as I can be that the second must be cancelled.
-
Thank you!
Is it worth me contacting them again through the Contact Us page on their site, making the above point? Or is it better to wait for the Notice To Owner then make formal challenge on 2 grounds:
1. no utility works ever took place so the suspension may not be considered valid (similar to case reference 2240458559)
2. regardless of point 1, the second PCN should not be considered valid on the grounds of Continuous Contravention
-
Well it may not be a long shot in that they are not allowed to enforce a suspension after the works have finished.
Maybe they knew they weren't going to take place at all at that time - if so I'd say the same principle applies but you'd have to take it further with a FoI and/or reps at second stage.
-------------
Case reference 2240458559
Appellant xxxxxx
Authority London Borough of Barking and Dagenham
VRM LT16VZX
PCN Details
PCN BZ5796295A
Contravention date 20 Apr 2024
Contravention time 19:15:00
Contravention location Church Elm Lane
Penalty amount GBP 110.00
Contravention Parked wholly/partly in a suspended bay or space
Referral date -
Decision Date 12 Nov 2024
Adjudicator Edward Houghton
Appeal decision Appeal allowed
Direction cancel the Penalty Charge Notice and the Notice to Owner.
Reasons The Appellant appeared in person.
His case is, as it has been from the outset, that the works for which the suspension was imposed had finished a week earlier. He has given me a detailed description of what those works looked like; and certainly there is no sign of them at the time of the CEO’s observation. The Council has provided no evidence to refute what the Appellant says. I am satisfied that his evidence on this point is truthful and accurate.
The Council’s position appears to be that even if the works had finished the suspension signage was still in place and this created a contravention. This is not so. Regulation 6 Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016 is in the following terms.
6.-(1) Paragraph (2) applies to a sign placed for conveying to traffic a warning, information, requirement, restriction or prohibition of a temporary nature.
(2) The sign must not remain in place for longer than it is needed.
(3) Paragraph (2) does not apply in relation to a particular sign to the extent provision is made elsewhere in these General Directions about the removal of that sign.
By remaining in place a considerable time after the works had finished the sign was clearly in breach of this Regulation and was not lawfully placed.
It follows that the vehicle was not in contravention and that as it transpires the PCN was incorrectly issued.
-
One other point my dad has asked me to ask about, I'm not sure if it's pertinent at all - but the utility works that the parking suspension was meant to be for, never actually took place. I.e. no vehicles from Thames Water ever actually turned up in the street at any point during the suspension period. Does that give any additional grounds for appeal on the first PCN?
or to quite my dad's message to me directly:
Can we take the Council to task for their utter incompetence and failure to have due regard to the interests of the council tax payers who finance their activities. I refer specifically to their failure to exercise even the most basic form of supervision/management/ oversight over the conduct of utilities which obtain parking suspensions in Merton and the consequent neglect of their (i.e. Merton Council's) statutory duties. These appalling failures are most clearly signified by the fact that NO WORKS were carried out during the Murray Road 19 to 23 May suspension and by the fact that in a phone call I had with the Council early on 23 May (when , as I requested, I was assured that the call was recorded) I gave them a 2 hour ultimatum, for EITHER (i) the suspension notices to be removed within two hours of my call OR (ii) Thames Water to be carrying out actual works in the street within 2 hours of the call. The Council took the point and the notices were removed within the stipulated two hour period. How on earth can a reputable local authority conclude that it is just and equitable to impose parking fines on council tax payers in these circumstances?
Bit of a long shot but I told him I'd ask on here before we pay the £80 for the first PCN
-
To stick to process yes the NTO is next.
Wait and see if anyone else has thoughts.
-
Ok, thank you
And for the continuous contravention for the second one should I wait for the Notice to Owner?
-
It does look like your father just missed the sign. Maybe he can have another word with the neighbour.
I guess the best thing is to pay the discount on the first and continue with the continuous contravention on the second.
-
Hi all, any advice on above please?
-
Hmmm, they have replied with an image of a document suggesting the signage went up on 12/05/2025, a week before the suspension came into effect.
There is also a photo of the steeet, although it's not dated or timestamped, but that shows the signage visible and my dad's car is not in the bay in question.
So I suppose maybe my dad did park there after the signage was put up and somehow just not spot it, although that does seem a stretch as it's very hard to miss. But not sure if any other argument could be made.
Might I have to pay the first PCN and claim continuous contravention for the second?
(https://i.ibb.co/tpPKpbHY/Screenshot-20250801-204824.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/XrBBSyvx/Screenshot-20250801-204810.png)
(https://i.ibb.co/NHnyStt/Screenshot-20250801-204744.png)
-
Thank you, I have just messaged them so let's see what they say, if they don't reply within 27/28 days then I expect my dad will receive a Notice To Owner in the post
Ref: PCNs MT01121049, MT01121435
Thank you for your response yesterday, to my challenge of the above 2 PCNs. Your message mentions that my next option is to formally challenge the PCNs after waiting for the Notice To Owner form.
However before getting to that stage I would like to once again ask if you could please send me the log showing the time and date you put the suspension sign up for the single-space bay outside 21 Murray Road, and whether my car, with registration NYN 724, was in the bay at the time.
-
Don't worry about the continuous contravention for now. Just contact them saying:
Ref: PCNs xxxx and xxxx
Please send me the log showing the time and date you put the suspension sign up for the single-space bay outside no xx and whether my car, VRM xxxxxx, was in the bay at the time.
-
Yes, their response covers both PCNs, they wrote this at the top:
"Penalty Charge Notices: MT01121049, MT01121435
VRM: NYN724
Location: MURRAY ROAD, WIMBLEDON (VOT)"
OK, they have a Contact Us section on their PCN Portal, I could message them through there? And say basically:
a) you have not addressed the Continuous Contravention claim on PCN2
b) you have not provided a log of when the signage went up and if there was any car parked there
Although contacting them again to prolong the informal challenges isn't really an option given by them in the "You have these choices" section, so not sure where that would leave me if they didn't respond within 14 or even 28 days?
(https://prnt.sc/myc2b0dVrdr-)
-
Is that rejection for both PCNs?
The continuous contravention for the second is a solid appeal.
They say:
the restriction was marked before your vehicle was parked
So where is the log of vehicles in that bay when the sign went up? I would email them and ask for the log. It's a one car bay so there was either a car there or not and a car may of course not been your father's but the sign seems unmissable when he did park if it was there.
-
Hi guys, just heard back from Merton today after a couple of months and unfortunately they have rejected my challenges. They haven't confirmed one way or the other when the signage went up, nor have they addressed the continuous contravention on the second PCN.
Any suggestions on next steps? From what I understand to appeal this further I would need to wait til they send my dad a Notice To Owner form in ~28 days. Surely at a minimum the second PCN should be cancelled on the grounds of continuous contravention, although if I have to pay the first PCN at the full rate of £160 then it's equivalent to the paying both PCNs at the discounted rate of £80 each.
So I suppose it hinges on whether there's a realistic chance of getting both PCNs cancelled - are Merton obliged to provide proof of when the signage went up?
Thank you for writing to us.
We have carefully considered what you say and whilst we have reoffered the discount period
we have decided not to cancel your Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs).
The Penalty Charge Notices (PCNs) were issued to you because your vehicle was seen
parked in a suspended parking bay/place or part of a suspended parking bay/place.
I have investigated the circumstances raised in your correspondences and I am unable to
cancel your notice. The reasons for my decision are set out below, along with the options
available to you at this stage.
You have explained that you are a resident and your vehicle was parked before the
restrictions were marked.
Whilst I note the circumstances you have described in your correspondences and appreciate
that it is unfortunate situation to find yourself in, I am unable to consider this as grounds to
cancel the charges as the restriction was marked before your vehicle was parked. It is the
responsibility of the motorist to ensure they are familiar with the regulations in place at the
location in which they are parked and must park with due care and attention, whilst adhering
to the rules and restrictions, at all times. It is also their responsibility to be aware that these
regulations are subject to change and must therefore be reviewed on a regular basis.
So, whilst I note that it was not your intention to park in contravention of the restrictions that
are in force, I am satisfied that the notices have been correctly issued and that there are no
grounds in which to cancel the charges.
You can view photographic evidence of these PCNs online at: www.merton.gov.uk/pcn.
You have these choices:
• To date, you have paid £0.00 per PCN, you can pay the discount charge of £80.00 per
PCN, minus any payment already made, if your payment reaches us within 14 days of
the date of this letter.
• If you miss the discounted period you can pay the full charge of £160.00 per PCN,
minus any payment already made, within 28 days of the date shown on this letter.
• You can formally challenge your PCNs by using a Notice to Owner form. The vehicle's
owner will automatically receive the form if the PCNs have not been paid within 28 days
of this letter. The form offers you the chance to formally challenge your PCNs or pay the
full £160.00 per PCN. If you decide to formally challenge your PCNs, please do not
write to us again but wait until the Notice to Owner form arrives. If we reject your formal
challenges you will be given the opportunity to appeal against our decision to an
independent adjudicator. For more information about the traffic adjudicator please visit
their website at http://www.londontribunals.gov.uk/eat/appeals-process-explained .
Please note: Should you write back in to the council before the Notice to Owner, the
discounted period will not be placed on hold or reoffered.
-
Thank you, have just submitted challenges as per the above - will update when I hear back
-
I wouldn't commit to a day as he isn't sure anyway. Wait for others to have a look.
I would say for the first PCN:
------------
Dear Merton,
I am a resident living at xxxxxx and parked in the bay before you put up the suspension sign, so I parked legally in the bay.
I was away in Jersey the weekend before the suspension, from Friday 16 May to the afternoon of 19 May and checked the car on the morning of 20 May to find two PCNs.
Please check your suspension log.
As I parked in good faith and was in the bay before your sign was there I trust you will cancel the PCNs.
Please note that the second PCN no xxxxxxx is a continuous contravention of the first and so that one cannot stand on that ground.
I look forward to your early confirmation of cancellation.
--------------
For the second:
Dear Merton,
I am challenging this PCN as it is a continuous contravention of PCN no xxxxx and so cannot stand on that ground.
As I challenged for PCN no xxxxxxx:
I am a resident living at xxxxxx and parked in the bay before you put up the suspension sign, so I parked legally in the bay.
I was away in Jersey the weekend before the suspension, from Friday 16 May to the afternoon of 19 May and checked the car on the morning of 20 May to find two PCNs.
Please check your suspension log.
As I parked in good faith and was in the bay before your sign was there I trust you will cancel the PCNs.
I look forward to your early confirmation of cancellation.
-
Thank you stamfordman
I asked my Dad if he could try to remember what day he parked the car and he says he is now fairly sure it was Tuesday 13/05/2025, and he is almost certain the signage wasn't there when he parked it
So is there a template I can follow to compose my challenge? Or should I try to draft something from scratch. From what I gather the gist is:
- signage wasn't there when my Dad parked his car. Should I mention that he thinks he parked it on 13/05/2025 or should I omit that?
- do they have timestamped photographs of when the signage went up, if so it will be telling to see if the car is visible in those photos or not
- in any case the second PCN should not be considered valid on the grounds of continuous contravention
Also should I write it from the point of view of my Dad, or should I write it from myself on behalf of my Dad?
-
You can ask for the log now or do so as part of challenging the PCNs.
The second PCN cannot stand anyway as it is a continuous contravention from the first, given that the suspension seems to be 24 hours on those days.
-
Thank you Stamfordman
So should I contact Merton asking for dates/times of when the signage went up (along with photographs ideally)?
For what it's worth, this morning my Dad spoke to a neighbour (who apparently knows everything that goes on on the street!), they said that the signs went up over the weekend at some point (i.e. 17/05/2025 or 18/05/2025) which would've been when my Dad was away. I wouldn't be 100% confident on that, but it's what the neighbour is saying
-
Seems unlikely he would have missed the sign in a single bay right by his car.
Merton should have a log of whether his car was in the bay when the sign went up. If it was the case can be made for cancellation but there is a duty to check signage and it can be fatal especially in London to leave things too long. So it depends on timings but in any case he should challenge the PCNs.
(https://i.ibb.co/7JCZ26z1/m4.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/TMvJ5cDq/m2.jpg)
(https://i.ibb.co/sdFkZrfP/m1.jpg)
-
Hi all
I am writing on behalf of my older father who is not great with computers or technology. He has received 2 x PCN as follows:
MT01121049 - 19/05/2025 @ 09:11am
MT01121435 - 20/05/2025 @ 09:32am
Numberplate - NYN724
London Borough of Merton - https://www.merton.gov.uk/streets-parking-transport/parking/pcn/evidence
The alleged contravention in both cases is: 21 (Parked Wholly Or Partly In A Suspended Bay Or Space)
Below is a summary of what happened:
- Last week my Dad (he isn't sure of the exact day, he said it could've been Tuesday 13/05/2025, Wednesday 14/05/2025 or Thursday 15/05/2025) parked in his usual spot on the street. It is for Permit Holders (VOt) but he has a VOt permit so no issues there.
- My Dad did not use his car for the rest of the week so it just stayed in the same parking spot. Then on Friday 16/05/2025 my Dad went away on holiday for the weekend (to Jersey - can provide flight confirmation emails if needed).
- Again his car remained where it was over the weekend.
- He returned from holiday on the afternoon of Monday 19/05/2025 but again didn't need to use his car so it remained where it was.
- Then on the morning of Tuesday 20/05/2025 when he went to go to his car, he noticed the 2 PCNs on his windscreen (one from the day before, 19/05/2025 and one from that same morning 20/05/2025). So he moved his car to a different bay to avoid any further PCNs, and then rang me and explained all the above
As you will be able to see from the council evidence photos, there is a yellow sign up indicating that the parking bay is suspended from 19/05/2025 to 23/05/2025 for utility works. However, he is 99% sure that the sign wasn't there when he parked the car last week, and then the next time he went to his car was on 20/05/2025 when he discovered the 2 PCNs on his windscreen
PCN Photos: I do not have photos of the actual PCNs themselves as they are with my Dad, I am seeing him later this week so can add them then if they are important
Google Maps Location: https://maps.app.goo.gl/adpU1rsN2r5Q9kcN9
(https://i.ibb.co/Gvdt1XZL/download.jpg)